Abstract
In this paper we study anisotropic weighted (p, q)equations with a parametric righthand side depending on the gradient of the solution. Under very general assumptions on the data and by using a topological approach, we prove existence and uniqueness results and study the asymptotic behavior of the solutions when both the \(q(\cdot )\)Laplacian on the lefthand side and the reaction term are modulated by a parameter. Moreover, we present some properties of the solution sets with respect to the parameters.
1 Introduction
Let \(\Omega \subseteq {\mathbb {R}}^N\) (\(N \ge 2\)) be a bounded domain with smooth boundary \(\partial \Omega \). We consider the following nonlinear Dirichlet problem with parameter dependence in the leading term and with gradient and parameter dependence in the reaction term
where \( \mu \ge 0\) and \(\lambda >0\) are the parameters to be specified, the exponents \(p,q \in C(\overline{\Omega })\) are such that \(1<q(x)<p(x)\) for all \(x\in \overline{\Omega }\) and \(\Delta _{r(\cdot )}\) denotes the \(r(\cdot )\)Laplace differential operator defined by
In the righthand side of problem (1.1) we have a parametric reaction term in form of a Carathéodory function \(f{:}\,\Omega \times {\mathbb {R}}\times {\mathbb {R}}^N\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) which satisfies very general structure conditions, see hypotheses (H2) and (H3) in Sects. 2 and 3. Since the reaction term \(f{:}\,\Omega \times {\mathbb {R}}\times {\mathbb {R}}^N\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) also depends on the gradient \(\nabla u\) of the solution u (that phenomenon is called convection), problem (1.1) does not have a variational structure and so we cannot apply tools from critical point theory. Instead we will use a topological approach based on the surjectivity of pseudomonotone operators.
We will not only present existence results under very general structure conditions but also sufficient conditions for the uniqueness of the solution of (1.1). Further, we study the asymptotic behavior of the solutions of (1.1) and prove some properties of the solution sets depending on the two parameters \(\mu \ge 0\) and \(\lambda >0\) which are controlling the \(q(\cdot )\)Laplacian on the lefthand side and the reaction on the righthand side. This leads to interesting results on certain ranges of \(\mu \) and \(\lambda \).
The novelty in our paper is the fact that we have an anisotropic nonhomogeneous differential operator and a parametric convection term on the righthand side. If \(\mu =0\) in (1.1), the operator becomes the anisotropic pLaplacian and such equations have been studied for \(\lambda =1\) in the recent paper of Wang–Hou–Ge [25]. For constant exponents there exist several works but without parameter on the righthand side. Precisely, constant exponent pLaplace problems with convection can be found in the papers of de Figueiredo–Girardi–Matzeu [4] for the Laplacian, Fragnelli–Papageorgiou–Mugnai [11] and Ruiz [24] both for the pLaplacian. For (p, q)equation with constant exponents, convection term and \(\lambda =1\), we refer to the works of Averna–Motreanu–Tornatore [1] for weighted (p, q)equations, El Manouni–Marino–Winkert [6] for double phase problems depending on Robin and Steklov eigenvalues for the pLaplacian, Faria–Miyagaki–Motreanu [10] using a comparison principle and an approximation process, Gasiński–Winkert [13] for double phase problems, Liu–Papageorgiou [17] for resonant reaction terms using the frozen variable method together with the Leray–Schauder alternative principle, Marano–Winkert [18] with nonlinear boundary condition, Motreanu–Winkert [19] via subsupersolution approach, Papageorgiou–Vetro–Vetro [20] for righthand sides with a parametric singular term and a locally defined perturbation and [21] for semilinear Neumann problems, see also the references therein.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work dealing with an anisotropic differential operator and a parametric convection term. Such equations provide mathematical models of anisotropic materials. The parameter \(\mu \ge 0\) modulates the effect of the \(q(\cdot )\)Laplace operator, and hence controls the geometry of the composite made of two different materials. In general, equations driven by the sum of two differential operators of different nature arise often in mathematical models of physical processes. We refer to the works of Bahrouni–Rădulescu–Repovš [2] for transonic flow problems, Cherfils–Il’yasov [3] for reaction diffusion systems and Zhikov [26] for elasticity problems.
Finally, we mention that there are several relevant differences when dealing with anisotropic equations in contrast to constant exponent problems. We refer to the books of Diening–Harjulehto–Hästö–Rŭzĭcka [5], Harjulehto–Hästö [14] and Rădulescu–Repovš [23] for more information on the differences.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we collect some properties on variable exponent Sobolev spaces as well as on the \(p(\cdot )\)Laplacian and we present the hypotheses on the data of problem (1.1). Section 3 is devoted to the existence and uniqueness results as well as the asymptotic behavior when the parameter \(\mu \) moves to 0 and \(+\infty \), respectively. We also show the boundedness of the set of solutions to problem (1.1). In Sect. 4 we complete the characterization of the set of solutions with respect to compactness and closedness.
2 Preliminaries and Hypotheses
In this section we give a brief overview about variable exponent Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces, see the books of Diening–Harjulehto–Hästö–R\(\mathring{\text {u}}\)žička [5], Harjulehto–Hästö [14] and the papers of Fan–Zhao [7], Kováčik–Rákosník [16]. Moreover, we recall some facts about pseudomonotone operators and we state the hypotheses on the data of problem (1.1).
To this end, let \(\Omega \) be a bounded domain in \({\mathbb {R}}^N\) (\(N\ge 2\)) with smooth boundary \(\partial \Omega \). For \(r\in C_+({\overline{\Omega }})\), where \(C_+(\overline{\Omega })\) is given by
we denote
Moreover, denoting by \(M(\Omega )\) the space of all measurable functions \(u{:}\,\Omega \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\), the variable exponent Lebesgue space \(L^{r(\cdot )}(\Omega )\) for a given \(r \in C_+(\overline{\Omega })\) is defined as
equipped with the Luxemburg norm given by
Here the corresponding modular \(\rho _r {:}\,L^{r(\cdot ) }(\Omega ) \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) is given by
We know that \((L^{r(\cdot )}(\Omega ),\Vert \cdot \Vert _{r(\cdot )})\) is a separable, reflexive and uniformly convex Banach space.
The following proposition gives the relation between the norm \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{r(\cdot )}\) and the modular \(\rho _r(\cdot )\).
Proposition 2.1
For all \(u\in L^{r(\cdot ) }(\Omega ) \) we have the following assertions:

(i)
\(\Vert u\Vert _{r(\cdot )}<1\) (resp. \(=1\), \(>1\)) if and only if \(\rho _r (u) <1\) (resp. \(=1\), \(>1\));

(ii)
if \(\Vert u\Vert _{r(\cdot )}>1,\) then \(\Vert u\Vert ^{r^{}}_{r(\cdot )}\le \rho _r (u) \le \Vert u\Vert _{r(\cdot )}^{r^{+}}\);

(iii)
if \(\Vert u\Vert _{r(\cdot )}<1,\) then \(\Vert u\Vert _{r(\cdot )}^{r^{+}}\le \rho _r(u) \le \Vert u\Vert _{r(\cdot )}^{r^{}}\).
Remark 2.2
A direct consequence of Proposition 2.1 is the following relation
Let \(r' \in C_+(\overline{\Omega })\) be the conjugate variable exponent to r, that is,
We know that \(L^{r(\cdot )}(\Omega )^*=L^{r'(\cdot )}(\Omega )\) and Hölder’s inequality holds, that is,
for all \(u\in L^{r(\cdot )}(\Omega )\) and for all \(v \in L^{r'(\cdot )}(\Omega )\).
If \(r_1, r_2\in C_+(\overline{\Omega })\) and \(r_1(x) \le r_2(x)\) for all \(x\in \overline{\Omega }\), then we have the continuous embedding
For \(r \in C_+(\overline{\Omega })\) we define the variable exponent Sobolev space \(W^{1,r(\cdot )}(\Omega )\) by
endowed with the norm
where \(\Vert \nabla u\Vert _{r(\cdot )}= \Vert \,\nabla u\,\Vert _{r(\cdot )}\). Furthermore, we define
The spaces \(W^{1,r(\cdot )}(\Omega )\) and \(W^{1,r(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) are both separable and reflexive Banach spaces, in fact uniformly convex Banach spaces. In the space \(W^{1,r(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\), we have Poincaré’s inequality, that is,
with some \(c>0\). As a consequence, we consider on \(W^{1,r(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) the equivalent norm
For \(r \in C_+(\overline{\Omega })\) we introduce the critical variable Sobolev exponent \(r^*\) defined by
The following proposition states the Sobolev embedding theorem for variable exponent Sobolev spaces.
Proposition 2.3
If \(r\in C_+(\overline{\Omega })\), \(s\in C(\overline{\Omega })\) and \(1\le s(x)< r^*(x)\) for all \(x\in \overline{\Omega }\), then there exists a compact embedding \(W^{1,r(\cdot )}(\Omega ) \hookrightarrow L^{s(\cdot )}(\Omega )\).
Let us now recall some definitions which are used in the sequel.
Definition 2.4
Let X be a reflexive Banach space, \(X^*\) its dual space and denote by \(\langle \cdot \,, \cdot \rangle \) its duality pairing. Let \(A{:}\,X\rightarrow X^*\), then A is called

(i)
to satisfy the \((\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{+}})\)property if \(u_n \rightharpoonup u\) in X and \(\limsup _{n\rightarrow \infty } \langle A(u_n),u_nu\rangle \le 0\) imply \(u_n\rightarrow u\) in X;

(ii)
pseudomonotone if \(u_n \rightharpoonup u\) in X and \(\limsup _{n\rightarrow +\infty } \langle A(u_n),u_nu\rangle \le 0\) imply
$$\begin{aligned} \liminf _{n \rightarrow +\infty } \langle A(u_n),u_nv\rangle \ge \langle A(u) , uv\rangle \quad \text {for all }v \in X; \end{aligned}$$ 
(iii)
coercive if
$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{\Vert u\Vert _X\rightarrow +\infty }\frac{\langle A(u), u \rangle }{\Vert u\Vert _X}=+\infty . \end{aligned}$$
Remark 2.5
We point out that if the operator \(A{:}\,X \rightarrow X^*\) is bounded, then the definition of pseudomonotonicity in Definition 2.4 (ii) is equivalent to \(u_n \rightharpoonup u\) in X and \(\limsup _{n\rightarrow +\infty } \langle A(u_n),u_nu\rangle \le 0\) imply \(A(u_n) \rightharpoonup A(u)\) and \(\langle A(u_n),u_n\rangle \rightarrow \langle A(u),u\rangle \). In the following we are going to use this definition since our operators involved are bounded.
Pseudomonotone operators exhibit remarkable surjectivity properties. In particular, we have the following result, see, for example, Papageorgiou–Winkert [22, Theorem 6.1.57].
Theorem 2.6
Let X be a real, reflexive Banach space, let \(A{:}\,X\rightarrow X^*\) be a pseudomonotone, bounded, and coercive operator, and \(b\in X^*\). Then, a solution of the equation \(Au=b\) exists.
Next, we introduce the nonlinear operator \(A_{r(\cdot )}{:}\,W^{1,r(\cdot )}_0(\Omega ) \rightarrow W^{1,r'(\cdot )}(\Omega )=W^{1,r(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )^*\) defined by
This operator has the following properties, see Fan–Zhang [9, Theorem 3.1].
Proposition 2.7
The operator \(A_{r(\cdot )}(\cdot )\) is bounded (that is, it maps bounded sets to bounded sets), continuous, monotone (thus maximal monotone) and of type \((\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{+}})\).
Now we can formulate the hypotheses on the data of problem (1.1).

(H1)
\(p, q \in C_+(\overline{\Omega })\) with \(q(x)<p(x)\) for all \(x \in \overline{\Omega }\) and there exists \(\xi _0 \in {\mathbb {R}}^N \setminus \{0\}\) such that for all \(x \in \Omega \) the function \(p_x {:}\,\Omega _x \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) defined by \(p_x(z)=p(x+z\xi _0)\) is monotone, where \(\Omega _x :=\{z \in {\mathbb {R}} \,:\, x+z\xi _0 \in \Omega \}\).
Remark 2.8
Hypothesis (H1) implies that
This follows from the paper of Fan–Zhang–Zhao [8, Theorem 3.3].

(H2) \(f{:}\,\Omega \times {\mathbb {R}}\times {\mathbb {R}}^N \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) is a Carathéodory function such that

(i) there exist \(\sigma \in L^{\alpha '(\cdot )}(\Omega )\) with \(1<\alpha (x)<p^* (x)\) for all \(x \in \overline{\Omega }\) and \(c >0\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} f(x,s,\xi ) \le c\left( \sigma (x)+s^{\alpha (x)1}+\xi ^{\frac{p(x)}{\alpha '(x)}}\right) \end{aligned}$$for a. a. \(x\in \Omega \), for all \(s\in {\mathbb {R}}\) and for all \(\xi \in {\mathbb {R}}^N\), where \(p^*\) is the critical exponent to p given in (2.2) for \(r=p\);

(ii) there exist \(a_0 \in L^1(\Omega )\) and \(b_1,b_2> 0\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} f(x,s,\xi )s \le a_0(x)+ b_1s^{p(x)}+ b_2\xi ^{p(x)} \end{aligned}$$for a. a. \(x\in \Omega \), for all \(s\in {\mathbb {R}}\) and for all \(\xi \in {\mathbb {R}}^N\).

Example 2.9
Let \(d_1,d_2 > 0\) and consider the function defined by
for a. a. \(x \in \Omega \), for all \(s \in {\mathbb {R}}\) and for all \(\xi \in {\mathbb {R}}^N\) with \(0\ne \sigma \in L^{p'(\cdot )}(\Omega )\). It is easy to see that f fulfills hypotheses (H2).
Recall that \(u \in W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) is a weak solution to (1.1) if
is satisfied for all \(h \in W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\).
We also recall the following result, see Gasiński–Papageorgiou [12, Lemma 2.2.27, p. 141].
Lemma 2.10
If X,Y are two Banach spaces such that \(X \subseteq Y\), the embedding is continuous and X is dense in Y, then the embedding \(Y^*\subseteq X^*\) is continuous. Moreover, if X is reflexive, then \(Y^*\) is dense in \(X^*\).
3 Existence and Uniqueness Results and Asymptotic Behavior
Now we state and prove the following existence result for problem (1.1). In the sequel we use the abbreviation
Theorem 3.1
Let hypotheses (H1) and (H2) be satisfied. Then problem (1.1) admits at least one weak solution \(u\in C^{0,\beta }(\overline{\Omega })\) for some \(\beta \in ]0,1]\) for all \(\mu \ge 0\) and for all \(\lambda \in \,]0, \lambda ^*[\).
Proof
Let \(N^*_{f}{:}\,W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega ) \subset L^{\alpha (\cdot )}(\Omega ) \rightarrow L^{\alpha '(\cdot )}(\Omega )\) be the Nemytskij operator corresponding to the Carathéodory function f, that is,
Hypothesis (H2)(i) implies that \(N^*_{f}(\cdot )\) is welldefined, bounded and continuous, see Fan–Zhao [7] and Kováčik–Rákosník [16]. By Lemma 2.10, the embedding \(i^*{:}\,L^{\alpha '(\cdot )}(\Omega ) \rightarrow W^{1,p'(\cdot )}(\Omega )\) is continuous and hence the operator \(N_{f}{:}\,W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) \(\rightarrow W^{1,p'(\cdot )}(\Omega )\) defined by \(N_f=i^* \circ N^*_f\) is bounded and continuous. We fix \(\mu \ge 0\) as well as \(\lambda \in \,]0, \lambda ^*[\) and consider the operator \(V{:}\,W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega ) \rightarrow W^{1,p'(\cdot )}(\Omega )\) defined by
Evidently \(V(\cdot )\) is bounded and continuous. Next we show that \(V(\cdot )\) is pseudomonotone in the sense of Remark 2.5. To this end, let \(\{u_n\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}} \subseteq W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) be a sequence such that
Since \(\{u_n\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) converges weakly in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\), it is bounded in its norm and so \(\{N_f^*(u_n)\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is bounded. Using this fact along with Hölder’s inequality and the compact embedding \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\hookrightarrow L^{\alpha (\cdot )}(\Omega )\) (see Proposition 2.3), we get
Therefore, if we pass to the limit in the weak formulation in (2.4) replacing u by \(u_n\) and h by \(u_nu\) and using (3.2), it follows that
Since \(A_{q(\cdot )}(\cdot )\) is monotone, this implies
Therefore, by the weak convergence of \(\{u_n\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\),
Taking the \((\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{+}})\)property of \(A_{p(\cdot )}(\cdot )\) into account (see Proposition 2.7) along with (3.1) gives \(u_n\rightarrow u\) in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\). From the strong convergence and the continuity of V, we conclude that \(V(u_n)\rightarrow V(u)\) in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )^*\). Therefore, V is pseudomonotone.
Let us now prove that \(V(\cdot )\) is coercive. From (2.3) we have
Applying (H2)(ii) and (3.3) along with Proposition 2.1(ii), we obtain for \(u \in W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) with \(\Vert u\Vert >1\)
Since \(\lambda \in ]0,\lambda ^*[\), we see that \(V(\cdot )\) is coercive. Hence, the operator \(V{:}\,W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega ) \rightarrow W^{1,p'(\cdot }(\Omega )\) is bounded, pseudomonotone and coercive. Then, Theorem 2.6 implies the existence of a function \(u\in W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) which turns out to be a weak solution of problem (1.1). From Ho–Kim–Winkert–Zhang [15, Theorem 5.1] we know that \(u\in C^{0,\beta }(\overline{\Omega })\) for some \(\beta \in ]0,1]\). \(\square \)
Let us now consider equation (1.1) under stronger assumptions in order to prove a uniqueness result. We suppose the additional assumptions.

(H3)

(i)
There exists a constant \(a_1> 0\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} (f(x,s,\xi )f(x,t,\xi ))(st) \le a_1 st^2 \end{aligned}$$for a. a. \(x\in \Omega \), for all \(s,t \in {\mathbb {R}}\) and for all \(\xi \in {\mathbb {R}}^N\).

(ii)
There exist a function \(\psi \in L^{r'(\cdot )}(\Omega )\) with \(r \in C_+(\overline{\Omega })\) such that \(r(x)<p^*(x)\) for all \(x\in \overline{\Omega }\) and a constant \(a_2> 0\) such that the function \(\xi \mapsto f(x,s,\xi )\psi (x)\) is linear for a. a. \(x\in \Omega \), for all \(s\in {\mathbb {R}}\) and
$$\begin{aligned} f(x,s,\xi )\psi (x)\le a_2\xi  \end{aligned}$$for a. a. \(x\in \Omega \), for all \(s \in {\mathbb {R}}\) and for all \(\xi \in {\mathbb {R}}^N\).

(i)
Example 3.2
The following function satisfies hypotheses (H1)–(H3), where we drop the sdependence:
with \( p^ = 2 \) , \(0 \ne \psi \in L^{2}(\Omega )\) and \(\beta =(\beta _1, \ldots , \beta _N)\in {\mathbb {R}}^N\).
Let
with \(\lambda _1>0\) being the first eigenvalue of the Laplacian with Dirichlet boundary condition given by
Our uniqueness result reads as follows.
Theorem 3.3
Let hypotheses (H1)–(H3) be satisfied and let \( q(x) \equiv 2 \) for all \(x \in \overline{\Omega }\). Then problem (1.1) admits a unique weak solution \(u\in C^{0,\beta }(\overline{\Omega })\) for some \(\beta \in ]0,1]\) for all \(\mu > 0\) and for all \(\lambda \in \,]0, \min \{\lambda ^*,\mu \overline{\lambda }\}[\).
Proof
The existence of a weak solution follows from Theorem 3.1. Let us assume there are two weak solutions \(u,v\in W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) of (1.1). We test the corresponding weak formulations given in (2.4) with \(h=uv\) and subtract these equations. This leads to
First, it is easy to see that the lefthand side of (3.5) can be estimated via
Now we apply the conditions in (H3) along with Hölder’s inequality and (3.4) to the righthand side of (3.5) in order to obtain
From (3.5), (3.6) and (3.7) we conclude that
Since \(\lambda < \mu \overline{\lambda }\), from (3.8) it follows \(u=v\). \(\square \)
Now, we study the asymptotic behavior of problem (1.1) as the parameters \(\mu \) and \(\lambda \) vary in an appropriate range. We introduce the following two sets
First, we show the boundedness of \({\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\lambda )\) and \({\mathcal {S}}(\lambda )\) in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\).
Proposition 3.4
Let hypotheses (H1) and (H2) be satisfied. Then \({\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\lambda )\) is bounded in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) for all \(\mu \ge 0\) and for all \(\lambda \in \,]0, \lambda ^*[\).
Proof
Let \(\mu \ge 0\), \(\lambda \in \,]0, \lambda ^*[\) be fixed and let \(u \in W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) be a solution of problem (1.1). Taking \(h=u\) in the weak formulation in (2.4) and applying (H2)(ii) as well as (3.3), we have
This implies by (2.1) that
It follows that \({\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\lambda )\) is bounded in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\). \(\square \)
Remark 3.5
Since the right hand side in (3.9) does not dependent on \(\mu \), we derive that \({\mathcal {S}}(\lambda )=\cup _{\mu \ge 0} {\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\lambda )\) is bounded in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) for all \(\lambda \in \,]0, \lambda ^*[\).
For a subset \(\Lambda \subset \, ]0, \lambda ^*[\) we associate the following two sets
Remark 3.6
From (3.9) we deduce that \({\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\Lambda )\) is bounded in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) for all \(\mu \ge 0\) whenever \(\sup \Lambda < \lambda ^*\). We also obtain that \({\mathcal {S}}(\Lambda )\) is bounded in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) whenever \(\sup \Lambda < \lambda ^*\). In particular, if \(\Lambda \subset \, ]0, \lambda ^*[\) is a closed subset of \({\mathbb {R}}\), then \({\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\Lambda )\) and \({\mathcal {S}}(\Lambda )\) are bounded in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\).
Now, we consider the limit case of (1.1) as \(\mu \rightarrow 0^+\).
Proposition 3.7
Let hypotheses (H1) and (H2) be satisfied. Further, let \(\{\lambda _n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) \(\subset \,]0, \lambda ^*[\) be a given sequence converging to \(\lambda \in \, ]0, \lambda ^*[\), \(\{\mu _n\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) be a sequence of parameters converging to \(0^+\) and \(\{u_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) be a sequence of solutions to equation (1.1) such that \(u_n \in {\mathcal {S}}_{\mu _n}(\lambda _n)\) for all \(n \in {\mathbb {N}}\). Then there is a subsequence of \(\{u_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) (not relabeled) such that \(u_n \rightarrow u\) in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) with \(u \in W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) being a solution of (1.1).
Proof
Since \(u_n \in {\mathcal {S}}_{\mu _n}(\lambda _n)\) for all \(n \in {\mathbb {N}}\) and \(\Lambda = \{\lambda _n: n \in {\mathbb {N}}\} \cup \{\lambda \}\) is such that \(\sup \Lambda < \lambda ^*\), we deduce by Remark 3.6 that \(\{u_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is bounded in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\). So, we may assume (for a subsequence if necessary) that
for some \(u\in W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\), see Proposition 2.3.
Returning to the proof of Theorem 3.1, from (3.2) we know that
since \(u_n \rightarrow u\) in \(L^{\alpha (\cdot )}(\Omega )\) and by hypothesis (H2)(i).
Now, \(u_n \in {\mathcal {S}}_{\mu _n}(\lambda _n)\) for all \(n \in {\mathbb {N}}\) ensures that
for all \(h\in W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\). Choosing \(h= u_nu \in W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) in (3.10), we deduce that
for all \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\). Consequently, passing to the limit as \(n \rightarrow +\infty \) in (3.11) and using \(\mu _n \rightarrow 0^+\), we obtain
which by the \((\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{+}})\)property of \(A_{p(\cdot )}(\cdot )\) (see Proposition 2.7) results in \(u_n\rightarrow u\) in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\).
Recall that the Nemytskij operator \(N_{f}{:}W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega ) \rightarrow W^{1,p'(\cdot )}(\Omega )\) is bounded and continuous due to hypothesis (H2)(i). Hence, we have
On the other hand,
Therefore, taking the limit in (3.10) as \(n \rightarrow +\infty \), we conclude that \(u\in W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) is a weak solution of (1.1) with \(\mu =0\), that is, a weak solution of the following problem
\(\square \)
Let us now study the case when \(\mu \rightarrow +\infty \).
Proposition 3.8
Let hypotheses (H1) and (H2) be satisfied. Further, let \(\{\lambda _n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) \(\subset \,]0, \lambda ^*[\) be a given sequence with \(\sup _{n \in {\mathbb {N}}} \lambda _n <\lambda ^*\) and \(\{\mu _n\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) be a sequence such that \(\mu _n\rightarrow +\infty \). Then every \(\{u_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) such that \(u_n \in {\mathcal {S}}_{\mu _n}(\lambda _n)\) for all \(n \in {\mathbb {N}}\) converges to zero in \(W_0^{1,q(\cdot )}(\Omega )\).
Proof
Repeating the arguments from the proof of Proposition 3.7 and using again Remark 3.6, we know that \(\{u_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is bounded in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\). Hence,
for some \(u\in W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\)
We can rewrite (3.10) as
for all \(h \in W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\).
For (3.12) we can follow the proof of Proposition 3.7 by changing the roles of \(A_p(\cdot )\) with \(A_q(\cdot )\). We have that \(u_n \rightarrow u\) in \(W_0^{1,q(\cdot )}(\Omega )\). Therefore, taking the limit in (3.12) as \(n \rightarrow +\infty \), we obtain that u is a solution of the equation
Hence, \(u=0\) in \(\overline{\Omega }\). Since our arguments apply to every convergent subsequence of \(\{u_n\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\), we conclude that it holds for the whole sequence. So, we have \(u_n\rightarrow 0\) in \(W^{1,q(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\). \(\square \)
4 Properties of the Solution Sets
In this section we are going to prove some properties of the solution sets introduced in Sect. 3 concerning compactness and closedness. Recall that from Proposition 3.4 and Remarks 3.5, 3.6, we already know the boundedness of \({\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\lambda )\), \({\mathcal {S}}(\lambda )\), \({\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\Lambda )\) and \({\mathcal {S}}(\Lambda )\) in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) for all \(\lambda \in \,]0, \lambda ^*[\) and \(\Lambda \subset \, ]0, \lambda ^*[\) with \(\sup \Lambda < \lambda ^*\).
Proposition 4.1
Let hypotheses (H1) and (H2) be satisfied. Then \({\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\Lambda )\) is compact in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) for all \(\mu \ge 0\) and \(\Lambda \subset \,]0, \lambda ^*[\) being closed in \({\mathbb {R}}\).
Proof
Let \(u \in \overline{{\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\Lambda )} \setminus {\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\Lambda )\). Then there exists a sequence \(\{u_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}} \subset {\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\Lambda )\) such that \(u_n \rightarrow u\).
Claim 1: \({\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\Lambda )\) is closed for all \(\mu \in [0,+\infty [\) and \(\Lambda \subset \,]0, \lambda ^*[\) being closed in \({\mathbb {R}}\).
First we note that for each \(n \in {\mathbb {N}}\) there is \(\lambda _n \in \Lambda \) such that \(u_n \in {\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\lambda _n)\). Since the sequence \(\{\lambda _n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is bounded, we can assume, for a subsequence if necessary, that \(\lambda _n \rightarrow \lambda \in \Lambda \). Since \(u_n \in {\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\lambda _n)\) for all \(n \in {\mathbb {N}}\), we obtain
for all \(h \in W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\). Thus, passing to the limit as \(n \rightarrow +\infty \) in (4.1), it follows that
for all \(h \in W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\). This implies that \(u \in {\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\lambda )\subset {\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\Lambda )\) and so \({\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\Lambda )\) is closed in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\). This proves Claim 1.
Claim 2: Each \(\{u_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}} \subset {\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\Lambda )\) admits a subsequence converging to some \(u \in {\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\Lambda )\).
Remark 3.6 ensures that every sequence \(\{u_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}} \subset {\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\Lambda )\) is bounded. So, we may assume, for a subsequence if necessary, that
for some \(u\in W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\).
Next, let \(\lambda _n \in \Lambda \) be such that \(u_n \in {\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\lambda _n)\) for all \(n \in {\mathbb {N}} \). Returning to the proof of Theorem 3.1, from (3.9) we can deduce that
as \(u_n \rightarrow u\) in \(L^{\alpha (\cdot )}(\Omega )\) along with hypotheses (H2)(i). If we take \(h= u_nu \in W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) in (4.1), we have that
for all \(n \in {\mathbb {N}}\). Passing to the limit as \(n \rightarrow +\infty \) in (4.2) and considering that \(A_q(\cdot )\) is monotone, we obtain
Therefore, \(u_n\rightarrow u\) in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}(\Omega )\) by Proposition 2.7 and so, \(u \in {\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\Lambda )\) by Claim 1. This shows Claim 2.
From Claims 1 and 2 we conclude that \({\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\Lambda )\) is compact in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\). \(\square \)
From the previous proposition, we deduce the following corollary.
Corollary 4.2
Let hypotheses (H1) and (H2) be satisfied. Then \({\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\lambda )\) is compact in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) for all \(\mu \ge 0\) and for all \(\lambda \in \,]0, \lambda ^*[\).
Next, we give a sufficient condition when \({\mathcal {S}}(\Lambda )\) is closed.
Proposition 4.3
Let hypotheses (H1) and (H2) be satisfied. Then \({\mathcal {S}}(\Lambda )\) is closed for all \(\Lambda \subset \,]0, \lambda ^*[\) whenever \(0 \in {\mathcal {S}}(\Lambda )\) and \(\Lambda \) is closed in \({\mathbb {R}}\). In particular, \({\mathcal {S}}(\Lambda ) \cup \{0\}\) is a closed subset of \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) for all \(\Lambda \subset \,]0, \lambda ^*[\) being closed in \({\mathbb {R}}\).
Proof
From Proposition 3.8 we know that \(0 \in \overline{{\mathcal {S}}(\Lambda )}\). So, let \(u \in \overline{{\mathcal {S}}(\Lambda )} \setminus ({\mathcal {S}}(\Lambda ) \cup \{0\})\). We are going to show that \(u \in {\mathcal {S}}(\Lambda )\). Since \(u \in \overline{{\mathcal {S}}(\Lambda )} \setminus ({\mathcal {S}}(\Lambda ) \cup \{0\})\) we can find a sequence \(\{u_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}} \subset {\mathcal {S}}(\Lambda )\) such that \(u_n \rightarrow u\) in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\). First, observe that for every \(n \in {\mathbb {N}}\) there exist \(\mu _n \ge 0\) and \(\lambda _n \in \Lambda \) such that \(u_n \in {\mathcal {S}}_{\mu _n}(\lambda _n)\). This means that
for all \(h \in W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\).
Applying again Proposition 3.8 leads to the fact that \(\{\mu _n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is a bounded sequence and so we can assume that \(\mu _n \rightarrow \mu \) for some \(\mu \in [0,+\infty [\). Since the sequence \(\{\lambda _n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is bounded we can assume that \(\lambda _n \rightarrow \lambda \in \Lambda \). From \(u_n \rightarrow u\), we get that
Therefore, taking the limit in (4.3) as \(n \rightarrow +\infty \), we see that
for all \(h\in W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\). Thus, \(u \in {\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\lambda ) \subset {\mathcal {S}}(\Lambda )\). Consequently, we have that \({\mathcal {S}}(\Lambda )\) is closed whenever \(0 \in {\mathcal {S}}(\Lambda )\), that is, \({\mathcal {S}}(\Lambda ) \cup \{0\}\) is closed in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\). \(\square \)
We have the following corollary.
Corollary 4.4
Let hypotheses (H1) and (H2) be satisfied. Then \({\mathcal {S}}(\lambda )\) is closed for all \(\lambda \in \,]0, \lambda ^*[\) whenever \(0 \in {\mathcal {S}}(\lambda )\). Therefore, \({\mathcal {S}}(\lambda ) \cup \{0\}\) is a closed subset of \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) for all \(\lambda \in \,]0, \lambda ^*[\).
In the last part of this paper, we introduce the setvalued map \({\mathfrak {S}}_\Lambda {:}\,[0, + \infty [ \rightarrow 2^{W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )}\) defined by \({\mathfrak {S}}_\Lambda (\mu )= {\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\Lambda )\) for all \(\mu \in [0, +\infty [\) with \(\Lambda \subset \, ]0, \lambda ^*[\) being closed in \({\mathbb {R}}\). \({\mathfrak {S}}_\Lambda \) is the \(\Lambda \)solution map of (1.1).
We have the following properties of \({\mathfrak {S}}_\Lambda {:}\,[0, + \infty [ \rightarrow 2^{W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )}\).
Proposition 4.5
Let hypotheses (H1) and (H2) be satisfied. Then the setvalued map \({\mathfrak {S}}_\Lambda \) is upper semicontinuous for all \(\Lambda \subset \, ]0, \lambda ^*[\) being closed in \({\mathbb {R}}\).
Proof
The setvalued map \({\mathfrak {S}}_\Lambda \) is upper semicontinuous if for each closed subset C of \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\) the set
is closed in \([0,+\infty [\). To this end, let \(\{\mu _n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}} \subset {\mathfrak {S}}^{}_\Lambda (C)\) be such that \(\mu _n \rightarrow \mu \) in \([0,+\infty [\). Obviously, for every \(n \in {\mathbb {N}}\) there exists \(u_n \in {\mathfrak {S}}_\Lambda (\mu _n) \cap C\). From Remark 3.6 it follows that the sequence \(\{u_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is bounded in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\). Similar to the proof of Proposition 3.7 we can show that \(u_n \rightarrow u\) in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\).
Arguing as in the proof of Proposition 4.3 (since \(u_n \in {\mathcal {S}}_{\mu _n}(\Lambda )\)), we deduce that \(u \in {\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\Lambda )={\mathfrak {S}}_\Lambda (\mu )\). On the other hand, \(u \in C\) since C is closed. Hence, \(\mu \in {\mathfrak {S}}^{}_\Lambda (C)\). This completes the proof. \(\square \)
Proposition 4.6
Let hypotheses (H1) and (H2) be satisfied. Then the setvalued map \({\mathfrak {S}}_\Lambda \) is compact, that is, \({\mathfrak {S}}_\Lambda \) maps bounded sets in \([0,+\infty [\) into relatively compact subsets of \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\).
Proof
Let \(\Theta \subset [0,+ \infty [\) be a bounded set, \(\{u_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}} \subset {\mathfrak {S}}_\Lambda (\Theta )\) and \(\mu _n \in \Theta \) be such that \(u_n \in {\mathcal {S}}_{\mu _n}(\Lambda )\) for all \(n \in {\mathbb {N}}\).
We distinguish the following two situations:
Case 1: If the set \(\{\mu _n \,:\, n \in {\mathbb {N}}\}\) is finite, then there exists some \(\mu \in \Theta \) such that \(\mu =\mu _n\) for infinite values of n. We deduce that \(\{u_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) admits a subsequence \(\{u_{n_k}\}_{k \in {\mathbb {N}}} \subset {\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\Lambda )\). Since \({\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\Lambda )\) is compact, we have that \(\{u_{n_k}\}_{k \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) admits a subsequence converging to some \(u \in {\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\Lambda ) \subset {\mathfrak {S}}_\Lambda (\Theta )\).
Case 2: If the set \(\{\mu _n \,:\, n \in {\mathbb {N}}\}\) has infinite elements, then \(\{\mu _n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) has a convergent subsequence (not relabeled). If we assume that \(\mu _n \rightarrow \mu \) for some \(\mu \in \overline{\Theta }\), then we have
since \(\{u_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is bounded in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\). Then we can show that \(u_n \rightarrow u\) in \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\). It is easy to verify that \(u \in {\mathcal {S}}_\mu (\Lambda )\) and \(u \in \overline{{\mathfrak {S}}_\Lambda (\Theta )}\).
Next, let \(\{u_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) be a sequence in \(\overline{{\mathfrak {S}}_\Lambda (\Theta )} \setminus {\mathfrak {S}}_\Lambda (\Theta )\). From \({\mathfrak {S}}_\Lambda (\Theta ) \subset {\mathcal {S}}(\Lambda )\), we deduce that \(\{u_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}} \subset {\mathcal {S}}(\Lambda )\) and hence it is bounded. This implies that for a subsequence of \(\{u_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) (not relabeled), we have
Therefore, \(u \in \overline{{\mathfrak {S}}_\Lambda (\Theta )}\) and so, \({\mathfrak {S}}_\Lambda (\Theta )\) is a relatively compact subset of \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}_0(\Omega )\). This proves that the setvalued map \({\mathfrak {S}}_\Lambda \) is compact. \(\square \)
References
Averna, D., Motreanu, D., Tornatore, E.: Existence and asymptotic properties for quasilinear elliptic equations with gradient dependence. Appl. Math. Lett. 61, 102–107 (2016)
Bahrouni, A., Rădulescu, V.D., Repovš, D.: Double phase transonic flow problems with variable growth: nonlinear patterns and stationary waves. Nonlinearity 32(7), 2481–2495 (2019)
Cherfils, L., Il’yasov, Y.: On the stationary solutions of generalized reaction diffusion equations with \(p\) &\(q\)Laplacian. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 4(1), 9–22 (2005)
De Figueiredo, D., Girardi, M., Matzeu, M.: Semilinear elliptic equations with dependence on the gradient via mountainpass techniques. Differ. Integral Equ. 17(1–2), 119–126 (2004)
Diening, L., Harjulehto, P., Hästö, P., et al.: Lebesgue and Sobolev Spaces with Variable Exponents, p. 2011. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
El Manouni, S., Marino, G., Winkert, P.: Existence results for double phase problems depending on Robin and Steklov eigenvalues for the \(p\)Laplacian. Adv. Nonlinear Anal. 11(1), 304–320 (2022)
Fan, X., Zhao, D.: On the spaces \(L^{p(x)}(\Omega )\) and \(W^{m, p(x)}(\Omega )\). J. Math. Anal. Appl. 263(2), 424–446 (2001)
Fan, X., Zhang, Q., Zhao, D.: Eigenvalues of \(p(x)\)Laplacian Dirichlet problem. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 302(2), 306–317 (2005)
Fan, X., Zhang, Q.: Existence of solutions for \(p(x)\)Laplacian Dirichlet problem. Nonlinear Anal. 52(8), 1843–1852 (2003)
Faria, L.F.O., Miyagaki, O.H., Motreanu, D.: Comparison and positive solutions for problems with the \((p, q)\)Laplacian and a convection term. Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc. 57(3), 687–698 (2014)
Fragnelli, G., Mugnai, D., Papageorgiou, N.S.: Robin problems for the \(p\)Laplacian with gradient dependence. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S 12(2), 287–295 (2019)
Gasiński, L., Papageorgiou, N.S.: Nonlinear Analysis. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton (2006)
Gasiński, L., Winkert, P.: Existence and uniqueness results for double phase problems with convection term. J. Differ. Equ. 268(8), 4183–4193 (2020)
Harjulehto, P., Hästö, P.: Orlicz Spaces and Generalized Orlicz Spaces. Springer, Cham (2019)
Ho, K., Kim, Y.H., Winkert, P., Zhang, C.: The boundedness and Hölder continuity of solutions to elliptic equations involving variable exponents and critical growth. J. Differ. Equ. 313, 503–532 (2022)
Kováčik, O., Rákosník, J.: On spaces \(L^{p(x)}\) and \(W^{k, p(x)}\). Czechoslov. Math. J. 41(116), 592–618 (1991)
Liu, Z., Papageorgiou, N.S.: Positive solutions for resonant \(( p, q)\)equations with convection. Adv. Nonlinear Anal. 10(1), 217–232 (2021)
Marano, S.A., Winkert, P.: On a quasilinear elliptic problem with convection term and nonlinear boundary condition. Nonlinear Anal. 187, 159–169 (2019)
Motreanu, D., Winkert, P.: Existence and asymptotic properties for quasilinear elliptic equations with gradient dependence. Appl. Math. Lett. 95, 78–84 (2019)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Vetro, C., Vetro, F.: A singular \((p, q)\)equation with convection and a locally defined perturbation. Appl. Math. Lett. 118, 107175 (2021)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Vetro, C., Vetro, F.: Multiple solutions with sign information for semilinear Neumann problems with convection. Rev. Mat. Comput. 33(1), 19–38 (2020)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Winkert, P.: Applied Nonlinear Functional Analysis. An Introduction. De Gruyter, Berlin (2018)
Rădulescu, V.D., Repovš, D.D.: Partial Differential Equations with Variable Exponents. CRC, Boca Raton (2015)
Ruiz, D.: A priori estimates and existence of positive solutions for strongly nonlinear problems. J. Differ. Equ. 199(1), 96–114 (2004)
Wang, B.S., Hou, G.L., Ge, B.: Existence and uniqueness of solutions for the \(p(x)\)Laplacian equation with convection term. Mathematics 8, 1768 (2020)
Zhikov, V.V.: On variational problems and nonlinear elliptic equations with nonstandard growth conditions. J. Math. Sci. 173(5), 463–570 (2011)
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the knowledgeable referee for his/her remarks in order to improve the paper.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
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
Vetro, F., Winkert, P. Existence, Uniqueness and Asymptotic Behavior of Parametric Anisotropic (p, q)Equations with Convection. Appl Math Optim 86, 18 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s0024502209892x
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s0024502209892x
Keywords
 Anisotropic eigenvalue problem
 Anisotropic (p, q)Laplace differential operator
 Asymptotic behavior
 Convection term
 Gradient dependence
 Pseudomonotone operators
 Uniqueness
Mathematics Subject Classification
 35A02
 35B40
 35J15
 35J25
 35J62