Abstract
A positive radial singular solution for \(\Delta u+f(u)=0\) with a general supercritical growth is constructed. An exact asymptotic expansion as well as its uniqueness in the space of radial functions are also established. These results can be applied to the bifurcation problem \(\Delta u+\lambda f(u)=0\) on a ball. Our method can treat a wide class of nonlinearities in a unified way, e.g., \(u^p\log u\), \(\exp (u^p)\) and \(\exp (\cdots \exp (u)\cdots )\) as well as \(u^p\) and \(e^u\). Main technical tools are intrinsic transformations for semilinear elliptic equations and ODE techniques.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction and main results
We are concerned with singular radial solutions of the semilinear elliptic equation
where \(\Omega = \{x\in \mathbf{R}^N: |x|<R\}\) is a finite ball with \(N \ge 3\) and \(f \in C^2[0, \infty )\). In this study we consider solutions to the ordinary differential equation
By a singular solution \(u^*(r)\) of (1.1) we mean that \(u^*(r)\) is a classical solution of (1.1) for \(0 < r \le r_0\) with some \(r _0 > 0\) and it satisfies \(u^*(r) \rightarrow \infty\) as \(r \rightarrow 0\).
It is well known that the singular solution plays an important role in the study of the solution structure of (1.1) in the supercritical case (see, e.g., [6, 11, 20, 21, 23]), and various properties of the singular solutions have been studied extensively. Let us recall some known results for the existence and uniqueness of the singular solution of (1.1). When \(f(u)=u^p\) with \(p > N/(N-2)\), (1.1) has the exact singular solution
It was shown by Serrin–Zou [25, Proposition 3.1] that, if \(p>p_S = (N+2)/(N-2)\), the singular solution of (1.1) is unique. In the case \(f(u) = e^u\), it was shown by Mignot-Puel [19] that
is the unique singular solution of (1.1) when \(N \ge 3\). Later, the singular radial solutions have been studied for various nonlinearities. For \(f(u)=u^p+g(u)\) with lower order term g, we refer to [2, 4, 11, 12, 18, 20, 23, 24]. For \(f(u)=e^u+g(u)\), see [21, 24]. In [24] the authors of this paper showed the existence and uniqueness of the singular solution if f(u) satisfies either \(f(u) = u^p + o(u^p)\) or \(f(u) = e^u + o(e^u)\) as \(u \rightarrow \infty\), where \(p > p_S\). (For precise statements, see [24, Theorem 1.1].)
Recently, the singular radial solutions have been constructed by [14] for \(f(u)=\exp (u^p)\) with \(p>0\), and by [9] for the cases \(f(u) = \exp (e^u)\) and, more generally,
Furthermore, the existence of the singular solution was obtained by [16, 22] for a certain general class of supercritical nonlinearities. On the other hand, the uniqueness of the singular radial solution seems hard to obtain, and it was left open in [9, 14, 16, 22].
In this paper, we will investigate qualitative properties of the singular solution to (1.1) with the following general hypotheses (f1) and (f2) on f.
-
(f1)
\(f \in C^2[0, \infty )\), \(f(u) > 0\) and \(F(u) < \infty\) for \(u \ge u_0\) with some \(u_0 \ge 0\), where
$$\begin{aligned} F(u) = \int ^{\infty }_u \frac{ds}{f(s)}. \end{aligned}$$(1.4) -
(f2)
There exists a finite limit
$$\begin{aligned} q = \lim _{u \rightarrow \infty }\frac{f'(u)^2}{f(u)f''(u)}. \end{aligned}$$(1.5)
If (f1) and (f2) are satisfied, then \(q \ge 1\) in (1.5) and the exponent q is also given by
(See Lemma 2.1 below.) Define the growth rate of f by \(p = \lim _{u\rightarrow \infty }uf'(u)/f(u)\). Then, applying L’Hospital’s rule, we obtain
and hence \(1/p + 1/q = 1\). The exponent q, defined by (1.5), was first introduced by Dupaigne and Farina [7] in the study of the stable solutions in \(\mathbf{R}^N\). Fujishima and Ioku [8] investigated the solvability of semilinear parabolic equations with the nonlinear term f satisfying (f1) and (1.6). It is easy to see that various examples of f satisfy (f1) and (f2) with some exponent \(q \ge 1\). One can easily check that \(q = p/(p-1) > 1\) if \(f(u) = u^p\) with \(p > 1\), and that \(q = 1\) if \(f(u) = e^{u}\). For example, if \(f(u) = u^p(\log (u+e))^{\gamma }\) with \(p > 1\) and \(\gamma \in \mathbf{R}\), then \(q = p/(p-1)\). Hence, the principal term of f is not necessarily \(u^p\) if \(q = p/(p-1) > 1\). The case \(q=1\) corresponds to a super-power case, and various examples of f were provided in [22, Sect. 2]. In particular, the case \(q = 1\) includes the super-exponential nonlinearities, e.g., \(f(u)=\exp (u^p)\) with \(p > 0\) and (1.3) with \(n \ge 1\). (See also Lemma 5.1 below).
Let \(q_S\) denote the Hölder conjugate of the critical Sobolev exponent \(p_S = (N+2)/(N-2)\), i.e.,
Then the supercritical case \(p > p_S\) corresponds to the case \(q < q_S\). In this paper, we study the properties of singular solutions to (1.1) with a nonlinearity f satisfying (f1) and (f2) with \(q < q_S\). For \(\alpha > 0\), we denote by \(u(r, \alpha )\) a regular solution of (1.1) satisfying \(u(0) = \alpha\) and \(u'(0) = 0\). We also show the convergence property of \(u(r, \alpha )\) to the singular solution.
Theorem 1.1
Suppose that \(N \ge 3\) and \(\mathrm{(f1)}\) and \(\mathrm{(f2)}\) with \(q < q_S\) hold. Then, there exists a unique singular solution \(u^*(r)\) of (1.1) for \(0 < r \le r_0\) with some \(r_0 > 0\), and the regular solution \(u(r,\alpha )\) satisfies
Furthermore, the singular solution \(u^*\) satisfies
Remark 1.1
-
(i)
In [22, Theorem 1.1] the singular solution of (1.1) was constructed by a contraction mapping theorem. On the other hand, the uniqueness of the singular solution and the convergence property of the regular solution (1.7) were left open in [22]. In the proof of Theorem 1.1 we construct the singular solution in a completely different way, which will enable us to obtain the convergence property simultaneously.
-
(ii)
When \(f(u)=u^p\), it was shown in [3, 5] that (1.1) has a continuum of singular solutions if \(p \le p_S\). When \(f(u) = e^u\), (1.1) has no singular solution if \(N = 1\), and (1.1) has a continuum of singular solutions if \(N = 2\). (See [26].) Therefore, we cannot expect the uniqueness of the singular solution in the critical and subcritical cases \(q \ge q_S\) with \(N \ge 3\) and in the super-power case \(q = 1\) with \(N = 1, 2\).
-
(iii)
By Theorem 1.1, we can easily calculate an exact asymptotic expansion of the singular solution near the origin in the typical cases. We use here the notation \(f(u) \sim g(u)\) means that \(f(u)/g(u) \rightarrow 1\) as \(u \rightarrow \infty\). In the case \(f(u) \sim u^p\) and \(f'(u) \sim pu^{p-1}\), we have \(F(u) \sim u^{1-p}/(p-1)\) by L’Hospital’s rule. Then \(q = p/(p-1)\) and \(F^{-1}(u) \sim ((p-1)u)^{-1/(p-1)}\), and hence (1.8) can be written as
$$\begin{aligned} u^*(r) = Ar^{-2/(p-1)}(1+o(1)) \quad \text{ as } \ r \rightarrow 0, \end{aligned}$$where A is the constant defined in (1.2). Thus a principal term of the asymptotic expansion of the singular solution \(u^*\) at \(r = 0\) is given by (1.2). In the case \(f(u) \sim e^u\) and \(f'(u) \sim e^u\), we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} u^*(r) = -2\log r + \log 2(N-2) + o(1) \quad \text{ as } \ r \rightarrow 0 \end{aligned}$$by a similar argument.
Let us consider the asymptotic expansion of the singular solution near the origin in the super-exponential case \(f(u) = \exp (g(u))\). Define \(g_n(u)\) with \(n \ge 1\) by
Then f(u) in (1.3) is represented by \(\exp (g_n(u))\). In the cases \(f(u) = \exp (g(u))\), where \(g(u) = u^p\) with \(p > 0\) and \(g(u) = g_n(u)\) with \(n \ge 1\), it was shown by [22] that (f1) and (f2) hold with \(q = 1\). (See also Lemma 5.1 below.) Then (1.1) has a unique singular solution \(u^*\), which satisfies (1.8) by Theorem 1.1. In particular, we obtain the following asymptotic expansion near the origin.
Corollary 1.1
Let \(N \ge 3\), and let \(f(u) = \exp (g(u))\) in (1.1).
-
(i)
In the case \(g(u) = u^p\) with \(p > 0\), the singular solution \(u^*\) of (1.1) satisfies
$$\begin{aligned} u^*(r) = \left( -2\log r -\frac{p-1}{p}\log (-2\log r) + \log \frac{2N-4}{p} + o(1)\right) ^{1/p}\quad \text{ as }\ r\to 0. \end{aligned}$$(1.10) -
(ii)
In the case \(g(u) = g_n(u)\), defined by (1.9), with \(n \ge 1\), the singular solution \(u^*\) of (1.1) satisfies
$$\begin{aligned} u^*(r) = \log ^{n}\Bigl (-2\log r + \log (2N-4) -\sum _{k = 1}^{n}\log ^{k}(-2\log r)\Bigr ) + o(1)\quad\text{ as }\ r\to 0, \end{aligned}$$(1.11)where \(\log ^1u= \log u\) and \(\log ^n u = \log (\log ^{n-1} u)\) for \(n \ge 2\). In particular, if \(g(u) = \exp u\), then the singular solution \(u^*\) of (1.1) satisfies
$$\begin{aligned} u^*(r) = \log \Bigl (-2\log r + \log (2N-4) - \log (-2\log r)\Bigr ) + o(1)\quad\text{ as }\ r\to 0. \end{aligned}$$(1.12)
Remark 1.2
In the case \(g(u) = u^p\), Kikuchi and Wei [14] constructed the singular solution \(u^*\) satisfying (1.10) by using a contraction mapping principle. Also, in the case \(g(u) = g_n(u)\) with \(n \ge 1\), Ghergu and Goubet [9] constructed the singular solution which has a prescribed behavior around the origin. In our proof, we make use of the formulas (1.8) to derive the asymptotic expansions (1.10) and (1.11) in a unified way.
As an application, we consider the nonlinear eigenvalue problem
where \(B = \{x \in \mathbf{R}^N: |x| < 1\}\) with \(N \ge 3\) and \(\lambda >0\) is a parameter. We assume that \(f(u) > 0\) for \(u \ge 0\). By the symmetry result of Gidas, Ni and Nirenberg [10], every classical solution of (1.13) is radially symmetric about the origin. Hence, the problem (1.13) can be reduced to an ODE problem. Denote by \(\{(\lambda (\alpha ), v(r, \alpha ))\}\) a solution of (1.13) with \(v(0, \alpha ) = \alpha > 0\). It is well known that the solution set of (1.13) can be described as the curve \(\{(\lambda (\alpha ), v(r, \alpha )): 0< \alpha < \infty \}\). (see, e.g., [15, 20, 21]). In the cases \(f(u) = e^u\) and \(f(u) = (u+1)^p\), the bifurcation diagram of the problem (1.13) was completely characterized by Joseph-Lundgren [13]. In these cases, there is a special change of variables such that (1.13) can be transformed into an autonomous first order system. For a general nonlinearity, we cannot expect to find such a change of variables, but we obtain the following result as a corollary of Theorem 1.1.
Corollary 1.2
Suppose that \(N \ge 3\) and \(\mathrm{(f1)}\) and \(\mathrm{(f2)}\) with \(q < q_{S}\) hold. Assume that \(f(u) > 0\) for \(u \ge 0\). Then the following (i) and (ii) hold.
-
(i)
The problem (1.13) has a unique radial singular solution \((\lambda ^*, v^*)\), that is, there exists a unique \(\lambda ^* > 0\) such that the problem (1.13) with \(\lambda = \lambda ^*\) has a singular solution \(v^*\), and the singular solution \(v^*\) is a unique singular radial solution of (1.13) with \(\lambda = \lambda ^*\).
-
(ii)
As \(\alpha \rightarrow \infty\), the solution \((\lambda (\alpha ), v(r, \alpha ))\) of (1.13) described above satisfies
$$\begin{aligned} \lambda (\alpha ) \rightarrow \lambda ^* \quad \text{ and } \quad v(r, \alpha ) \rightarrow v^*(r) \quad \text{ in } \ C^2_{\mathrm{loc}}(0, 1], \end{aligned}$$where \((\lambda ^*, v^*)\) is the singular radial solution in (i).
Remark 1.3
One of the open problems raised by [1] is whether \(\lambda\) for which (1.13) has a singular solution is unique or not. Corollary 1.2 (i) gives an affirmative answer to this question in the radially symmetric case.
Under the assumptions (f1) and (f2) the following quasi-scaling, which was introduced in [8], works well:
It was found by [22] that the limit equation of (1.1) with respect to (1.14) as \(\lambda \rightarrow 0\) is
and that (1.15) has the exact singular solution
In this paper we will find a singular solution to (1.1) of the form
Then \(u^*\) given by (1.16) solves (1.1) for \(0 < r \le r_0\) if and only if x satisfies
where \(a=N+2-4q\), \(b=2N-4q\) and \(t_0=-\log r_0\). In the proof of Theorem 1.1, we will show that \(x(t) \rightarrow 0\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\) if \(u^*\) given by (1.16) is a singular solution of (1.1). We also show that (1.17) has a unique solution x satisfying \(x(t) \rightarrow 0\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\). The transformation (1.16) enables us to deal with a quite wide class of nonlinear terms.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we give some preliminary results and in Sect. 3, we investigate the asymptotic behavior of the singular solution. In Sect. 4, we show the uniqueness and the existence of singular solution, and give the proof of Theorem 1.1. In Sect. 5, we consider the super-exponential cases, and give the proof of Corollaries 1.1 and 1.2.
2 Preliminaries
First we show the following lemma.
Lemma 2.1
If (f1) and (f2) are satisfied, then \(f'(u) \rightarrow \infty\) as \(u \rightarrow \infty\). Furthermore, the exponent q in (1.5) satisfies \(q \ge 1\) and q is also given by (1.6).
Proof
If we assume that \(f'(u)\) is bounded as \(u \rightarrow \infty\), then \(f(u) \le Cu\) with some constant \(C > 0\). This contradicts \(F(u) < \infty\). Then we obtain \(\limsup _{u \rightarrow \infty }f'(u) = \infty\). If we assume that \(\liminf _{u \rightarrow \infty }f'(u) < \infty\), then there exists a sequence \(u_n \rightarrow \infty\) of local maximum of \(f'(u)\) such that \(f'(u_n) > 0\) and \(f''(u_n) = 0\). This contradicts (1.5). Thus we obtain \(f'(u) \rightarrow \infty\) as \(u \rightarrow \infty\). By L’Hospital’s rule, we have
By [22, Lemma 2.1] (see also [8, Remark 1.1]), we obtain \(q \ge 1\). \(\square\)
In the remaining part of this paper except the last section, we assume that \(\mathrm{(f1)}\) and \(\mathrm{(f2)}\) with \(q < q_S\) hold. By Lemma 2.1 we may assume that
by replacing \(u_0\) in (f1).
For a solution u of (1.1), define x(t) by
Since \(q_{S} = (N+2)/4 < N/2\) for \(N>2\), the condition \(q < N/2\) is always satisfied if \(1 \le q < q_S\).
Lemma 2.2
Let u be a solution of (1.1), and define x(t) by (2.2) with \(1 \le q < q_S\). Then x(t) satisfies
where
In the case \(q > 1\), put \(z(t) = e^{(q-1)x(t)}\). Then z(t) satisfies
and
where \(p=q/(q-1)\).
Proof
From (2.2) we have
Differentiating the above twice, we obtain
and
From (2.7) and (2.8) it follows that
Then, from (2.9), we obtain
From (2.8) and \(1/r = e^t\), we have
Thus we obtain
Note that \(q(2+x'(t))^2 = qx'(t)^2 + 4qx'(t) + 4q\). Then we obtain (2.3). In the case \(q > 1\), by a direct calculation, we obtain (2.5) and (2.6). \(\square\)
Lemma 2.3
Let u be a positive solution of (1.1) satisfying \(u(r) \ge u_0\) for \(0 < r \le r_0\). Then the following (i) and (ii) hold.
-
(i)
\(u'(r) \le 0\) for \(0 < r \le r_0\).
-
(ii)
\(F(u(r)) \ge r^2/(2N)\) for \(0 < r \le r_0\).
Proof
-
(i)
Assume to the contrary that there exists \(r_1 \in (0, r_0]\) such that \(u'(r_1) > 0\). Since \((r^{N-1}u'(r))'=-r^{N-1}f(u(r)) \le 0\) for \(0 < r \le r_0\), the function \(r^{N-1}u'(r)\) is nonincreasing. Then it follows that \(r^{N-1}u'(r) \ge r_1^{N-1}u'(r_1) > 0\) for \(0 < r \le r_1\). This implies that
$$\begin{aligned} u'(r) \ge C r^{1-N}, \quad 0 < r \le r_1, \end{aligned}$$with \(C = r_1^{N-1}u'(r_1) > 0\). Integrating the above on \((r, r_1]\), we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} u(r_1) -u(r) \ge C\int ^{r_1}_r s^{1-N}ds. \end{aligned}$$Letting \(r \rightarrow 0\), we obtain \(u(r) \rightarrow -\infty\). This is a contradiction. Thus we obtain \(u'(r) \le 0\) for \(0 < r \le r_1\).
-
(ii)
Integrating (1.1) on \([\rho , r]\), by (i), we have
$$\begin{aligned} -r^{N-1}u'(r)=-\rho ^{N-1}u'(\rho )+\int _{\rho }^rs^{N-1}f(u(s))ds \ge \int _{\rho }^rs^{N-1}f(u(s))ds. \end{aligned}$$Letting \(\rho \rightarrow 0\), we have
$$\begin{aligned} -r^{N-1}u'(r) \ge \int _{0}^rs^{N-1}f(u(s))ds \ge f(u(r))\int _0^rs^{N-1}ds =\frac{f(u(r))}{N}r^N, \end{aligned}$$where we used the fact that f(u) is increasing for \(u \ge u_0\) which follows from (2.1). Then it follows that
$$\begin{aligned} \frac{d}{dr}F(u(r))=-\frac{u'(r)}{f(u)}\ge \frac{r}{N}. \end{aligned}$$Integrating the above on \([\rho ,r]\) with \(0<\rho <r\), and letting \(\rho \rightarrow 0\), we have \(F(u(r)) \ge r^2/(2N)\).
\(\square\)
Lemma 2.4
For any \(\delta > 0\), there exists a constant \(C > 0\) such that
for sufficiently large u.
Proof
From (1.5) there exists \(u_1 \ge u_0\) such that
Then it follows that
Then \(f(u)^{-\frac{1}{q+\delta }}f'(u)\) is nondecreasing for \(u \ge u_1\), and hence we obtain
with \(C = {f(u_1)^{-\frac{1}{q+\delta }}}f'(u_1) > 0\). Integrating the above on \([u_1, u]\), we obtain
Then we obtain (2.10) for sufficiently large u. \(\square\)
Lemma 2.5
Let u be a singular solution of (1.1) for \(0 < r \le r_0\). Then
Proof
Since \(q < q_S = (N+2)/4\) and \(N \ge 3\), we have
Then there exists \(\delta > 0\) such that
First we will show that
In fact, from (1.6) there exists \(u_1 \ge u_0\) such that
Observe that
Then \(f(u)F(u)^{q+\delta }\) is nonincreasing in \(u \ge u_1\), and hence
where \(C = f(u_1)F(u_1)^{q+\delta } > 0\). From Lemma 2.3 (ii), we obtain
which implies (2.13).
From Lemma 2.3 (i) we have \(-r^{N-1}u'(r) \ge 0\) for \(0 < r \le r_0\). We will show that
Assume to the contrary that \(\liminf _{r \rightarrow 0}\left( -r^{N-1}u'(r)\right) > 0\). Then there exist \(L > 0\) and \(r_1 \le r_0\) such that \(-r^{N-1}u'(r) \ge L\) for \(0 < r \le r_1\). This implies that there exists a constant \(C > 0\) such that \(u(r) \ge Cr^{2-N}\) for sufficiently small \(r > 0\). By Lemma 2.4 we obtain
for sufficiently small \(r > 0\). From (2.13) it follows that
This implies that \(-N+2q +2\delta \ge 0\). This contradicts (2.12). Thus we obtain (2.14). Then there exists \(r_n \rightarrow 0\) such that \(-r_n^{N-1}u'(r_n) \rightarrow 0\) as \(n \rightarrow \infty\). Integrating (1.1) on \([r_n, r]\), and letting \(n \rightarrow \infty\), we obtain (2.11). \(\square\)
Lemma 2.6
Let u be a singular solution of (1.1). Then
Proof
Assume by contradiction that
Take \(q_0 \in (q, q_{\mathrm{S}})\), and define \(z_0(t)\) by
Applying Lemma 2.2 with \(q = q_0\), we see that \(z_0(t)\) satisfies
where \(a_0 = N+2-4q_0 > 0\), \(b_0 = 2N-4q_0 > 0\) and \(p_0 = q_0/(q_0-1) > 1\). From (2.15) and (2.16), we have \(z_0(t) \rightarrow 0\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\). From \(q_0 > q\), there exists \(t_1 \in \mathbf{R}\) such that
and
with \(r_1 = e^{-t_1}\). Note that \(q_0 > 1\) and \(p_0 > 1\). From (2.18) and (2.19) we have
From (2.17) we have \(z_0'' - a_0 z_0' > 0\), and hence \((e^{-a_0t}z_0')' > 0\) for \(t \ge t_1\). Then \(e^{-a_0 t}z_0'(t)\) is increasing for \(t \ge t_1\). We show that
By contradiction, assume that there exists \(t_2 \ge t_1\) such that \(z_0'(t_2) > 0\). Then \(e^{-a_0 t}z_0'(t) \ge e^{-a_0 t_2}z_0'(t_2) > 0\) for \(t \ge t_2\). This implies that \(z_0'(t) \ge e^{a_0 (t-t_2)}z_0'(t_2) > 0\) for \(t \ge t_2\), and hence \(z_0'(t) \rightarrow \infty\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\). This contradicts (2.18). Thus (2.20) holds. Then, from (2.16) we obtain
for \(0 < r \le r_1\). From (2.19) and Lemma 2.3 (i) we see that
for \(0 < r \le r_1\). Take \(\varepsilon > 0\) such that \(\varepsilon q_0 < 1\). From (2.15) we have
Then there exists \(r_2 \le r_1\) such that
From Lemma 2.5, (2.21), (2.22) and (2.23) we have
for \(0 < r \le r_2\). Hence \(ru'(r) + \varepsilon F(u)f(u) \ge 0\) for \(0 < r \le r_2\). Observe that
for \(0 < r \le r_2\). Then \(r^{\varepsilon }/F(u(r))\) is nondecreasing and bounded for \(0 < r \le r_2\). From (2.22) we see that \(F(u)^{q_0}f(u)\) is also bounded for \(0 < r \le r_2\). Thus we have
which implies that \(u'(r) = O(r^{1-\varepsilon q_0})\) as \(r \rightarrow 0\). Since \(\varepsilon q_0 < 1\), we have \(u'(r) \rightarrow 0\) as \(r \rightarrow 0\), and hence \(\lim _{r \rightarrow 0}u(r) < \infty\). This is a contradiction. Thus we obtain the conclusion. \(\square\)
3 Asymptotic behavior of the singular solution
Let u be a singular solution of (1.1) satisfying \(u(r) \ge u_0\) for \(0 < r \le r_0\). Define x(t) by (2.2) for \(t \ge t_0\), where \(t_0 = -\log r_0\). In this section, we will show the following proposition.
Proposition 3.1
One has \(\lim _{t \rightarrow \infty }x(t) = 0\) and \(\lim _{t \rightarrow \infty }x'(t) = 0\).
To prove Proposition 3.1, we first show the following lemma.
Lemma 3.1
-
(i)
\(x(t) \le \log (N/(N-2q))\) for \(t \ge t_0\).
-
(ii)
\(x'(t) \ge -2\) for \(t \ge t_0\).
Proof
-
(i)
By Lemma 2.3 (ii) and (2.2) we have
$$\begin{aligned} \frac{r^2e^{-x(t)}}{2N-4q}=F(u(r))\ge \frac{r^2}{2N}. \end{aligned}$$This implies that \(e^{x(t)} \le N/(N-2q)\), and hence \(x(t) \le \log (N/(N-2q))\) for \(t \ge t_0\).
-
(ii)
From (2.7) we have \(x(t) = -2t - \log (2N-4q) - \log F(u(r))\). By differentiating the both sides, since \(dr = -rdt\), we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} x'(t) = -2 - \frac{ru'(r)}{f(u)F(u)}. \end{aligned}$$By Lemma 2.3 (i), we obtain \(x'(t) \ge -2\).
\(\square\)
We will show that \(x(t) \rightarrow 0\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\) by dividing into the following two cases:
-
(i)
\(x'(t)\) is nonoscillatory at \(t=\infty\), that is, \(x'(t)\ge 0\) or \(x'(t)\le 0\) for sufficiently large t.
-
(ii)
\(x'(t)\) is oscillatory at \(t=\infty\), that is, the sign of \(x'(t)\) changes infinitely many times as \(t\rightarrow \infty\).
First we consider the case (i).
Lemma 3.2
Assume that \(x'(t)\) is nonoscillatory at \(t=\infty\). Then \(x(t)\rightarrow 0\) as \(t\rightarrow \infty\).
Proof
By Lemma 2.6 and (2.2) we obtain \(\limsup _{t\rightarrow \infty }x(t)>-\infty\). Since x(t) is monotone increasing or decreasing for sufficiently large t, we have \(\lim _{t \rightarrow \infty }x(t) > -\infty\). Then, by Lemma 3.1 (i), x(t) is bounded, and hence there exists a constant \(c\in \mathbf{R}\) such that \(x(t)\rightarrow c\) as \(t\rightarrow \infty\). We show that \(c=0\). On the contrary, assume that \(c \ne 0\). We first show that
We consider the case \(x'(t) \ge 0\) for all t large. Since x(t) is bounded, we have
Assume by contradiction that \(\limsup _{t\rightarrow \infty }x'(t) > 0\). Let \(t_n\rightarrow \infty\) be a sequence of local minimum points of \(x'(t)\). Then, from (3.2), we have
By (2.3) and the fact that \(f'(u)F(u)\rightarrow \ q\) as \(t\rightarrow \infty\), we obtain
On the other hand,
This is a contradiction. In the case where \(x'(t)\le 0\) for all t large, we get the contradiction by a similar argument. Thus (3.1) holds.
Letting \(t \rightarrow \infty\) in (2.3), from (3.1) we obtain \(x''(t)\rightarrow -b(e^c-1)\ne 0\) as \(t\rightarrow \infty\). This implies that \(|x'(t)|\rightarrow \infty\) as \(t\rightarrow \infty\), which is a contradiction. Thus, we obtain \(x(t)\rightarrow 0\) as \(t\rightarrow \infty\). \(\square\)
Next, we consider the case (ii). First we show that \(x'(t)\) is bounded for \(t\ge t_0\).
Lemma 3.3
Assume that the sign of \(x'(t)\) changes infinitely many times as \(t\rightarrow \infty\). Then \(x'(t)\) is bounded for \(t\ge t_0\).
Proof
Assume by contradiction that \(\limsup _{t\rightarrow \infty }|x'(t)|=\infty\). Since \(x'(t)\) is oscillatory and \(x'(t) \ge -2\) by Lemma 3.1 (ii), we have
First we consider the case \(q>1\). From (3.3) there exists a sequence \(t_n\rightarrow \infty\) satisfying
By (2.3) and the fact that \(f'(u)F(u)\rightarrow \ q\) as \(t\rightarrow \infty\), we have
which is a contradiction. Next we consider the case \(q=1\). From (3.3), the function \(x'(t)\) oscillates between 0 and an arbitrary large fixed constant. Hence, for any \(M > 0\), there is a sequence \(t_n\rightarrow \infty\) such that \(x'(t_n) = M\) and \(x''(t_n) \le 0\). By (2.3) we have
Since \(f'(u(r))F(u(r)) \rightarrow 1\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\), we have
This contradicts Lemma 3.1 (i), since \(M > 0\) is arbitrary. Thus, \(x'(t)\) is bounded in both cases \(q > 1\) and \(q = 1\). \(\square\)
In order to show that \(x(t) \rightarrow 0\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\) in the case (ii), we consider the following ordinary differential equation
where \(\gamma > 0\) and \(p > 1\) are constants, \(c \in C[t_0, \infty )\) and \(G \in C[t_0, \infty )\). In (3.4), we assume that
with some constant \(c_* > 0\), and that \(G(t) \rightarrow 0\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\). We can state the following lemma.
Lemma 3.4
Let \(w \in C^2[t_0, \infty )\) be a bounded positive solution of (3.4). Assume that the sign of \(w'(t)\) changes infinitely many times as \(t \rightarrow \infty\). Then \(w(t) \rightarrow 1\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\).
Since the proof of Lemma 3.4 is rather complicated, we will give the proof after completing the proof of Proposition 3.1. By using Lemma 3.4, we will show the following lemma.
Lemma 3.5
Assume that the sign of \(x'(t)\) changes infinitely many times as \(t\rightarrow \infty\). Then \(x(t) \rightarrow 0\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\).
Proof
First we consider the case \(q=1\). By Lemma 3.3, \(x'(t)\) is bounded. Then we can take \(q_0>1\) such that
where a is the constant in (2.4) with \(q = 1\). Define \(z(t)= e^{(q_0-1)x(t)}\). Since x(t) satisfies (2.3) with \(q = 1\), we see that z(t) satisfies
where a and b are constants given by (2.4), \(p_0 = q_0/(q_0-1)\) and
with \(q = 1\). Since \(z'/z = (q_0-1)x'\), we have
where \(\alpha (t) =a+(q_0-1)x'(t)\). From (3.6) we have
with some constant \(\alpha _* > 0\). In the case \(q>1\), define \(z(t) = e^{(q_0-1)x(t)}\) with \(q_0 = q\). Then, by Lemma 2.2, z(t) satisfies (3.8) with \(\alpha (t) \equiv a\) and \(p_0 = q/(q-1)\). Therefore, z(t) satisfies (3.8) in both cases \(q = 1\) and \(q > 1\).
We show that H(t, z(t)), defined by (3.7), satisfies
In fact, we observe that
Lemmas 3.1 (i) and 3.3 imply that x(t) is bounded above and \(x'(t)\) is bounded. Since \(f'(u)F(u)-q\rightarrow 0\) as \(t\rightarrow \infty\), we see that (3.9) holds. Then, applying Lemma 3.4 with \(c(t) = \alpha (t)\), \(\gamma = (q_0-1)b\) and \(G(t) = (q_0-1)H(t, z(t))\), we obtain \(z(t) \rightarrow 1\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\), which implies that \(x(t) \rightarrow 0\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\). \(\square\)
Proof of Proposition 3.1
Combining Lemmas 3.2 and 3.5, we obtain \(\lim _{t\rightarrow \infty }x(t)=0\). We will show that \(x'(t) \rightarrow 0\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\). Define \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\), respectively, by
We first show that \(\alpha = \beta\). On the contrary, assume that \(\alpha \ne \beta\). Since we have either \(\alpha \ne 0\) or \(\beta \ne 0\), we may assume here that \(\alpha \ne 0\). In the case \(q = 1\), x satisfies (2.3), which is reduced into
Since \(\alpha \ne \beta\) in (3.10), there exists a sequence \(t_n \rightarrow \infty\) such that \(x''(t_n) = 0\) and \(x'(t_n) \rightarrow \alpha \ne 0\) as \(n \rightarrow \infty\). From (3.11) and the fact that \(f'(u)F(u) \rightarrow 1\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\), we have
which is a contradiction. In the case \(q > 1\), let \(z(t) = e^{(q-1)x(t)}\). Then, by Lemma 2.2, z satisfies (2.6). Since \(z'(t) = x'(t)e^{(q-1)x(t)}\) and \(x(t) \rightarrow 0\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\), we have
Since \(\alpha \ne \beta\), there exists a sequence \(t_n \rightarrow \infty\) such that \(z''(t_n) = 0\) and \(z'(t_n) \rightarrow \alpha \ne 0\) as \(n \rightarrow \infty\). Define H(t, z(t)) by (3.7) with \(q_0 = q\). Then, by the fact that \(f'(u)F(u) \rightarrow q\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\), we have \(H(t_n, z(t_n)) \rightarrow 0\) as \(n \rightarrow \infty\). From (2.6) we obtain
which is a contradiction. Thus \(\alpha = \beta\) holds in (3.10) in both cases \(q = 1\) and \(q > 1\), and hence we have \(x'(t) \rightarrow \alpha\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\). Since \(x(t) \rightarrow 0\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\), we obtain \(\alpha = 0\). Thus we obtain \(x'(t) \rightarrow 0\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\). \(\square\)
Proof of Lemma 3.4
Define \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\), respectively, by
Since w(t) is bounded above, we have \(0 \le \beta \le \alpha <\infty\). We will show that \(\alpha = \beta = 1\) by dividing the proof into three steps.
Step 1 We have
In fact, by (3.12), there exist \(\{t_i\}\) and \(\{\tau _i\}\) with \(t_i<\tau _i\) such that, for \(i=1,2,\ldots\),
Multiplying (3.4) by \(w'(t)\) and integrating it over \([t_i,\tau _i]\), we obtain
for \(i=1,2,\ldots\). Integrating by parts, from \(w'(t_i)=w'(\tau _i)=0\) and (3.5), we have
Since \(w'(t) < 0\) on \((t_i,\tau _i)\), there exists an inverse function \(t=t_i(w)\) of \(w = w(t)\) for \(t_i< t < \tau _i\). Then we obtain
Since \(G(t) \rightarrow 0\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\), we have \(G(t_i(w))\rightarrow 0\) as \(i \rightarrow \infty\). Put \({\tilde{\beta }} = \liminf _{i\rightarrow \infty }w(\tau _i)\). Then \({\tilde{\beta }} \ge \beta\) and there exists a subsequence, which we denote by \(\{\tau _i\}\) again, such that \(w(\tau _i)\rightarrow {\tilde{\beta }}\) as \(i\rightarrow \infty\). Letting \(i \rightarrow \infty\) in (3.14), we obtain
This implies \({\tilde{\beta }} \le 1\). From \(\beta \le {\tilde{\beta }}\), we have (3.13). Thus, Step 1 is proved.
Step 2 We have
In fact, by (3.12), there exist \(\{s_i\}\) and \(\{\sigma _i\}\) with \(s_i<\sigma _i\) such that
for each \(i=1,2,\ldots\). Multiplying (3.4) by \(w'(t)\), and integrating it over \([s_i,\sigma _i]\), we obtain
for \(i=1,2,\ldots\). From \(w'(s_i) = w'(\sigma _i)=0\) and (3.5), we have
Since \(w'(t) > 0\) on \((s_i,\sigma _i)\), there exists an inverse function \(t= t_i(w)\) of \(w = w(t)\) for \(s_i< t < \sigma _i\). Putting \(w'(t) = w'(t_i(w))= q_i(w)\), we obtain
Put \({\tilde{\alpha }} = \limsup _{i\rightarrow \infty }w(\sigma _i)\). Then \({\tilde{\alpha }} \le \alpha\) and there exists a subsequence, which we denote by \(\{\sigma _i\}\) again, such that
Note that \(G(t_i(w))\rightarrow 0\) as \(i \rightarrow \infty\). Then, letting \(i\rightarrow \infty\) in (3.16), we obtain
This implies that \({\tilde{\alpha }} > 1\). From \(\alpha \ge {\tilde{\alpha }}\), we have
From (3.13) and (3.18), we obtain (3.15) and
which implies that \({\tilde{\alpha }}=\alpha\). Then, from (3.17), we find that
Step 3 We show that \(\alpha =\beta =1\).
From (3.15), we have \(\beta \le 1 \le \alpha\). Assume by contradiction that \(\beta < 1\). Then \(\alpha > 1\). Put
Let \(\{s_i\}\) and \(\{\sigma _i\}\) be the sequences appearing in (3.19), and let \(t = t_i(w)\) is the inverse function of \(w = w(t)\) for \(s_i< t < \sigma _i\). Put \(w'(t) = w'(t_i(w)) = q_i(w)\). We will show that
Take any \({\hat{w}} \in \left[ \frac{\beta +1}{2},1\right]\). From (3.19), there exists \({\hat{s}}_i\) satisfying \(s_i< {\hat{s}}_i < \sigma _i\) and \(w({\hat{s}}_i)={\hat{w}}\) for sufficiently large i. Multiplying (3.4) by \(w'(t)\), and integrating it over \([s_i,{\hat{s}}_i]\), we obtain
From \(w'(s_i)=0\) and (3.5), we obtain
Then it follows that
Note here that, from (3.15) and (3.18), we have
Since \(q_i(w) > 0\) and \(w(s_i)< {\hat{w}} < w(\sigma _i)\), if follows that
Note that \(G(t_i(w))\rightarrow 0\) as \(i \rightarrow \infty\). Then, letting \(i \rightarrow \infty\) in (3.21) we have
Since \(q_i(w)>0\), we obtain (3.20).
From (3.19) and \(\beta< 1 < \alpha\), there exist \({\tilde{s}}_i\) and \(\tilde{\sigma _i}\) satisfying
for sufficiently large i. Then, from \(q_i(w)>0\), it follows that
Letting \(i \rightarrow \infty\) in the above, from (3.20), we obtain
This contradicts (3.22). Thus, we obtain \(\beta = 1\). By (3.15) we obtain \(\alpha =1\). \(\square\)
4 Proof of Theorem 1.1
We first show the uniqueness of the singular solution.
Theorem 4.1
There exists at most one singular solution of (1.1).
To show Theorem 4.1, we need the following lemma by [17, Lemma 4.2].
Lemma 4.1
Let y(t) be a solution of
where A(t) and B(t) are continuous functions satisfying
If y(t) is bounded as \(t \rightarrow \infty\), then \(y(t) \equiv 0\).
Proof of Theorem 4.1
Let \(u_j(r)\), \(j=1,2\), be singular solutions of (1.1) for \(0<r<r_0\). For \(j = 1, 2\), define \(x_j(t)\) by
Proposition 3.1 implies that \(x_j(t) \rightarrow 0\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\) for \(j = 1, 2\). Define \(y(t) = x_1(t)-x_2(t)\). We will show that \(y(t) \equiv 0\). By Lemma 2.2, \(x_j(t)\), \(j = 1, 2\), satisfies
where a and b are constants in (2.4). Then y(t) satisfies
where
Let \(w_j =F(u_j)\) for \(j=1,2\). Then it follows that
Observe that
Then, by the mean value theorem, there exists a \({\bar{w}}\) which lies between \(w_1\) and \(w_2\) such that
Since F is monotone, there exists a \({\bar{u}}\) which lies between \(u_1\) and \(u_2\) such that \(F({\bar{u}}) = {\bar{w}}\). Then we have
Define \({\bar{x}}\) as \(F({\bar{u}}(t)) = r^2 e^{-{\bar{x}}(t)}/(2N-4q)\). Then it follows that
where \(E(x_1, x_2)\) is defined by (4.2). As a consequence, y satisfies (4.1), where
Note that (1.6) holds by Lemma 2.1. Since \(u_1(r)\rightarrow \infty\) and \(x_j'(t) \rightarrow 0\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\) by Proposition 3.1, we see that
Since \({\bar{u}}\) lies between \(u_1\) and \(u_2\), \({\bar{x}}\) lies between \(x_1\) and \(x_2\). Then \({\bar{u}} \rightarrow \infty\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\) and \({\bar{x}} \rightarrow 0\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\). From (1.5) and (1.6) we obtain
Since \(x_j(t) \rightarrow 0\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\) and \(E(x_1, x_2)\) is continuous at \(x_1 = x_2 = 0\), we see that \(E(x_1(t), x_2(t)) \rightarrow 1\) as \(t \rightarrow \infty\). Thus we obtain
Proposition 3.1 implies that \(y(t) \rightarrow 0\) as \(t\rightarrow \infty\). Then, by Lemma 4.1, we obtain \(y(t)\equiv 0\), and hence (1.1) has at most one singular solution. \(\square\)
Recall that, for \(\alpha > 0\), we denote by \(u(r, \alpha )\) a regular solution of (1.1) satisfying \(u(0) = \alpha\) and \(u'(0) = 0\). In the proof of Theorem 1.1, we need the following lemma [24, Lemma 5.1].
Lemma 4.2
Assume that there exist constants \(p_0 > 2N/(N-2)\) and \({\hat{u}}_0\) such that
-
(i)
Let \(\alpha > {\hat{u}}_0\). Assume that \(u(r, \alpha ) \ge {\hat{u}}_0\) for \(0 \le r \le {\hat{r}}_0\) with some \({\hat{r}}_0 > 0\). Then
$$\begin{aligned} 0< -ru'(r, \alpha )< \frac{2N}{p_0}u(r, \alpha ) \quad \text{ for } \ 0 < r \le {\hat{r}}_0. \end{aligned}$$ -
(ii)
Put
$$\begin{aligned} \eta =\frac{1}{2}\left( 1-\frac{2N}{p_0(N-2)}\right) . \end{aligned}$$(4.4)Take any \(\beta > {\hat{u}}_0\), and define \(r_{\beta }\) by
$$\begin{aligned} r_{\beta }=\left( \frac{2N\beta }{f_M(\beta /\eta )}\right) ^{1/2}, \end{aligned}$$(4.5)where \(f_M(r)=\max _{0\le s\le r}f(s)\). If \(\alpha > \beta /\eta\), then \(u(r,\alpha ) > \beta\) for \(0 \le r \le r_{\beta }\).
Proof of Theorem 1.1
By (1.5) and L’Hospital’s rule, we have
Since \(f'(u) > 0\) for sufficiently large u by Lemma 2.1, we obtain \(uf'(u)/f(u) \rightarrow \infty\) as \(u \rightarrow \infty\) if \(q = 1\), Then, using L’Hospital’s rule again, we obtain
Since \(q < q_S\), we have \((2q-1)/(q-1) > 2N/(N-2)\). Take \(p_0 \in (2N/(N-2), (2q-1)/(q-1))\). Then there exists \({\hat{u}}_0 \ge u_0\) such that (4.3) holds. Take \(\beta > {\hat{u}}_0\), and define \(\eta\) and \(r_{\beta }\) by (4.4) and (4.5), respectively. Let \(\alpha > \beta /\eta\). Then, by Lemma 4.2 (ii), we have \(u(r, \alpha )> \beta > {\hat{u}}_0 \ge u_0\) for \(0 \le r \le r_{\beta }\). By Lemma 2.3 (ii) we have
By Lemma 4.2 (i), we obtain
Let \(\{\alpha _k\}\) be a sequence such that \(\alpha _k\rightarrow \infty\) as \(k\rightarrow \infty\). From (4.6) and (4.7), \(u(r,\alpha _k)\) and \(u_r(r,\alpha _k)\) are uniformly bounded in \(k \in \mathbf{N}\) on any compact subset of \((0,r_{\beta }]\). Since \(f\in C^2[0,\infty )\) in (1.1), \(u_{rr}(r,\alpha _k)\) and \(u_{rrr}(r,\alpha _k)\) are also uniformly bounded on the subset. Then, by the Ascoli-Arzelá theorem with the diagonal argument, there exist \(u^*\in C^2(0,r_{\beta }]\) and a subsequence, which is denoted by \(\{u(r,\alpha _k)\}\), such that
It is clear that \(u^*\) satisfies (1.1) for \(0< r \le r_{\beta }\). Take any \({\tilde{\beta }} > \beta\). Lemma 4.2 (ii) implies that \(u(r_{{\tilde{\beta }}},\alpha _k) > {\tilde{\beta }}\) if \(\alpha _k > {\tilde{\beta }}/\eta\). Letting \(k \rightarrow \infty\), we obtain \(u^*(r_{{\tilde{\beta }}}) \ge {\tilde{\beta }}\). Since \(u^*(r)\) is nonincreasing for \(0 < r \le r_{\beta }\) by Lemma 2.3 (i), we obtain \(u^*(r) \rightarrow \infty\) as \(r \rightarrow 0\), and hence \(u^*\) is a singular solution. We can define \(u^*(r)\) on \((0, r_0]\) as a positive solution of (1.1) with some \(r_0 > 0\). Since the singular solution \(u^*\) of (1.1) is unique by Theorem 4.1, we obtain \(u(r,\alpha ) \rightarrow u^*(r)\) in \(C^2_{\mathrm{loc}}(0,r_0]\) as \(\alpha \rightarrow \infty\), and hence (1.7) holds. By Proposition 3.1 and (2.2), we obtain (1.8). Thus the proof is complete. \(\square\)
5 Super-exponential nonlinearity
In this section we consider the case where f(u) has the form \(f(u) = \exp (g(u))\).
Lemma 5.1
Let \(f(u) = \exp (g(u))\), where \(g \in C^2(0, \infty )\).
-
(i)
If g(u) satisfies
$$\begin{aligned} \liminf _{u \rightarrow \infty }\frac{g(u)}{\log u} > 1, \end{aligned}$$(5.1)then (f1) holds.
-
(ii)
The hypothesis (f2) with \(q = 1\) holds if and only if
$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{u \rightarrow \infty }\frac{g''(u)}{g'(u)^2} = 0. \end{aligned}$$(5.2) -
(iii)
If (f1) and (f2) with \(q = 1\) hold, then
$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{u \rightarrow \infty }g(u) = \infty \quad \text{ and } \quad \lim _{u \rightarrow \infty }\frac{\log g'(u)}{g(u)} = 0. \end{aligned}$$(5.3)
Proof
-
(i)
If (5.1) holds, then there exist \(\kappa > 1\) and \(u_1 \ge 0\) such that \(g(u) \ge \kappa \log u\) for \(u \ge u_1\). This implies that \(f(u) \ge u^{\kappa }\) for \(u \ge u_1\), and hence (f1) holds.
-
(ii)
Observe that
$$\begin{aligned} \frac{f'(u)^2}{f(u)f''(u)} = \frac{1}{1+\frac{g''(u)}{g'(u)^2}}. \end{aligned}$$Then we have
$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{u \rightarrow \infty }\frac{g''(u)}{g'(u)^2} = 0 \quad \text{ if } \text{ and } \text{ only } \text{ if } \quad \lim _{u \rightarrow \infty }\frac{f'(u)^2}{f(u)f''(u)} =1. \end{aligned}$$Thus (ii) holds.
-
(iii)
By Lemma 2.1 we have \(f(u) \rightarrow \infty\) as \(u \rightarrow \infty\), and hence \(g(u) \rightarrow \infty\) as \(u \rightarrow \infty\). By (ii) we obtain (5.2). By L’Hospital’s rule, we have
$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{u \rightarrow \infty }\frac{\log g'(u)}{g(u)} = \lim _{u\rightarrow \infty }\frac{g''(u)}{g'(u)^2} = 0. \end{aligned}$$Thus (5.3) holds.
\(\square\)
To prove Corollary 1.1, we need the following lemma.
Lemma 5.2
Assume that f has the form \(f(u) = \exp (g(u))\), and that (f1) and (f2) with \(q = 1\) hold. Let \(u^*\) be a singular solution of (1.1). Then
Proof
From (1.6) we have \(F(u)f'(u) = F(u)g'(u)\exp (g(u)) \rightarrow 1\) as \(u \rightarrow \infty\). Then
By Lemma 5.1 (iii) we obtain (5.3). Then we have
Since \(u^*\) satisfies (1.8) by Theorem 1.1, we obtain
Then it follows that
Substituting this equality into (5.6) with \(u = u^*(r)\), we obtain (5.5). From (5.8) we have
Then, from (5.7) with \(u = u^*(r)\), we obtain
which implies (5.4). \(\square\)
Proof of Corollary 1.1
-
(i)
In the case \(g(u) = u^p\) with \(p > 0\), we have \(\log g'(u) = \log p +(p-1)\log u\). From (5.5) it follows that
$$\begin{aligned} u^*(r)^p + (p-1)\log u^*(r) = -2\log r + \log \frac{2N-4}{p} + o(1) \quad \text{ as } \ r \rightarrow 0. \end{aligned}$$From (5.4) we have
$$\begin{aligned} \log u^*(r) = \frac{1}{p}\log (-2\log r) + o(1) \quad \text{ as } \ r \rightarrow 0. \end{aligned}$$Then it follows that
$$\begin{aligned} u^*(r) ^p = -2\log r + \log \frac{2N-4}{p} -\frac{p-1}{p}\log (-2\log r) + o(1) \quad \text{ as } \ r \rightarrow 0. \end{aligned}$$Thus we obtain (1.10).
-
(ii)
First we consider the case \(n = 1\). Since \(g_1'(u) = \exp u\), from (5.5) we have
$$\begin{aligned} e^{u^*(r)} + u^*(r) = -2\log r +\log (2N-4) + o(1) \quad \text{ as } \ r \rightarrow 0. \end{aligned}$$From (5.4) we have \(u^*(r) = \log (-2\log r) + o(1)\) as \(r \rightarrow 0\). Then it follows that
$$\begin{aligned} e^{u^*(r)} = -2\log r + \log (2N-4) - \log (-2\log r) + o(1) \quad \text{ as } \ r \rightarrow 0. \end{aligned}$$Thus we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} u^*(r) = \log \Bigl (-2\log r + \log (2N-4) - \log (-2\log r) + o(1)\Bigr ) \quad \text{ as } \ r \rightarrow 0, \end{aligned}$$and hence (1.12) holds. Next we consider the case \(n \ge 2\). Since \(g_n'(u)=g_1(u)g_2(u)\cdots g_n(u)\), we have
$$\begin{aligned} \log g_n'(u)=u+g_1(u)+\cdots +g_{n-1}(u). \end{aligned}$$From (5.5) we have
$$\begin{aligned} u^*(r) + g_1(u^*(r)) + \cdots + g_{n-1}(u^*(r)) + g_n(u^*(r)) = -2\log r +\log (2N-4) + o(1) \end{aligned}$$(5.9)as \(r \rightarrow 0\). From (5.4) it follows that \(g_{n-1}(u^*(r)) = \log (-2\log r)+o(1)\) as \(r \rightarrow 0\). Then, as \(r \rightarrow 0\), we have
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{array}{rcl} g_{n-2}(u^*(r)) &{} = &{} \log \Bigl (\log (-2\log r) + o(1)\Bigr ) = \log ^2(-2\log r) + o(1), \\ &{} &{} \cdots \\ g_{1}(u^*(r)) &{} = &{} \log ^{n-1}(-2\log r) + o(1), \\ u^*(r) &{} = &{} \log ^{n}(-2\log r) + o(1). \end{array} \end{aligned}$$Substituting these equalities into (5.9), we have
$$\begin{aligned} g_n(u^*(r)) = -2\log r + \log (2N-4) -\sum _{k = 1}^{n}\log ^{k}(-2\log r) + o(1) \quad \text{ as } \ r \rightarrow 0. \end{aligned}$$Thus we obtain (1.11).
\(\square\)
Corollary 1.2 can be proved by the similar argument as in Corollary 1.1 in [24], but we give a sketch of the proof for the convenience of the reader.
Proof of Corollary 1.2
-
(i)
Since \(f(u) > 0\) for \(u \ge 0\), \(u^*(r)\) has the first zero \(r_0^*\). Put
$$\begin{aligned} \lambda ^* = (r_0^*)^2 \quad \text{ and } \quad v^*(r) = u^*(r_0^* r). \end{aligned}$$(5.10)Then \(v^*(r)\) with \(r = |x|\) solves (1.13) with \(\lambda = \lambda ^*\). It is clear that \(v^*(r) \rightarrow \infty\) as \(r \rightarrow 0\). Since the singular solution \(u^*\) of (1.1) is unique by Theorem 1.1, \((\lambda ^*, v^*)\) is the unique singular solution of (1.13).
-
(ii)
Since \(f(u) > 0\) for all \(u \ge 0\), \(u(r, \alpha )\) has the first zero, which we denote by \(r_0(\alpha )\). Define \(f(u) = f(0)\) for all \(u \le 0\), and we extend the domains of \(u^*(r)\) and \(u(r, \alpha )\) to \((0, r_0^* + \delta ]\) with some \(\delta > 0\). Then, from (1.7), we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} u(r, \alpha ) \rightarrow u^*(r) \quad \text{ in } \ C^2_{\mathrm{loc}}(0, r_0^* + \delta ] \quad \text{ and } \quad r_0(\alpha ) \rightarrow r_0^* \quad \text{ as } \ \alpha \rightarrow \infty . \end{aligned}$$(5.11)Put
$$\begin{aligned} \lambda (\alpha ) = r_0(\alpha )^2 \quad \text{ and } \quad v(r, \alpha ) = u(r_0(\alpha )r, \alpha ). \end{aligned}$$(5.12)Then \((\lambda (\alpha ), v(r, \alpha ))\) solves (1.13) with \(\Vert v\Vert _{L^{\infty }(B)} = \alpha\). From (5.10) and (5.12) we have
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{array}{rcl} |v(r, \alpha )-v^*(r)| &{} = &{} |u(r_0(\alpha )r, \alpha ) -u^*(r_0^* r)| \\ &{} \le &{} |u(r_0(\alpha )r, \alpha )-u^*(r_0(\alpha )r)| + |u^*(r_0(\alpha )r)-u^*(r_0^* r)|. \end{array} \end{aligned}$$From (5.11) we obtain \(\lambda (\alpha ) \rightarrow \lambda ^*\) and \(v(\cdot , \alpha ) \rightarrow v^*\) in \(C_{\mathrm{loc}}^2(0, 1]\) as \(\alpha \rightarrow \infty\). Thus (ii) holds.
\(\square\)
References
Brezis, H., Vázquez, J.: Blow-up solutions of some nonlinear elliptic problems. Rev. Mat. Univ. Complut. Madrid 10, 443–469 (1997)
Budd, C., Norbury, J.: Semilinear elliptic equations and supercritical growth. J. Differ. Eq. 68, 169–197 (1987)
Chen, C.-C., Lin, C.-S.: Existence of positive weak solutions with a prescribed singular set of semilinear elliptic equations. J. Geom. Anal. 9, 221–246 (1999)
Chern, J., Chen, Z., Chen, J., Tang, Y.: On the classification of standing wave solutions for the Schrödinger equation. Comm. Partial Differ. Eq. 35, 275–301 (2010)
Dolbeault, J., Esteban, M.J., Ramaswamy, M.: Radial singular solutions of a critical problem in a ball. Differ. Integral Eq. 15, 1459–1474 (2002)
Dolbeault, J., Flores, I.: Geometry of phase space and solutions of semilinear elliptic equations in a ball. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 359, 4073–4087 (2007)
Dupaigne, L., Farina, A.: Stable solutions of \(-\Delta u = f(u)\) in \({{ R}}^{N}\). J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 12, 855–882 (2010)
Fujishima, Y., Ioku, N.: Existence and nonexistence of solutions for the heat equation with a superlinear source term. J. Math. Pures Appl. 118, 128–158 (2018)
Ghergu, M., Goubet, O.: Singular solutions of elliptic equations with iterated exponentials. J. Geom. Anal. 30, 1755–1773 (2020)
Gidas, B., Ni, W.-M., Nirenberg, L.: Symmetry and related properties via the maximum principle. Comm. Math. Phys. 68, 209–243 (1979)
Guo, Z., Wei, J.: Global solution branch and Morse index estimates of a semilinear elliptic equation with super-critical exponent. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 363, 4777–4799 (2011)
Johnson, R.A., Pan, X.B., Yi, Y.: Singular solutions of the elliptic equation \(\Delta u -u + u^p = 0\). Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) 166, 203–225 (1994)
Joseph, D.D., Lundgren, T.S.: Quasilinear Dirichlet problems driven by positive sources. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 49, 241–269 (1973)
Kikuchi, H., Wei, J.: A bifurcation diagram of solutions to an elliptic equation with exponential nonlinearity in higher dimensions. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 148, 101–122 (2018)
Korman, P.: Solution curves for semilinear equations on a ball. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 125, 1997–2005 (1997)
Lin, S.: Positive singular solutions for semilinear elliptic equations with supercritical growth. J. Differ. Eq. 114, 57–76 (1994)
Liu, Y., Li, Y., Deng, Y.: Separation property of solutions for a semilinear elliptic equation. J. Differ. Eq. 163, 381–406 (2000)
Merle, F., Peletier, L.: Positive solutions of elliptic equations involving supercritical growth. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 118, 49–62 (1991)
Mignot, F., Puel, J.-P.: Solution radiale singulière de \(-\Delta u = \lambda e^u\). C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 307, 379–382 (1988)
Miyamoto, Y.: Structure of the positive solutions for supercritical elliptic equations in a ball. J. Math. Pures Appl. 102, 672–701 (2014)
Miyamoto, Y.: Classification of bifurcation diagrams for elliptic equations with exponential growth in a ball. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 194, 931–952 (2015)
Miyamoto, Y.: A limit equation and bifurcation diagrams for semilinear elliptic equations with general supercritical growth. J. Differ. Eq. 264, 2684–2707 (2018)
Miyamoto, Y., Naito, Y.: Singular extremal solutions for supercritical elliptic equations in a ball. J. Differ. Eq. 265, 2842–2885 (2018)
Miyamoto, Y., Naito, Y.: Fundamental properties and asymptotic shapes of the singular and classical radial solutions for supercritical semilinear elliptic equations. NoDEA Nonlinear Differ. Eq. Appl. 27, 52 (2020)
Serrin, J., Zou, H.: Classification of positive solutions of quasilinear elliptic equations. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 3, 1–25 (1994)
Tello, J.I.: Stability of steady states of the Cauchy problem for the exponential reaction-diffusion equation. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 324, 381–396 (2006)
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the referee for careful reading of the manuscript and for valuable comments. The first author was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 19H01797, 19H05599 and the second author was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 20K03685. This work was also supported by Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, a Joint Usage/Research Center located in Kyoto University.
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
Miyamoto, Y., Naito, Y. Singular solutions for semilinear elliptic equations with general supercritical growth. Annali di Matematica 202, 341–366 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10231-022-01244-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10231-022-01244-4