Abstract
In this paper, we study a class of (p, q)-Schrödinger–Kirchhoff type equations involving a continuous positive potential satisfying del Pino–Felmer type conditions and a continuous nonlinearity with subcritical growth at infinity. By applying variational methods, penalization techniques and Lusternik–Schnirelman category theory, we relate the number of positive solutions with the topology of the set where the potential attains its minimum values.
Similar content being viewed by others
![](https://media.springernature.com/w215h120/springer-static/image/art%3Aplaceholder%2Fimages/placeholder-figure-springernature.png)
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
1.1 Background and motivations
In this paper, we consider the following class of (p, q)-Schrödinger–Kirchhoff type problems:
where \(\varepsilon >0\) is a small parameter, \(a, b>0\), \(1< p<q<N<2q\), \(\Delta _{r}u={{\,\mathrm{div}\,}}(|\nabla u|^{r-2}\nabla u)\), with \(r\in \{p, q\}\), is the r-Laplacian operator, the potential \(V:{\mathbb {R}}^{N}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) and the nonlinearity \(f:{\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) are continuous functions.
When \(a=b=0\), the equation in (1) becomes a (p, q)-Schrödinger equation of the form
whose study is motivated by the general reaction diffusion system
where \(D(u)= |\nabla u|^{p-2} + |\nabla u|^{q-2}\). This system has a wide range of applications in physics and related sciences such as biophysics, plasma physics and chemical reaction design. In these applications, the function u describes a concentration; the first term on the right-hand side of (2) corresponds to the diffusion with a diffusion coefficient Du, whereas the second one is the reaction and relates to source and loss processes. Typically, in chemical and biological applications, the reaction term c(x, u) has a polynomial form with respect to the concentration u; see [14] for more details about the applications.
We point out that several existence, multiplicity and regularity results for (2) have been established in these last years by several authors. In [28], the authors established some regularity results for (2). By combining concentration-compactness principle and mountain pass theorem, an existence result has been obtained in [29]. The author in [22] proved the existence of a ground-state positive solution for a (p, q)-Schrödinger equation with critical growth. The multiplicity and concentration of nontrivial solutions for (2) have been established in [3]. The authors in [39] combined refined variational methods based on critical point theory with Morse theory and truncation techniques to obtain a multiplicity result for a (p, q)-Laplacian problem in bounded domains. For other interesting results, one can consult [2, 7, 8, 34, 40, 44] and references therein.
When \(p=q\), (2) boils down a p-Schrödinger equation of the type
for which different and interesting results have been obtained in the literature; see for instance [3, 4, 19, 23, 52]. Note that, in the case \(p=q=2\), Eq. (3) reduces to the well-known Schrödinger equation which has been widely studied in the last three decades; see for example [18, 25, 43, 48, 50].
When \(a=b\ne 0\), \(p=q=2\) and \(N=3\), problem (1) becomes a Kirchhoff equation of the form
Equation (4) is related to the stationary analog of the Kirchhoff equation [32]
where \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\) is a smooth bounded domain, \(\alpha >0\), \(\beta \ge 0\), and u satisfies some boundary conditions, which was proposed by Kirchhoff in 1883 as a nonlinear extension of D’Alembert’s wave equation for free vibration of elastic strings
Here, \(u=u(x, t)\) is the transverse string displacement at the space coordinate x and the time t, L is the length of the string, h is the area of the cross section, E is the Young’s modulus of the material, \(\rho \) is the mass density and \(p_{0}\) is the initial axial tension.
From a purely mathematical point of view, it is important to mention that the early studies dedicated to the Kirchhoff equation (5) were given by Bernstein [10] and Pohozaev [42]. However, the Kirchhoff equation (5) began to attract the attention of more researchers only after the paper by Lions [36], in which a functional analysis approach was proposed to attack it. For some interesting results on Kirchhoff problems, we refer to [13, 24, 30, 41, 49].
Finally, if \(a=b \ne 0\), \(p=q>1\) and \(N=3\) in (1), we have the following p-Laplacian Kirchhoff type equation
which has been investigated in several works; see for instance [15, 16, 27, 35, 51].
Due to the interest shared by the mathematical community toward quasilinear problems and Kirchhoff type equations, in [12, 31], the authors studied Kirchhoff type equations involving the (p, q)-Laplacian operator with \(p\ne q\), in a bounded domain and in the whole of \({\mathbb {R}}^3\), respectively.
Motivated by the above works, the purpose of this paper is to study the multiplicity and the concentration of solutions for (1).
1.2 Assumptions and main result
For simplicity, we assume that \(a=b=1\) in (1). Let us now introduce the hypotheses on the potential V and the nonlinearity f that we are going to consider throughout the paper.
Let \(V:{\mathbb {R}}^{N}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) be a continuous function that satisfies the following assumptions due to del Pino–Felmer [18]:
- \((V_1)\):
-
there exists \(V_{0}>0\) such that \(\displaystyle {V_{0}=\inf _{x\in {\mathbb {R}}^{N}} V(x)}\);
- \((V_2)\):
-
there exists an open bounded set \(\Lambda \subset {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} V_{0}< \min _{\partial \Lambda } V \quad {\text { and }} \quad 0\in M=\{x\in \Lambda : V(x)=V_{0}\}. \end{aligned}$$
Assume that \(f: {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) is a continuous function such that \(f(t)=0\) for \(t\le 0\) and fulfills the following hypotheses:
- \((f_{1})\):
-
\(\displaystyle {\lim _{|t|\rightarrow 0} \frac{|f(t)|}{|t|^{2p-1}}=0}\);
- \((f_{2})\):
-
there exists \(\nu \in (2q, q^{*})\) such that \(\displaystyle {\lim _{|t|\rightarrow \infty } \frac{|f(t)|}{|t|^{\nu -1}}=0}\), where \(q^{*}= \frac{Nq}{N-q}\);
- \((f_{3})\):
-
there exists \(\mu \in (2q, \nu )\) such that \(\displaystyle {0<\mu F(t)= \mu \int _{0}^{t} f(\tau ) \, {\text {d}}\tau \le t f(t)}\) for all \(t>0\);
- \((f_{4})\):
-
the map \(t\mapsto \displaystyle {\frac{f(t)}{t^{2q-1}}}\) is increasing for \(t>0\).
In order to give the precise statement of our main theorem, let us recall that, for any closed subset Y of a topological space X, the Lusternik–Schnirelman category of Y in X, \(cat_{X}(Y)\), stands for the least number of closed and contractible sets in X which cover Y; see [50]. Then, we can state the following result.
Theorem 1
Let V satisfy \((V_{1})\) and \((V_{2})\), and let f be a continuous function such that the hypotheses \((f_{0})\)–\((f_{4})\) hold. Then, for any \(\delta >0\) such that
there exists \(\varepsilon _{\delta }>0\) such that, for any \(\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon _{\delta })\), problem (1) has at least \(cat_{M_{\delta }}(M)\) positive solutions. Moreover, if \(u_{\varepsilon }\) denotes one of these solutions and \(x_{\varepsilon }\in {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\) is a global maximum point of \(u_{\varepsilon }\), then
1.3 Main difficulties and ideas
Due to the lack of information about the behavior of the potential V at infinity and the fact that our problem is set in an unbounded domain, we adapt the local mountain pass argument introduced by del Pino and Felmer [18]. It consists in making a suitable modification on f, solving a modified problem, whose corresponding energy functional has a nice geometric structure, and then checking that, for \(\varepsilon >0\) small enough, the solutions of the new problem are indeed solutions of the original one. We note that, because of the presence of the (p, q)-Laplacian operators and Kirchhoff terms, even for the corresponding modified energy functional, it is hard to obtain compactness, and an accurate analysis will be done to prove a first existence result for the modified problem; see Lemmas 5, 6 and 7. Secondly, we make use of a technique given by Benci and Cerami [9] to establish a relationship between the category of the set M and the number of solutions for the modified problem. We underline that, since f is merely continuous, standard \({\mathcal {C}}^{1}\)-Nehari manifold arguments as in [2,3,4,5, 30, 50] do not work in our setting, and so we take advantage of some abstract results due to Szulkin and Weth [46]. Note that, this type of approach has been also used in [24] where a Schrödinger–Kirchhoff elliptic equation was considered. Clearly, with respect to [24], a more careful analysis will be needed and some refined estimates will be used to overcome some technical difficulties. Finally, to obtain a uniform \(L^{\infty }\)-estimate for an appropriate translated sequence of solutions to the modified problem, we do not use the classical Moser iteration argument [38] as in [3, 19, 23, 24, 30], because such technique does not seem to work well in our situation, but we follow some arguments found in [2, 21, 26, 33] which are inspired by the well-known method pioneered by De Giorgi [17]; see Lemma 15.
As far as we know, all results presented in this work are new in the literature. Moreover, we believe that the ideas developed here can be applied in other situation to study (p, q)-Schrödinger–Kirchhoff type problems involving potentials satisfying local conditions and continuous nonlinearities.
The outline of the paper is the following. In Sect. 2, we introduce the modified problem. Section 3 is devoted to the study of the autonomous problem associated with (1). In Sect. 4, we prove a multiplicity result for the modified problem. The proof of Theorem 1 is given in Sect. 5.
2 The modified problem
2.1 Notations and preliminary results
In order to simplify the presentation, we denote by C a generic positive constant, which may change from line to line, but does not depend on crucial quantities. Let A be a measurable subset of \({\mathbb {R}}^{N}\). By \(A^{c},\) we denote the complement of A. Let \(1\le r\le \infty \). We will use the notation \(|\cdot |_{L^{r}(A)}\) for the norm in \(L^{r}(A)\), and when \(A={\mathbb {R}}^{N},\) we simply write \(|\cdot |_{r}\). By \({\mathcal {B}}_{r}(x_{0}),\) we indicate the open ball in \({\mathbb {R}}^{N}\) centered at \(x_{0}\in {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\) and radius \(r>0\). In the case \(x_{0}=0,\) we simply write \({\mathcal {B}}_{r}\).
Let \(1<r<\infty \) and \(N>r\). By \({\mathcal {D}}^{1, r}({\mathbb {R}}^{N}),\) we mean the closure of \({\mathcal {C}}^{\infty }_{c}({\mathbb {R}}^{N})\) functions with respect to the norm
By \(W^{1, r}({\mathbb {R}}^{N}),\) we denote the Sobolev space equipped with the norm
The following embeddings are well known.
Theorem 2
[1] Let \(p\in (1, \infty )\) and \(N>p\). Then, there exists a constant \(S_{*}>0\) such that, for any \(u\in {\mathcal {D}}^{1, p}({\mathbb {R}}^{N})\),
Moreover, \(W^{1, p}({\mathbb {R}}^{N})\) is continuously embedded in \(L^{t}({\mathbb {R}}^{N})\) for any \(t\in [p, p^{*}]\) and compactly in \(L^{t}({\mathcal {B}}_{R})\), for all \(R>0\) and any \(t\in [1, p^{*})\).
For the reader’s convenience, we also recall the following vanishing lemma.
Lemma 1
[37] Let \(p\in (1, \infty )\), \(N>p\) and \(r\in [p, p^{*})\). If \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is a bounded sequence in \(W^{1, p}({\mathbb {R}}^{N})\) and if
where \(R>0\), then \(u_{n}\rightarrow 0\) in \(L^{t}({\mathbb {R}}^{N})\) for all \(t\in (p, p^{*})\).
Let \(p, q\in (1, \infty )\) and set
endowed with the norm
For any \(\varepsilon >0\), we introduce the space
endowed with the norm
where
Finally, we recall the following well-known elementary inequalities [45] which will be used in the sequel: for any \(\xi , \eta \in {\mathbb {R}}^{N},\) we have
for some \(c_{1}, c_{2}>0\) constants. In particular,
Note that, when \(1<r<2\) using (8) and the following elementary inequality
we deduce that there exists \(c_{3}>0\) such that for any \(\xi , \eta \in {\mathbb {R}}^{N},\) the following relation satisfies
2.2 The penalization approach
To deal with (1), we use a del Pino–Felmer penalization type approach [18]. Firstly, we note that the map \(t\mapsto \frac{f(t)}{t^{p-1}+t^{q-1}}\) is increasing in \((0, \infty )\). Indeed, once we write
then, by \((f_{4}),\) we know that \(t\mapsto \frac{f(t)}{t^{2q-1}}\) is increasing in \((0, \infty )\), and since \(2q>p,\) we deduce that \(t\mapsto \frac{t^{2q-1}}{t^{p-1}+t^{q-1}}\) is increasing in \((0, \infty )\).
Take
and let \(a>0\) be such that
Consider the function \({\tilde{f}}: {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) given by
Denote by \(\chi _{A}\) the characteristic function of \(A\subset {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\), and define the function \(g: {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\times {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) as
Using the hypotheses on f, we infer that g is a Carathéodory function such that
- \((g_1)\):
-
\(\displaystyle \lim _{t\rightarrow 0} \frac{g(x,t)}{t^{2p-1}}=0\) uniformly with respect to \(x\in {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\),
- \((g_2)\):
-
\(g(x,t)\le f(t)\) for all \(x\in {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\) and \(t>0\),
- \((g_3)\):
-
(i) \(\displaystyle 0< \mu G(x,t) \le g(x,t)t\) for all \(x\in \Lambda \) and \(t>0\), where \(\displaystyle G(x, t)= \int _{0}^{t} g(x, \tau )\, {\text {d}}\tau \),
(ii) \(\displaystyle 0\le pG(x,t) \le g(x,t)t\le \frac{V_{0}}{{\mathrm{K}}} (t^{p}+t^{q})\) for all \(x\in \Lambda ^{c}\) and \(t>0\),
- \((g_4)\):
-
for each \(x\in \Lambda, \) the function \(t\mapsto \displaystyle \frac{g(x,t)}{(t^{p-1}+t^{q-1})}\) is increasing in \((0, \infty )\), and for each \(x\in \Lambda ^{c},\) the function \(t\mapsto \displaystyle \frac{g(x,t)}{(t^{p-1}+t^{q-1})}\) is increasing in (0, a).
We point that, from \((g_{1})\), \((g_{2})\), \((f_{1})\) and \((f_{2})\), for any \(\zeta >0,\) there exists \(C_{\zeta }>0\) such that
Let us introduce the following auxiliary problem:
Define the set \(\Lambda _{\varepsilon }=\{x\in {\mathbb {R}}^{N} \, : \, \varepsilon x\in \Lambda \}\). We underline that if \(u_{\varepsilon }\) is a solution to (12) satisfying \(u_{\varepsilon }(x)\le a\) for all \(x\in \Lambda _{\varepsilon }^{c}\), then \(u_{\varepsilon }\) is also a solution to (1).
Let us introduce the functional \({L}_{\varepsilon }: {\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) associated with (12), that is
We note that \({L}_{\varepsilon }\in {\mathcal {C}}^{1}({\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }, {\mathbb {R}})\) and
for any \(u, \varphi \in {\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\).
The Nehari manifold associated with \({L}_{\varepsilon }\) is given by
and let
Let \({\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }=\left\{ u\in {\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }: \Vert u\Vert _{{\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }}=1 \right\} \) be the unit sphere in \({\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\), and set \({\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}={\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }\cap {\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\), where \({\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\) stands for the open set
Note that, \({\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\) is an incomplete \({\mathcal {C}}^{1,1}\)-manifold of codimension one. Hence, for all \(u\in {\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\), \({\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }=T_{u}{\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\oplus {\mathbb {R}}u\), where
First, we show that \({L}_{\varepsilon }\) has a mountain pass geometry [6].
Lemma 2
The functional \({L}_{\varepsilon }\) has the following properties:
-
(i)
There exist \(\alpha , \rho >0\) such that \({L}_{\varepsilon }(u) \ge \alpha \) for \(\Vert u\Vert _{{\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }}= \rho \).
-
(ii)
There exists \(e\in {\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\) with \(\Vert e\Vert _{{\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }}>\rho \) and \({L}_{\varepsilon }(e)<0\).
Proof
(i) Fix \(\zeta \in (0, V_{0})\). From (11), we have
Choosing \(\Vert u\Vert _{{\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }}=\rho \in (0, 1)\) and using \(1<p<q\), we have \(\Vert u\Vert _{V_{\varepsilon },p}<1\) and thus \(\Vert u\Vert ^{p}_{V_{\varepsilon },p}\ge \Vert u\Vert ^{q}_{V_{\varepsilon },p}\). Recalling that
and using Theorem 2, we find
Since \(\nu >q\), there exists \(\alpha >0\) such that \({L}_{\varepsilon }(u)\ge \alpha \) for \(\Vert u\Vert _{{\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }}= \rho \).
(ii) By \((f_{3}),\) we deduce that
Then, for all \(u\in {\mathbb {W}}^{+}_{\varepsilon }\) and \(t>0\), we have
and observing that \(\mu>2q>2p\) we deduce that \({L}_{\varepsilon }(tu) \rightarrow -\infty \) as \(t\rightarrow \infty \). \(\square \)
In order to overcome the non-differentiability of \({\mathcal {N}}_{\varepsilon }\) and the incompleteness of \({\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\), we prove the following results.
Lemma 3
Under the assumptions \((V_1)\)–\((V_2)\) and \((f_1)\)–\((f_4)\), the following properties hold:
-
(i)
For each \(u\in {\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\), there exists a unique \(t_{u}>0\) such that if \(\alpha _{u}(t)={L}_{\varepsilon }(tu)\), then \(\alpha '_{u}(t)>0\) for \(0<t<t_{u}\) and \(\alpha '_{u}(t)<0\) for \(t>t_{u}\).
-
(ii)
There exists \(\tau >0\) independent of u such that \(t_{u}\ge \tau \) for any \(u\in {\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\) and for each compact set \({\mathcal {W}}\subset {\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\), there is a positive constant \(C_{{\mathcal {W}}}\) such that \(t_{u}\le C_{{\mathcal {W}}}\) for any \(u\in {\mathcal {W}}\).
-
(iii)
The map \({\hat{m}}_{\varepsilon }: {\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\rightarrow {\mathcal {N}}_{\varepsilon }\) given by \({\hat{m}}_{\varepsilon }(u)= t_{u}u\) is continuous and \(m_{\varepsilon }= {\hat{m}}_{\varepsilon }|_{{\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}}\) is a homeomorphism between \({\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\) and \({\mathcal {N}}_{\varepsilon }\). Moreover, \(m_{\varepsilon }^{-1}(u)=\frac{u}{\Vert u\Vert _{{\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }}}\).
-
(iv)
If there is a sequence \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\) such that \({\mathrm{dist}}(u_{n}, \partial {\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+})\rightarrow 0,\) then \(\Vert m_{\varepsilon }(u_{n})\Vert _{{\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }}\rightarrow \infty \) and \({L}_{\varepsilon }(m_{\varepsilon }(u_{n}))\rightarrow \infty \).
Proof
(i) Similar to the proof of Lemma 2, we can see that \(\alpha _{u}(0)=0\), \(\alpha _{u}(t)>0\) for \(t>0\) small enough and \(\alpha _{u}(t)<0\) for \(t>0\) sufficiently large. Then, there exists a global maximum point \(t_{u}>0\) for \(\alpha _{u}\) in \([0, \infty )\) such that \(\alpha _{u}'(t_{u})=0\) and \(t_{u}u \in {\mathcal {N}}_{\varepsilon }\). We claim that \(t_{u}>0\) is unique. We argue by contradiction and suppose that there exist \(t_{1}> t_{2}>0\) such that \(\alpha _{u}'(t_{1})=\alpha _{u}'(t_{2})=0\). Therefore,
and
From the definition of g, \((g_4)\) and \((f_4)\), we get
Multiplying both sides by \(\frac{(t_{1}t_{2})^{2q-p}}{t_{2}^{2q-p}- t_{1}^{2q-p}}<0\) (since \(t_{1}>t_{2}\)), we have
where we used the fact that \((f_4)\) and our choice of the constant a give
Since \(u\ne 0\) and \({K}>1\), we get a contradiction.
(ii) Let \(u\in {\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\). Using (i), we can find \(t_{u}>0\) such that \(\alpha _{u}'(t_{u})=0\), that is
Fix \(\zeta >0\). By (11) and Theorem 2, we have
Taking \(\zeta >0\) sufficiently small, we find
Now, if \(t_{u}\le 1\), then \(t_{u}^{q-1}\le t_{u}^{p-1}\), and using the facts that \(1=\Vert u\Vert _{{\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }}\ge \Vert u\Vert _{V_{\varepsilon },p}\) and \(q>p\) imply that \(\Vert u\Vert _{V_{\varepsilon },p}^{p}\ge \Vert u\Vert ^{q}_{V_{\varepsilon },p}\), we can see that
Thanks to \(\nu >q\), we can find \(\tau >0\), independent of u, such that \(t_{u}\ge \tau \).
When \(t_{u}>1\), then \(t_{u}^{q-1}>t_{u}^{p-1}\), and noting that \(1=\Vert u\Vert _{{\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }}\ge \Vert u\Vert _{V_{\varepsilon },p}\) and \(q>p\) imply \(\Vert u\Vert _{V_{\varepsilon },p}^{p}\ge \Vert u\Vert ^{q}_{V_{\varepsilon },p}\), we obtain
Since \(\nu>q>p\), there exists \(\tau >0\), independent of u, such that \(t_{u}\ge \tau \).
Now, let \({\mathcal {W}}\subset {\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\) be a compact set and assume by contradiction that there exists a sequence \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathcal {W}}\) such that \(t_{n}=t_{u_{n}}\rightarrow \infty \). Then, there exists \(u\in {\mathcal {W}}\) such that \(u_{n}\rightarrow u\) in \({\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\). From (ii) of Lemma 2, we have that
On the other hand, if \(v\in {\mathcal {N}}_{\varepsilon }\), by \(\langle {L}_{\varepsilon }'(v), v \rangle =0\) and \((g_{3})\), we have that
Taking \(v_{n}=t_{u_{n}}u_{n}\in {\mathcal {N}}_{\varepsilon }\) in the above inequality, we find
Since \(\Vert v_{n}\Vert _{{\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }}=t_{n}\rightarrow \infty \) and \(\Vert v_{n}\Vert _{{\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }}=\Vert v_{n}\Vert _{\varepsilon ,p}+\Vert v_{n}\Vert _{\varepsilon ,q}\), we can use (13) to get a contradiction.
(iii) Let us observe that \({\hat{m}}_{\varepsilon }\), \(m_{\varepsilon }\) and \(m_{\varepsilon }^{-1}\) are well defined. Indeed, by (i), for each \(u\in {\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }^{+},\) there is a unique \(m_{\varepsilon }(u)\in {\mathcal {N}}_{\varepsilon }\). On the other hand, if \(u\in {\mathcal {N}}_{\varepsilon },\) then \(u\in {\mathbb {W}}^{+}_{\varepsilon }\). Otherwise, we have
and by \((g_3)\)-(ii), we deduce that
which is impossible due to \({K}>1\) and \(u\ne 0\). Therefore, \(m_{\varepsilon }^{-1}(u)= \frac{u}{\Vert u\Vert _{{\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }}}\in {\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\) is well defined and continuous. From
we infer that \(m_{\varepsilon }\) is a bijection. To prove that \({\hat{m}}_{\varepsilon }: {\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\rightarrow {\mathcal {N}}_{\varepsilon }\) is continuous, let \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\) and \(u\in {\mathbb {W}}^{+}_{\varepsilon }\) be such that \(u_{n}\rightarrow u\) in \({\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\). Since \({\hat{m}}(tu)={\hat{m}}(u)\) for all \(t>0\), we may assume that \(\Vert u_{n}\Vert _{{\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }}=\Vert u\Vert _{{\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }}=1\) for all \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\). By (ii), there exists \(t_{0}>0\) such that \(t_{n}=t_{u_{n}}\rightarrow t_{0}\). Since \(t_{n}u_{n}\in {\mathcal {N}}_{\varepsilon }\),
and passing to the limit as \(n\rightarrow \infty, \) we obtain
which yields \(t_{0}u\in {\mathcal {N}}_{\varepsilon }\). From (i), \(t_{u}= t_{0}\), and this means that \({\hat{m}}_{\varepsilon }(u_{n})\rightarrow {\hat{m}}_{\varepsilon }(u)\) in \({\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\). Thus, \({\hat{m}}_{\varepsilon }\) and \(m_{\varepsilon }\) are continuous functions.
(iv) Let \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\) be a sequence such that \({\mathrm{dist}}(u_{n}, \partial {\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+})\rightarrow 0\). Then, for each \(v\in \partial {\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\) and \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\), we have \(u_{n}^{+}\le |u_{n}-v|\) a.e. in \(\Lambda _{\varepsilon }\). Therefore, by \((V_1)\), \((V_2)\) and Theorem 2, we can see that for each \(r\in [p, q^{*}_{s}],\) there exists \(C_{r}>0\) such that
By virtue of \((g_{1})\), \((g_{2})\), \((g_{3})\)-(ii) and \(q>p\), we get, for all \(t>0\),
Therefore,
Now, we note that \({K}>1\), and that \(1=\Vert u_{n}\Vert _{{\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }}\ge \Vert u_{n}\Vert _{V_{\varepsilon },p}\) implies that \(\Vert u_{n}\Vert ^{p}_{V_{\varepsilon },p}\ge \Vert u_{n}\Vert ^{q}_{V_{\varepsilon },p}\). Then, for all \(t>1\), we obtain that
Bearing in mind the definition of \(m_{\varepsilon }(u_{n})\) and using (14), (15), we find
By sending \(t\rightarrow \infty \), we get \({L}_{\varepsilon }(m_{\varepsilon }(u_{n}))\rightarrow \infty \) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). On the other hand, by the definition of \({L}_{\varepsilon }\), we see that for all \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\)
which implies that \(\Vert m_{\varepsilon }(u_{n})\Vert _{{\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }}\rightarrow \infty \) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). \(\square \)
Remark 1
If \(u\in {\mathcal {N}}_{\varepsilon }\), it follows from (11) and Theorem 2 that
Choosing \(\zeta \in (0, V_{0})\) we find \(\Vert u\Vert _{V_{\varepsilon },q}\ge \kappa =(C'_{\zeta })^{-\frac{1}{q^{*}-q}}\) which implies that \(\Vert u\Vert _{\varepsilon }\ge \Vert u\Vert _{V_{\varepsilon },q}\ge \kappa \).
Define the maps
by \({\hat{\psi }}_{\varepsilon }(u)= {L}_{\varepsilon }({\hat{m}}_{\varepsilon }(u))\) and \(\psi _{\varepsilon }={\hat{\psi }}_{\varepsilon }|_{{\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}}\). From Lemma 3 and arguing as in the proofs of Proposition 9 and Corollary 10 in [46], we may obtain the following result.
Proposition 1
Assume that \((V_{1})\)–\((V_{2})\) and \((f_{1})\)–\((f_{4})\) are satisfied. Then,
-
(a)
\({\hat{\psi }}_{\varepsilon } \in {\mathcal {C}}^{1}({\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}, {\mathbb {R}})\) and
$$\begin{aligned} \langle {\hat{\psi }}_{\varepsilon }'(u), v\rangle = \frac{\Vert {\hat{m}}_{\varepsilon }(u)\Vert _{{\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }}}{\Vert u\Vert _{{\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }}} \langle {L}_{\varepsilon }'({\hat{m}}_{\varepsilon }(u)), v\rangle \quad {\text { for all }} u\in {\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}, v\in {\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }. \end{aligned}$$ -
(b)
\(\psi _{\varepsilon } \in {\mathcal {C}}^{1}({\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}, {\mathbb {R}})\) and
$$\begin{aligned} \langle \psi _{\varepsilon }'(u), v \rangle = \Vert m_{\varepsilon }(u)\Vert _{{\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }} \langle {L}_{\varepsilon }'(m_{\varepsilon }(u)), v\rangle , \quad {\text { for all }} v\in T_{u}{\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}. \end{aligned}$$ -
(c)
If \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is a \({\text {(PS)}}_{c}\) sequence for \(\psi _{\varepsilon }\), then \(\{m_{\varepsilon }(u_{n})\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is a \({\text {(PS)}}_{c}\) sequence for \({L}_{\varepsilon }\). If \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathcal {N}}_{\varepsilon }\) is a bounded \({\text {(PS)}}_{c}\) sequence for \({L}_{\varepsilon }\), then \(\{m_{\varepsilon }^{-1}(u_{n})\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is a \({\text {(PS)}}_{c}\) sequence for \(\psi _{\varepsilon }\).
-
(d)
u is a critical point of \(\psi _{\varepsilon }\) if, and only if, \(m_{\varepsilon }(u)\) is a critical point for \({L}_{\varepsilon }\). Moreover, the corresponding critical values coincide and
$$\begin{aligned} \inf _{u\in {\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}} \psi _{\varepsilon }(u)= \inf _{u\in {\mathcal {N}}_{\varepsilon }} {L}_{\varepsilon }(u). \end{aligned}$$
Remark 2
As in [46], we have the following variational characterization of the infimum of \({L}_{\varepsilon }\) over \({\mathcal {N}}_{\varepsilon }\):
Next, we claim that \({L}_{\varepsilon }\) satisfies the Palais–Smale condition. First of all, we have the following result.
Lemma 4
Let \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\) be a \({\text {(PS)}}_{c}\) sequence for \({L}_{\varepsilon }\). Then, \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is bounded in \({\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\).
Proof
From \((g_{3})\), \(q>p\) and \(\mu >2q\), we have that
where \({\tilde{C}}=\left( \frac{1}{q}- \frac{1}{\mu }\right) - \left( \frac{1}{p}- \frac{1}{\mu }\right) \frac{1}{{K}}>0\) since \({K}>\left( \frac{\mu -p}{\mu -q}\right) \frac{q}{p}\).
Now, we assume by contradiction that \(\Vert u_{n}\Vert _{{\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }}\rightarrow \infty \) and consider the following cases:
-
(1)
\(\Vert u_{n}\Vert _{V_{\varepsilon },p}\rightarrow \infty \) and \(\Vert u_{n}\Vert _{V_{\varepsilon }, q}\rightarrow \infty \);
-
(2)
\(\Vert u_{n}\Vert _{V_{\varepsilon },p}\rightarrow \infty \) and \(\Vert u_{n}\Vert _{V_{\varepsilon }, q}\) is bounded;
-
(3)
\(\Vert u_{n}\Vert _{V_{\varepsilon },q}\rightarrow \infty \) and \(\Vert u_{n}\Vert _{V_{\varepsilon }, p}\) is bounded.
In case (1), for n large, we have \(\Vert u_{n}\Vert _{V_{\varepsilon }, q}^{q-p}\ge 1\), that is \(\Vert u_{n}\Vert _{V_{\varepsilon }, q}^{q}\ge \Vert u_{n}\Vert _{V_{\varepsilon }, q}^{p}\). Therefore,
that is an absurd. In case (2), we have
and consequently
Since \(p>1\) and passing to the limit as \(n\rightarrow \infty \), we obtain \(0< {\tilde{C}}\le 0\) which is impossible. The last case is similar to the case (2), so we omit the details. Consequently, \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is bounded in \({\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\). \(\square \)
Lemma 5
Let \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\) be a \({\text {(PS)}}_{c}\) sequence for \({L}_{\varepsilon }\). Then, for any \(\eta >0,\) there exists \(R=R(\eta )>0\) such that
Proof
For \(R>0\), let \(\psi _{R}\in {\mathcal {C}}^{\infty }({\mathbb {R}}^{N})\) be such that \(0\le \psi _{R}\le 1\), \(\psi _{R}=0\) in \({\mathcal {B}}_{\frac{R}{2}}\), \(\psi _{R}=1\) in \({\mathcal {B}}_{R}^{c}\), and \(|\nabla \psi _{R}|\le \frac{C}{R}\), for some constant \(C>0\) independent of R. From the boundedness of \(\{\psi _{R}u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) in \({\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\), it follows that \(\langle {L}_{\varepsilon }'(u_{n}), \psi _{R}u_{n}\rangle =o_{n}(1)\), namely
Take \(R>0\) such that \(\Lambda _{\varepsilon }\subset {\mathcal {B}}_{\frac{R}{2}}\). From the definition of \(\psi _{R}\) and \((g_{3})\)-(ii), we see that
Now, using the Hölder inequality and the boundedness of \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) in \({\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\), we have, for \(t\in \{p, q\}\),
which implies that
Thanks to (17) and (18), we deduce that (16) holds true. \(\square \)
Due to the presence of the Kirchhoff terms, the following lemma plays a crucial role to get the strong convergence of bounded Palais–Smale sequences.
Lemma 6
Let \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\) be a \({\text {(PS)}}_{c}\) sequence for \({L}_{\varepsilon }\), and let \(R>0\). Then,
Proof
Take \(\eta _{\rho }\in {\mathcal {C}}^{\infty }({\mathbb {R}}^{N})\) such that
with \(0\le \eta _{\rho }(x)\le 1\) and \(|\nabla \eta _{\rho }|\le \frac{2}{\rho }\). Since \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is bounded in \({\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\) (by Lemma 4), we may assume that
Fix \(R>0\) and take \(\rho >R\). For \(t\in \{p, q\}\) and \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\), define
By (9), we note that \(A_{n}^{t}\ge 0\). Moreover, we see that
Set
and
Then, we have
We note that
and since \(\{u_{n}\eta _{\rho }\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is bounded in \({\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\), we have \(\langle {L}'_{\varepsilon }(u_{n}), u_{n}\eta _{\rho }\rangle =o_{n}(1)\). A direct computation and (20) yield
and so
On the other hand, the weak convergence and (20) imply
Furthermore,
and by (20), (22) and \(\langle {L}'_{\varepsilon }(u_{n}), u\eta _{\rho }\rangle =o_{n}(1)\), we deduce
Finally, from the growth assumptions on g and Theorem 2, we see that
Combining (21), (23), (24), we get
Consequently,
In particular, if \(t\ge 2\), from (7), we have
When \(1<t<2\), by (10) and Hölder inequality, we obtain
Arguing as before, we deduce that for \(t\in \{p, q\}\)
Accordingly, for \(t\in \{p, q\}\), we get
which gives (19). \(\square \)
Now, we show that \({L}_{\varepsilon }\) verifies the Palais–Smale compactness condition.
Lemma 7
\({L}_{\varepsilon }\) satisfies the Palais–Smale condition at any level \(c\in {\mathbb {R}}\).
Proof
Let \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\) be a \({\text {(PS)}}_{c}\) sequence for \({L}_{\varepsilon }\). From Lemma 4, we know that \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is bounded in \({\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\). Up to a subsequence, we may assume that \(u_{n}\rightharpoonup u\) in \({\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\) and \(u_{n}\rightarrow u\) in \(L^{r}_{loc}({\mathbb {R}}^{N})\) for all \(r\in [1, q^{*})\). By Lemma 5, for each \(\eta >0,\) there exists \(R=R(\eta )>\frac{C}{\eta }\), with \(C>0\) independent of \(\eta \), such that (19) is satisfied. This together with Lemma 6 implies that
Since \(R\rightarrow \infty \) when \(\eta \rightarrow 0\), it follows that
and thus
From the Brezis–Lieb lemma [11], we have
and
Therefore,
which yields \(u_{n}\rightarrow u\) in \({\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). \(\square \)
Remark 3
We can assume that any \({\text {(PS)}}\) sequence \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) of \({L}_{\varepsilon }\) is nonnegative. To see this, from \(\langle {L}'_{\varepsilon }(u_{n}), u_{n}^{-}\rangle =o_{n}(1)\) and \(g(\varepsilon x, t)=0\) for \(t\le 0\), we have
where \(u_{n}^{-}=\min \{u_{n}, 0\}\), and then
namely \(u_{n}^{-}\rightarrow 0\) in \({\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\). In particular, \(\{u_{n}^{+}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is bounded in \({\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\). Since \(|\nabla u_{n}|_{t}^{t}=|\nabla u^{+}_{n}|_{t}^{t}+o_{n}(1)\) and \(\Vert u_{n}\Vert _{V_{\varepsilon }, t}=\Vert u_{n}^{+}\Vert _{V_{\varepsilon }, t}+o_{n}(1)\) for \(t\in \{p, q\}\), we deduce that \({L}_{\varepsilon }(u_{n})={L}_{\varepsilon }(u^{+}_{n})+o_{n}(1)\) and \({L}'_{\varepsilon }(u_{n})={L}'_{\varepsilon }(u^{+}_{n})+o_{n}(1)\). Hence, \({L}_{\varepsilon }(u^{+}_{n})\rightarrow c\) and \({L}'_{\varepsilon }(u^{+}_{n})\rightarrow 0\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \).
Corollary 1
The functional \(\psi _{\varepsilon }\) satisfies the Palais–Smale condition on \({\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\) at any level \(c\in {\mathbb {R}}\).
Proof
Let \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathbb {S}}^{+}_{\varepsilon }\) be a Palais–Smale sequence for \(\psi _{\varepsilon }\) at the level c. Then,
By Proposition 1-(c), we see that \(\{m_{\varepsilon }(u_{n})\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\) is a Palais–Smale sequence for \({L}_{\varepsilon }\) at the level c. From Lemma 7, we deduce that \({L}_{\varepsilon }\) satisfies the \({\text {(PS)}}_{c}\) condition in \({\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon }\). Then, up to a subsequence, we can find \(u\in {\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\) such that
In view of Lemma 3-(iii), we conclude that \(u_{n}\rightarrow u\) in \({\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\). \(\square \)
3 The autonomous problem
In this section, we consider the following autonomous problem related to (1):
Set \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}=W^{1, p}({\mathbb {R}}^{N})\cap W^{1, q}({\mathbb {R}}^{N})\) endowed with the norm
where
Let \({\mathcal {L}}_{V_{0}}: {\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) be the energy functional associated with (25), then
It is easy to check that \({\mathcal {L}}_{V_{0}}\in {\mathcal {C}}^{1}({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}, {\mathbb {R}})\) and that
for any \(u, \varphi \in {\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\).
The Nehari manifold \({\mathcal {M}}_{V_{0}}\) associated with \({\mathcal {L}}_{V_{0}}\) is
and we set
Denote by \({\mathbb {S}}_{V_{0}}\) the unit sphere of \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\) and set \({\mathbb {S}}_{V_{0}}^{+}= {\mathbb {S}}_{V_{0}}\cap {\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}^{+}\), where
Note that, \({\mathbb {S}}_{V_{0}}^{+}\) is an incomplete \({\mathcal {C}}^{1,1}\)-manifold of codimension one contained in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}^{+}\). Thus, \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}= T_{u}{\mathbb {S}}_{V_{0}}^{+}\oplus {\mathbb {R}}u\) for each \(u\in {\mathbb {S}}_{V_{0}}^{+}\), where
Arguing as in Sect. 2, we can see that the following results hold.
Lemma 8
Under the assumptions \((f_1)\)-\((f_4)\), the following properties hold:
-
(i)
For each \(u\in {\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}^{+}\), there exists a unique \(t_{u}>0\) such that if \(\alpha _{u}(t)= {\mathcal {L}}_{V_{0}}(tu)\), then \(\alpha '_{u}(t)>0\) for \(0<t<t_{u}\) and \(\alpha '_{u}(t)<0\) for \(t>t_{u}\).
-
(ii)
There exists \(\tau >0\) independent of u such that \(t_{u}\ge \tau \) for any \(u\in {\mathbb {S}}_{V_{0}}^{+}\) and for each compact set \({\mathcal {W}}\subset {\mathbb {S}}_{V_{0}}^{+},\) there is a positive constant \(C_{{\mathcal {W}}}\) such that \(t_{u}\le C_{{\mathcal {W}}}\) for any \(u\in {\mathcal {W}}\).
-
(iii)
The map \({\hat{m}}_{V_{0}}: {\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}^{+}\rightarrow {\mathcal {M}}_{V_{0}}\) given by \({\hat{m}}_{V_{0}}(u)= t_{u}u\) is continuous and \(m_{V_{0}}= {\hat{m}}_{V_{0}}|_{{\mathbb {S}}_{V_{0}}^{+}}\) is a homeomorphism between \({\mathbb {S}}_{V_{0}}^{+}\) and \({\mathcal {M}}_{V_{0}}\). Moreover, \(m_{V_{0}}^{-1}(u)=\frac{u}{\Vert u\Vert _{{\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}}}\).
-
(iv)
If there is a sequence \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathbb {S}}_{V_{0}}^{+}\) such that \({\mathrm{dist}}(u_{n}, \partial {\mathbb {S}}_{V_{0}}^{+})\rightarrow 0,\) then \(\Vert m_{V_{0}}(u_{n})\Vert _{{\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}}\rightarrow \infty \) and \({\mathcal {L}}_{V_{0}}(m_{V_{0}}(u_{n}))\rightarrow \infty \).
Let us consider the maps
defined as \({\hat{\psi }}_{V_{0}}(u)= {\mathcal {L}}_{V_{0}}({\hat{m}}_{V_{0}}(u))\) and \(\psi _{V_{0}}={\hat{\psi }}_{V_{0}}|_{{\mathbb {S}}_{V_{0}}^{+}}\).
Proposition 2
Assume that \((f_{1})\)-\((f_{4})\) are satisfied. Then,
-
(a)
\({\hat{\psi }}_{V_{0}} \in {\mathcal {C}}^{1}({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}^{+}, {\mathbb {R}})\) and
$$\begin{aligned} \langle {\hat{\psi }}_{V_{0}}'(u), v\rangle = \frac{\Vert {\hat{m}}_{V_{0}}(u)\Vert _{{\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}}}{\Vert u\Vert _{{\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}}} \langle {\mathcal {L}}_{V_{0}}'({\hat{m}}_{V_{0}}(u)), v\rangle \quad \forall u\in {\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}^{+}, \forall v\in {\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}. \end{aligned}$$ -
(b)
\(\psi _{V_{0}} \in {\mathcal {C}}^{1}({\mathbb {S}}_{V_{0}}^{+}, {\mathbb {R}})\) and
$$\begin{aligned} \langle \psi _{V_{0}}'(u), v \rangle = \Vert m_{V_{0}}(u)\Vert _{{\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}} \langle {\mathcal {L}}_{V_{0}}'(m_{V_{0}}(u)), v\rangle , \quad \forall v\in T_{u}{\mathbb {S}}_{V_{0}}^{+}. \end{aligned}$$ -
(c)
If \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is a \({\text {(PS)}}_{d}\) sequence for \(\psi _{V_{0}}\), then \(\{m_{V_{0}}(u_{n})\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is a \({\text {(PS)}}_{d}\) sequence for \({\mathcal {L}}_{V_{0}}\). If \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathcal {M}}_{V_{0}}\) is a bounded \({\text {(PS)}}_{d}\) sequence for \({\mathcal {L}}_{V_{0}}\), then \(\{m_{V_{0}}^{-1}(u_{n})\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is a \({\text {(PS)}}_{d}\) sequence for \(\psi _{V_{0}}\).
-
(d)
u is a critical point of \(\psi _{V_{0}}\) if, and only if, \(m_{V_{0}}(u)\) is a nontrivial critical point for \({\mathcal {L}}_{V_{0}}\). Moreover, the corresponding critical values coincide and
$$\begin{aligned} \inf _{u\in {\mathbb {S}}_{V_{0}}^{+}} \psi _{V_{0}}(u)= \inf _{u\in {\mathcal {M}}_{V_{0}}} {\mathcal {L}}_{V_{0}}(u). \end{aligned}$$
Remark 4
As in [46], we have the following characterization of the infimum of \({\mathcal {L}}_{V_{0}}\) over \({\mathcal {M}}_{V_{0}}\):
The next lemma allows us to assume that the weak limit of a \({\text {(PS)}}_{d_{V_{0}}}\) sequence of \({\mathcal {L}}_{V_{0}}\) is nontrivial.
Lemma 9
Let \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\) be a \({\text {(PS)}}_{d_{V_{0}}}\) sequence for \({\mathcal {L}}_{V_{0}}\) such that \(u_{n}\rightharpoonup 0\) in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\). Then, one and only one of the following alternatives occurs:
-
(a)
\(u_{n}\rightarrow 0\) in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\), or
-
(b)
there is a sequence \(\{y_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\) and constants \(R, \beta >0\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} \liminf _{n\rightarrow \infty }\int _{{\mathcal {B}}_{R}(y_{n})} |u_{n}|^{q} \, {\text {d}}x \ge \beta . \end{aligned}$$
Proof
Assume that (b) does not hold. Since \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is bounded in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\), we can apply Lemma 1 to see that
In particular, by \((f_{1})\)–\((f_{2})\), it follows that
Recalling that \(\langle {\mathcal {L}}'_{V_{0}}(u_{n}), u_{n}\rangle =o_{n}(1)\), we have
that is \(\Vert u_{n}\Vert _{{\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}}\rightarrow 0\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) and the item (a) holds true. \(\square \)
Remark 5
From the above result, we deduce that if u is the weak limit of a \({\text {(PS)}}_{d_{V_{0}}}\) sequence for \({\mathcal {L}}_{V_{0}}\), then we can assume \(u\ne 0\). In fact, if \(u_{n}\rightharpoonup 0\) in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\) and, if \(u_{n}\nrightarrow 0\) in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\), by Lemma 9, we can find \(\{y_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\) and \(R, \beta >0\) such that
Set \(v_{n}(x)=u_{n}(x+y_{n})\). Then, using the invariance of \({\mathbb {R}}^N\) by translation, we see that \(\{v_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is a bounded \({\text {(PS)}}_{d_{V_{0}}}\) sequence for \({\mathcal {L}}_{V_{0}}\) such that \(v_{n}\rightharpoonup v\) in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\) for some \(v\ne 0\).
In what follows, we prove the existence of a positive ground-state solution for (25).
Theorem 3
Let \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\) be a Palais–Smale sequence of \({\mathcal {L}}_{V_{0}}\) at the level \(d_{V_{0}}\). Then, there exists \(u\in {\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\setminus \{0\}\) with \(u\ge 0\) such that, up to a subsequence, \(u_{n}\rightarrow u\) in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\). Moreover, u is a positive ground-state solution to (25).
Proof
As in the proof of Lemma 7, we can see that \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is a bounded sequence in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\) so, going if necessary to a subsequence, we may assume that
From Remark 5, we may suppose that \(u\ne 0\). Moreover, we may assume that
Step 1 \(\nabla u_{n}\rightarrow \nabla u\) a.e. in \({\mathbb {R}}^{N}\).
Fix \(\varphi \in {\mathcal {C}}^{\infty }_{c}({\mathbb {R}}^{N})\). Since \(u_{n}\rightharpoonup u\) in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\) and \({\mathcal {L}}'_{V_{0}}(u_{n})\rightarrow 0\), we have that \(\langle {\mathcal {L}}'_{V_{0}}(u_{n})-{\mathcal {L}}'_{V_{0}}(u), (u_{n}-u)\varphi \rangle =o_{n}(1)\). Therefore,
By using (26) and the boundedness of \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\), it is easy to check that, for \(t\in \{p, q\}\),
In particular, from the boundedness of \(\{|\nabla u_{n}|_{t}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) in \({\mathbb {R}}\) together with (28) and (29), we deduce that
Hence, by combining (27)–(33), we have
from which
for \(t\in \{p, q\}\). Now, if \(t\ge 2\), from (7), we get
When \(1<t<2\), from (7), we obtain
Therefore, for \(t\in \{p, q\}\), we have
Then, for some subsequence of \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\), we have \(\nabla u_{n}\rightarrow \nabla u\) a.e. in \({\mathbb {R}}^{N}\).
Step 2 \(|\nabla u_{n}|_{t}\rightarrow |\nabla u|_{t}\) for \(t\in \{p, q\}\).
By Step 1 and Fatou’s lemma, we know that \(|\nabla u|_{p}^{p}\le t_{1}\) and \(|\nabla u|_{q}^{q}\le t_{2}\). Now, we show that
Assume by contradiction that \(|\nabla u|_{p}^{p}<t_{1}\) and \(|\nabla u|_{q}^{q}\le t_{2}\). Since \(\langle {\mathcal {L}}'_{V_{0}}(u_{n}), \varphi \rangle \rightarrow 0\) for all \(\varphi \in {\mathcal {C}}^{\infty }_{c}({\mathbb {R}}^{N})\) and \({\mathcal {C}}^{\infty }_{c}({\mathbb {R}}^{N})\) is dense in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\), we see that
Hence,
which implies that \(\langle {\mathcal {L}}'_{V_{0}}(u), u\rangle <0\). Using \((f_{1})\) and \((f_{2})\), we see that \(\langle {\mathcal {L}}'_{V_{0}}(t_{0}u), t_{0}u\rangle >0\) for some \(0<t_{0}\ll 1\). Then, we can find \(\tau \in (t_{0}, 1)\) such that \(\langle {\mathcal {L}}'_{V_{0}}(\tau u), \tau u\rangle =0\). This fact together with the characterization of \(d_{V_{0}}\), \(t\mapsto \frac{1}{2q} f(t)t-F(t)\) is increasing (by \((f_3)\) and \((f_4)\)), the Fatou’s lemma gives
and this is an absurd. Consequently, \(|\nabla u_{n}|_{t}\rightarrow |\nabla u|_{t}\) for \(t\in \{p, q\}\) and we have \({\mathcal {L}}'_{V_{0}}(u)=0\).
Step 3 u is positive.
Using \(\langle {\mathcal {L}}'_{V_{0}}(u), u^{-}\rangle =0\), where \(u^{-}=\min \{u, 0\}\), and \(f(t)=0\) for \(t\le 0\), we have
which gives \(u^{-}=0\), that is \(u\ge 0\) in \({\mathbb {R}}^{N}\). Therefore, \(u\ge 0\) and \(u\not \equiv 0\) in \({\mathbb {R}}^{N}\). Arguing as in [28], we deduce that \(u\in L^{\infty }({\mathbb {R}}^{N})\cap {\mathcal {C}}^{1, \alpha }_{loc}({\mathbb {R}}^{N})\) and \(|u(x)|\rightarrow 0\) as \(|x|\rightarrow \infty \). By means of the Harnack inequality [47], we conclude that \(u>0\) in \({\mathbb {R}}^{N}\). \(\square \)
The next compactness result will be used in the sequel.
Lemma 10
Let \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathcal {M}}_{V_{0}}\) be a sequence such that \({\mathcal {L}}_{V_{0}}(u_{n})\rightarrow d_{V_{0}}\). Then, \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) has a convergent subsequence in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\).
Proof
By Lemma 8-(iii), Proposition 2-(d) and the definition of \(d_{V_{0}}\) we have that
and
Note that, \((\overline{{\mathbb {S}}}_{V_{0}}^{+}, \delta _{V_{0}})\), where \(\delta _{V_{0}}(u, v)=\Vert u-v\Vert _{{\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}}\), is a complete metric space. Consider the map \({\mathcal {G}}: \overline{{\mathbb {S}}}_{V_{0}}^{+}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\cup \{\infty \}\) given by
By Lemma 8-(iv), \({\mathcal {G}}\in {\mathcal {C}}(\overline{{\mathbb {S}}}_{V_{0}}^{+}, {\mathbb {R}}\cup \{\infty \})\), and by Proposition 2-(d), we have that \({\mathcal {G}}\) is bounded below. Then, we can apply Ekeland’s variational principle [20] to deduce that there exists a sequence \(\{{\hat{v}}_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathbb {S}}_{V_{0}}^{+}\) such that \(\{{\hat{v}}_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is a \({\text {(PS)}}_{d_{V_{0}}}\) sequence for \(\psi _{V_{0}}\) at the level \(d_{V_{0}}\) and \(\Vert {\hat{v}}_{n}-v_{n}\Vert _{{\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}}=o_{n}(1)\). At this point, the proof follows from Proposition 2, Theorem 3, and arguing as in the proof of Corollary 1. \(\square \)
For the minimax levels \(c_{\varepsilon }\) and \(d_{V_{0}}\), we have the following relation.
Lemma 11
\(\lim _{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} c_{\varepsilon }=d_{V_{0}}\).
Proof
By Theorem 3, we know that there exists a positive ground-state \(\omega \) of (25). Define \(\omega _{\varepsilon }(x)= \psi _{\varepsilon }(x)\omega (x)\), where \( \psi _{\varepsilon }(x)= \psi (\varepsilon x)\) with \( \psi \in {\mathcal {C}}^{\infty }_{c}({\mathbb {R}}^{N})\) such that \(0\le \psi \le 1\), \( \psi (x)=1\) if \(|x|\le 1\) and \( \psi (x)=0\) if \(|x|\ge 2\). We also assume that \(\mathrm{supp}( \psi )\subset {\mathcal {B}}_{2}\subset \Lambda \). By the dominated convergence theorem, it follows that
Now, for each \(\varepsilon >0,\) there exists \(t_{\varepsilon }>0\) such that
Consequently, \(\langle {L}_{\varepsilon }'(t_{\varepsilon } \omega _{\varepsilon }), \omega _{\varepsilon }\rangle =0\), that is
Let us prove that \(t_{\varepsilon }\rightarrow t_{0}\in (0, \infty )\). Assume by contradiction that \(t_{\varepsilon }\rightarrow \infty \). Since
using (34), \(p<2q\) and \((f_3)\), we deduce that \(|\nabla \omega |^{2q}_{q}=\infty \) which is impossible. Hence, \(t_{0}\in [0, \infty )\). If by contradiction \(t_{0}=0\), from \((f_1)\) and \((f_2)\), we see that, for \(\zeta \in (0, V_{0})\) fixed, we have
This combined with \(q>p\) gives \(\Vert \omega \Vert ^{p}_{1, p}=0\), that is a contradiction.
Now, letting \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\) in (35), we obtain
Using \(2q>q>p\), \((f_{4})\) and \(\omega \in {\mathcal {M}}_{V_{0}},\) we conclude that \(t_{0}=1\).
Finally, we observe that
Since \(V(\varepsilon \cdot )\) is bounded on the support of \(\omega _{\varepsilon }\), we use the dominated convergence theorem, (34) and the above inequality to see that \(\limsup _{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}c_{\varepsilon }\le d_{V_{0}}\). On the other hand, it follows from \((V_1)\) that \(\liminf _{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}c_{\varepsilon }\ge d_{V_{0}}\). In conclusion, \(\lim _{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}c_{\varepsilon }= d_{V_{0}}\). \(\square \)
4 Multiplicity of solutions to (12)
In this section, we collect some technical results which will be used to implement the barycenter machinery below. Take \(\delta >0\) such that
and choose a non-increasing function \(\eta \in {\mathcal {C}}^{\infty }([0, \infty ), [0, 1])\) such that \(\eta (t)=1\) if \(0\le t\le \frac{\delta }{2}\), \(\eta (t)=0\) if \(t\ge \delta \) and \(|\eta '(t)|\le c\) for some \(c>0\). For any \(y\in M\), we define
and take \(t_{\varepsilon }>0\) satisfying
where \(w\in {\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\) is a positive ground-state solution to (25) whose existence is guaranteed by Theorem 3.
Let \(\Phi _{\varepsilon }: M\rightarrow {\mathcal {N}}_{\varepsilon }\) be given by
By construction, \(\Phi _{\varepsilon }(y)\) has compact support for any \(y\in M\).
Lemma 12
The functional \(\Phi _{\varepsilon }\) verifies the following limit:
Proof
Suppose that the thesis of the lemma is false. Then, we can find \(\delta _{0}>0\), \(\{y_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset M\) and \(\varepsilon _{n}\rightarrow 0\) such that
Now, for each \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\) and for all \(z\in {\mathcal {B}}_{\frac{\delta }{\varepsilon _{n}}}\), we have \(\varepsilon _{n} z\in {\mathcal {B}}_{\delta }\), and so
Using the definition of \(\Phi _{\varepsilon _{n}}(y_{n})\), that \(G=F\) in \(\Lambda \times {\mathbb {R}}\) and taking the change of variable \(z=\frac{\varepsilon _{n}x-y_{n}}{\varepsilon _{n}}\), we have
Our purpose is to show that \(t_{\varepsilon _{n}}\rightarrow 1\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). First, we prove that \(t_{\varepsilon _{n}}\rightarrow t_{0}\in [0, \infty )\). Note that, \(\langle {L}'_{\varepsilon _{n}}(\Phi _{\varepsilon _{n}}(y_{n})),\Phi _{\varepsilon _{n}}(y_{n})\rangle =0\) and \(g=f\) on \(\Lambda \times {\mathbb {R}}\) yield
Since \(\eta (|x|)=1\) for \(x\in {\mathcal {B}}_{\frac{\delta }{2}}\) and \({\mathcal {B}}_{\frac{\delta }{2}}\subset {\mathcal {B}}_{\frac{\delta }{\varepsilon _{n}}}\) for all n large enough, from (38) we deduce that
Then, using \((f_4)\), we obtain
where \(w({\hat{z}})=\min _{z\in {\overline{{\mathcal {B}}}}_{\frac{\delta }{2}}} w(z)>0\) (w is continuous and positive in \({\mathbb {R}}^N\)). If, by contradiction, \(t_{\varepsilon _{n}}\rightarrow \infty \), using \(2q>q>p\) and the dominated convergence theorem, we have
and
On the other hand, condition \((f_3)\) gives
In view of (39), (41) and (42), we obtain an absurd. Therefore, \(\{t_{\varepsilon _{n}}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is bounded, and we may suppose that \(t_{\varepsilon _{n}}\rightarrow t_{0}\) for some \(t_{0}\ge 0\). Taking into account (38), (40), \((f_1)\)–\((f_2)\), we deduce that \(t_{0}\in (0, \infty )\). Now, letting \(n\rightarrow \infty \) in (38), and using (40) and the dominated convergence theorem, we obtain that
Since \(w\in {\mathcal {M}}_{V_0}\), then
Combining the above identities, we find
and using \(2q>q>p\) and \((f_4)\), we deduce that \(t_{0}=1\) and the claim is proved.
By sending \(n\rightarrow \infty \) in (37), we have that
which is in contrast with (36). This completes the proof of the lemma. \(\square \)
Let \(\rho =\rho (\delta )>0\) be such that \(M_{\delta }\subset {\mathcal {B}}_{\rho }\). Define \(\varUpsilon : {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\) as \(\varUpsilon (x)=x\) for \( |x|<\rho \) and \(\varUpsilon (x)=\frac{\rho x}{|x|}\) for \(|x|> \rho \). Finally, we introduce the barycenter map \(\beta _{\varepsilon }: {\mathcal {N}}_{\varepsilon }\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\) given by
Since \(M\subset {\mathcal {B}}_{\rho }\), by the definition of \(\varUpsilon \) and applying the dominated convergence theorem, we conclude that
The next compactness result is fundamental for showing that the solutions of (12) are solutions of (1).
Lemma 13
Let \(\varepsilon _{n}\rightarrow 0\) and \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathcal {N}}_{\varepsilon _{n}}\) be such that \({L}_{\varepsilon _{n}}(u_{n})\rightarrow d_{V_0}\). Then, there exists \(\{{\tilde{y}}_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\) such that \(v_{n}(x)=u_{n}(x+ {\tilde{y}}_{n})\) has a convergent subsequence in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_0}\). Moreover, up to a subsequence, \(\{y_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}=\{\varepsilon _{n}{\tilde{y}}_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is such that \(y_{n}\rightarrow y_{0}\in M\).
Proof
As in the proof of Lemma 7, we can prove that \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is bounded in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\). In view of \(d_{V_0}>0\), we have that \(\Vert u_{n}\Vert _{{\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon _{n}}}\nrightarrow 0\). Arguing as in the proof of Lemma 9 and Remark 5, we can find \(\{{\tilde{y}}_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\) and \(R, \beta >0\) such that
Putting \(v_{n}(x)=u_{n}(x+ {\tilde{y}}_{n})\), we see that \(\{v_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is bounded in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_0}\), and, up to a subsequence, we may suppose that \(v_{n}\rightharpoonup v\not \equiv 0\) in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_0}\). Take \(t_{n}>0\) such that \({\tilde{v}}_{n}=t_{n}v_{n} \in {\mathcal {M}}_{V_0}\) and set \(y_{n}=\varepsilon _{n}{\tilde{y}}_{n}\). Using \(u_{n}\in {\mathcal {N}}_{\varepsilon _{n}}\) and \((g_2)\), we get
Hence,
Moreover, \(\{{\tilde{v}}_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is bounded in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_0}\) and we may suppose that \({\tilde{v}}_{n}\rightharpoonup {\tilde{v}}\). We may assume that \(t_{n}\rightarrow t_{0}\in (0, \infty )\). From the uniqueness of the weak limit, we have that \({\tilde{v}}=t_{0} v\not \equiv 0\). By (44) and Lemma 10, \({\tilde{v}}_{n}\rightarrow {\tilde{v}}\) in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_0}\) and thus \(\displaystyle {v_{n}\rightarrow v}\) in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_0}\). In particular,
Next, we prove that \(\{y_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) admits a bounded subsequence. Assume, by contradiction, that there exists a subsequence of \(\{y_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\), still denoted by itself, such that \(|y_{n}|\rightarrow \infty \). Let \(R>0\) be such that \(\Lambda \subset {\mathcal {B}}_{R}\). Then, for n large enough, we have \(|y_{n}|>2R\), and for each \(x\in {\mathcal {B}}_{\frac{R}{\varepsilon _{n}}}\) we obtain
Then, taking into account that \(v_{n}\rightarrow v\) in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_0}\), the definition of g, and the dominated convergence theorem, we deduce that
which implies that
and this gives a contradiction because of \(v_{n}\rightarrow v\not \equiv 0\) in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_0}\). Therefore, \(\{y_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is bounded in \({\mathbb {R}}^{N}\) and, up to a subsequence, we may assume that \(y_{n}\rightarrow y_{0}\). If \(y_{0}\notin {\overline{\Lambda }}\), we can proceed as above to conclude \(v_{n}\rightarrow 0\) in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_0}\). Hence, \(y\in {\overline{\Lambda }}\). In order to prove that \(V(y_{0})=V_{0}\), we suppose, by contradiction, that \(V(y_{0})>V_{0}\). Then, using \({\tilde{v}}_{n}\rightarrow {\tilde{v}}\) in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_0}\), Fatou’s lemma and the invariance of \({\mathbb {R}}^{N}\) by translations, we deduce that
which yields a contradiction. Thus, \(V(y_{0})=V_{0}\) and \(y_{0}\in {\overline{M}}\). From \((V_2),\) we get that \(y_{0}\notin \partial M\) and so \(y_{0}\in M\). \(\square \)
We now define the following subset of the Nehari manifold
where \(\pi (\varepsilon )=\sup _{y\in M}|{L}_{\varepsilon }(\Phi _{\varepsilon }(y))-d_{V_0}|\). By Lemma 12, we deduce that \(\pi (\varepsilon )\rightarrow 0\) as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\). By the definition of \(\pi (\varepsilon )\), we have that, for all \(y\in M\) and \(\varepsilon >0\), \(\Phi _{\varepsilon }(y)\in {\widetilde{{\mathcal {N}}}}_{\varepsilon }\) and \({\widetilde{{\mathcal {N}}}}_{\varepsilon }\ne \emptyset \).
In what follows, we provide an interesting relation between \(\widetilde{{\mathcal {N}}}_{\varepsilon }\) and the barycenter map.
Lemma 14
For any \(\delta >0\), there holds that
Proof
Let \(\varepsilon _{n}\rightarrow 0\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). By definition, there exists \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\widetilde{{\mathcal {N}}}}_{\varepsilon _{n}}\) be such that
Then, it is enough to find a sequence \(\{y_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset M_{\delta }\) such that
Since \({\mathcal {L}}_{V_{0}}(tu_{n})\le {L}_{\varepsilon _{n}}(tu_{n})\) and \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\widetilde{{\mathcal {N}}}}_{\varepsilon _{n}}\subset {\mathcal {N}}_{\varepsilon _{n}}\), we have that
from which \({L}_{\varepsilon _{n}}(u_{n})\rightarrow d_{V_{0}}\). Then, we can apply Lemma 13 to find \(\{{\tilde{y}}_{n}\}\subset {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\) such that \(y_{n}=\varepsilon _{n}{\tilde{y}}_{n}\in M_{\delta }\) for n large enough. Hence,
Since \(u_{n}(\cdot +{\tilde{y}}_{n})\) strongly converges in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\) and \(\varepsilon _{n}z+y_{n}\rightarrow y\in M_{\delta }\) for all \(z\in {\mathbb {R}}^N\), we deduce that \(\beta _{\varepsilon _{n}}(u_{n})=y_{n}+o_{n}(1)\). Therefore, \(\{y_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\) satisfies the required property and the lemma is proved. \(\square \)
5 Proof of the main result
In this section, we give the proof of the main result of this work. We start by proving a multiplicity result for (12). Note that, since \({\mathbb {S}}^{+}_{\varepsilon }\) is not a complete metric space, we cannot use directly an abstract result as in [2,3,4,5, 23]. However, we can apply the abstract category result in [46] to deduce the following result.
Theorem 4
Assume that \((V_1)\)–\((V_2)\) and \((f_1)\)–\((f_4)\) hold. Then, for any given \(\delta >0\) such that \(M_{\delta }\subset \Lambda \), there exists \({\bar{\varepsilon }}_\delta >0\) such that, for any \(\varepsilon \in (0, {\bar{\varepsilon }}_\delta )\), problem (12) has at least \(cat_{M_{\delta }}(M)\) positive solutions.
Proof
For each \(\varepsilon >0\), we consider \(\gamma _{\varepsilon } : M \rightarrow {\mathbb {S}}_{\varepsilon }^{+}\) given by
By Lemma 12, we get
Hence, there exists \({\hat{\varepsilon }}>0\) such that
for all \(\varepsilon \in (0, {\hat{\varepsilon }})\), in view of \(\psi _{\varepsilon }(M)\subset \widetilde{{\mathcal {S}}}^{+}_{\varepsilon }\). Here, \(\pi (\varepsilon )=\sup _{y\in M}|\psi _{\varepsilon }(\gamma _{\varepsilon }(y))-d_{V_0}|\rightarrow 0\) as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\).
From the above considerations, and using Lemma 12, Lemma 3-(iii), Lemma 14 and (43), we can find \({\bar{\varepsilon }}= {\bar{\varepsilon }}_{\delta }>0\) such that the diagram of continuous mappings below is well defined for \(\varepsilon \in (0, {\bar{\varepsilon }})\):
From (43), we can choose a function \(\varsigma (\varepsilon , y)\) with \(|\varsigma (\varepsilon , y)|<\frac{\delta }{2}\) uniformly in \(y\in M\) and for all \(\varepsilon \in (0, {\bar{\varepsilon }})\), such that \(\beta _{\varepsilon }(\Phi _{\varepsilon }(y))= y+ \varsigma (\varepsilon , y)\) for all \(y\in M\). Therefore, the map \({\mathcal {H}}: [0,1]\times M\rightarrow M_{\delta }\) given by \({\mathcal {H}}(t, y)= y+ (1-t)\varsigma (\varepsilon , y), {\text { with }} (t, y)\in [0,1]\times M\) is a homotopy between \(\beta _{\varepsilon } \circ \Phi _{\varepsilon } = (\beta _{\varepsilon } \circ m_{\varepsilon }) \circ (m_{\varepsilon }^{-1}\circ \Phi _{\varepsilon })\) and the inclusion map \(id: M \rightarrow M_{\delta }\). Consequently,
Applying Corollary 1, Lemma 11, and Theorem 27 in [46], with \(c= c_{\varepsilon }\le d_{V_0}+\pi (\varepsilon ) =d\) and \(K= \gamma _{\varepsilon }(M)\), we deduce that \(\Psi _{\varepsilon }\) has at least \(cat_{\gamma _{\varepsilon }(M)} \gamma _{\varepsilon }(M)\) critical points on \(\widetilde{{\mathcal {S}}}^{+}_{\varepsilon }\). Then, by Proposition 1-(d) and (45), we can infer that \({L}_{\varepsilon }\) admits at least \(cat_{M_{\delta }}(M)\) critical points in \(\widetilde{{\mathcal {N}}}_{\varepsilon }\). \(\square \)
The next result will be crucial to study the behavior of the maximum points of the solutions. The proof is based on some arguments found in [2, 21, 26, 33].
Lemma 15
Let \(\varepsilon _{n}\rightarrow 0\) and \(u_{n}\in \widetilde{{\mathcal {N}}}_{\varepsilon _{n}}\) be a solution to (12). Then, \({L}_{\varepsilon _{n}}(u_{n})\rightarrow d_{V_{0}}\), and there exists \(\{{\tilde{y}}_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\) such that \(v_{n}=u_{n}(\cdot +{\tilde{y}}_{n})\in L^{\infty }({\mathbb {R}}^{N})\) and for some \({\bar{C}}>0\) it holds
Moreover,
Proof
Observing that \({L}_{\varepsilon _{n}}(u_{n})\le d_{V_{0}}+\pi (\varepsilon _{n})\) with \(\pi (\varepsilon _{n})\rightarrow 0\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \), we can repeat the same arguments used at the beginning of the proof of Lemma 13 to show that \({L}_{\varepsilon _{n}}(u_{n})\rightarrow d_{V_{0}}\). Then, applying Lemma 13, there exists \(\{{\tilde{y}}_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\) such that \(v_{n}=u_{n}(\cdot +{\tilde{y}}_{n})\rightarrow v\) in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\) for some \(v\in {\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\setminus \{0\}\) and \(\varepsilon _{n}{\tilde{y}}_{n}\rightarrow y_{0}\in M\).
Let \(x_{0}\in {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\), \(R_{0}>1\), \(0<t<s<1<R_{0}\) and \(\xi \in {\mathcal {C}}^{\infty }_{c}({\mathbb {R}}^{N})\) such that
For \(\zeta \ge 1\), set \(A_{n, \zeta , \rho }= \{x\in {\mathcal {B}}_{\rho }(x_{0})\,: \, v_{n}(x)>\zeta \}\) and
Note that, \(v_{n}\) satisfies
for all \(\eta \in {\mathbb {X}}_{\varepsilon }\), where \(A_{n}= 1+|\nabla v_{n}|_{p}^{p}\) and \(B_{n}=1+|\nabla v_{n}|_{q}^{q}\). Taking \(\eta _{n}= \xi^{q} (v_{n} - \zeta)^{+}\) as test function, we obtain
Let us observe that \(v_{n}\rightarrow v\not \equiv 0\) in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\) so that \(1\le A_{n}\le C_{1}\) and \(1\le B_{n}\le C_{2}\) for some \(C_{1}, C_{2}>0\). Therefore, by \((V_{1})\), we get
Using the growth assumptions on g, for any \(\alpha >0\) there exists \(C_{\alpha }>0\) such that
Then, choosing \(\alpha >0\) sufficiently small, we find
Proceeding similarly to the proof of Lemma 3.4 in [2], we get
Exploiting the definition of \(\xi \), we can infer that
where C does not depend on \(\zeta \) and \(\zeta \ge \zeta _{0}\ge 1\), for some constant \(\zeta _{0}\).
Now, fix \(R_{1}>0\) and define
Then, arguing as in Step 1 in Lemma 3.5 in [2], we can see that for each \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\)
where \(C, \tau >0\) are independent of n and \(A>1\). Since \(v_{n}\rightarrow v\) in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\), we see that
Then, there exists \(n_{0}\in {\mathbb {N}}\) and \(\zeta _{0}^{*}>0\) such that
Exploiting Lemma 4.7 in [33], we have that \(\lim _{j\rightarrow \infty } Q_{j, n}=0\) for \(n\ge n_{0}\). On the other hand,
Hence,
and so, for all \(n\ge n_{0}\),
From the arbitrariness of \(x_{0}\in {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\), we deduce that \(v_{n}(x)\le \frac{\zeta _{0}}{2}\) for a.e. \(x\in {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\) and for all \(n\ge n_{0}\), that is
Setting \({\bar{C}}=\max \left\{ \frac{\zeta _{0}}{2}, |v_{1}|_{\infty }, \dots , |v_{n_{0}-1}|_{\infty } \right\} \), we find that \(|v_{n}|_{\infty }\le {\bar{C}}\) for all \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\). Combining this estimate with the regularity results in [28], we can see that \(\{v_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathcal {C}}^{1, \alpha }_{loc}({\mathbb {R}}^{N})\).
Finally, we show that \(v_{n}(x)\rightarrow 0\) as \(|x|\rightarrow \infty \) uniformly in \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\). Arguing as before, we can see that for each \(\delta >0,\) we have that
Therefore, applying lemma Lemma 4.7 in [33], there exist \(R_{*}>0\) and \(n_{0}\in {\mathbb {N}}\) such that
which yields
Now, increasing \(R_{*}\) if necessary, it holds
This completes the proof of the lemma. \(\square \)
We are now ready to provide the main result of this section.
Proof of Theorem 1
Fix \(\delta >0\) such that \(M_\delta \subset \Lambda \). We first claim that there exists \({\tilde{\varepsilon }}_{\delta }>0\) such that for any \(\varepsilon \in (0, {\tilde{\varepsilon }}_{\delta })\) and any solution \(u_{\varepsilon } \in \widetilde{{\mathcal {N}}}_{\varepsilon }\) of (12), it holds
Suppose, by contradiction, that for some sequence \(\varepsilon _{n}\rightarrow 0\) we can find \(u_{n}=u_{\varepsilon _{n}}\in \widetilde{{\mathcal {N}}}_{\varepsilon _{n}}\) such that \({L}'_{\varepsilon _{n}}(u_{\varepsilon _{n}})=0\) and
As in Lemma 13, we have that \({L}_{\varepsilon _{n}}(u_{n}) \rightarrow d_{V_0}\) and therefore we can use Lemma 13 to find a sequence \(\{{\tilde{y}}_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\) such that \(v_{n}=u_{n}(\cdot +{\tilde{y}}_{n})\rightarrow v\) in \({\mathbb {Y}}_{V_{0}}\) and \(\varepsilon _{n}{\tilde{y}}_{n}\rightarrow y_{0} \in M\).
Take \(r>0\) such that \({\mathcal {B}}_{r}(y_{0})\subset {\mathcal {B}}_{2r}(y_{0})\subset \Lambda \), and so \({\mathcal {B}}_{\frac{r}{\varepsilon _{n}}}(\frac{y_{0}}{\varepsilon _{n}})\subset \Lambda _{\varepsilon _{n}}\). Then, for any \(y\in {\mathcal {B}}_{\frac{r}{\varepsilon _{n}}}({\tilde{y}}_{n})\), it holds
For these values of n, we have that \(\Lambda _{\varepsilon _{n}}^{c}\subset {\mathcal {B}}_{\frac{r}{\varepsilon _{n}}}^{c}({\tilde{y}}_{n})\). In view of (46), there exists \(R>0\) such that
from which
On the other hand, there exists \(\nu \in {\mathbb {N}}\) such that for any \(n\ge \nu \) it holds
Consequently, \(u_{n}(x)<a\) for any \(x\in \Lambda ^{c}_{\varepsilon _{n}}\) and \(n\ge \nu \), which contradicts (48).
Let \({\bar{\varepsilon }}_{\delta }>0\) be given by Theorem 4 and set \(\varepsilon _{\delta }= \min \{{\tilde{\varepsilon }}_{\delta }, {\bar{\varepsilon }}_{\delta }\}\). Take \(\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon _{\delta })\). By Theorem 4, we obtain at least \(cat_{M_{\delta }}(M)\) positive solutions to (12). If \(u_{\varepsilon }\) is one of these solutions, we have that \(u_{\varepsilon }\in \widetilde{{\mathcal {N}}}_{\varepsilon }\), and we can use (47) and the definition of g to deduce that \(g(\varepsilon x, u_{\varepsilon })=f(u_{\varepsilon })\). This means that \(u_{\varepsilon }\) is also a solution of (1). Therefore, (1) has at least \(cat_{M_{\delta }}(M)\) solutions.
Now, we consider \(\varepsilon _{n}\rightarrow 0\) and take a sequence \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathbb {W}}_{\varepsilon _{n}}\) of solutions to (12) as above. In order to study the behavior of the maximum points of \(u_{n}\), we first note that, by the definition of g and \((g_{1})\), there exists \(\sigma \in (0, a)\) sufficiently small such that
As before, we can take \(R>0\) such that
Up to a subsequence, we may also assume that
Otherwise, if this is not the case, we see that \(|u_{n}|_{\infty }<\sigma \). Then, it follows from \(\langle {L}'_{\varepsilon _{n}}(u_{n}), u_{n}\rangle =0\) and (49) that
which implies that \(\Vert u_{n}\Vert _{V_{\varepsilon _{n}},p}^{p}, \Vert u_{n}\Vert _{V_{\varepsilon _{n}},q}^{q}\rightarrow 0\), and thus \({L}_{\varepsilon }(u_{n})\rightarrow 0\). This last fact is impossible because \({L}_{\varepsilon }(u_{n})\rightarrow d_{V_{0}}>0\). Hence, (51) holds.
By virtue of (50) and (51), we can see that if \(p_{n}\) is a global maximum point of \(u_{n}\), then \(p_{n}={\tilde{y}}_{n}+q_{n}\) for some \(q_{n}\in {\mathcal {B}}_{R}\). Recalling that \(\varepsilon _{n}{\tilde{y}}_{n}\rightarrow y_{0}\in M\) and using the fact that \(\{q_{n}\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subset {\mathcal {B}}_{R}\), we obtain that \(\varepsilon _{n}p_{n}\rightarrow y_{0}\). Since V is a continuous function, we deduce that
This completes the proof of Theorem 1. \(\square \)
References
Adams, R.A.: Sobolev Spaces, Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 65. Academic Press, New York (1975)
Alves, C.O., da Silva, A.R.: Multiplicity and concentration of positive solutions for a class of quasilinear problems through Orlicz–Sobolev space. J. Math. Phys. 57, 111502 (2016)
Alves, C.O., Figueiredo, G.M.: Multiplicity of positive solutions for a quasilinear problem in \({\mathbb{R}}^{N}\) via penalization method. Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 5(4), 551–572 (2005)
Alves, C.O., Figueiredo, G.M.: On multiplicity and concentration of positive solutions for a class of quasilinear problems with critical exponential growth in \({\mathbb{R}}^N\). J. Differ. Equ. 246(3), 1288–1311 (2009)
Alves, C.O., Figueiredo, G.M.: Multiplicity and concentration of positive solutions for a class of quasilinear problems. Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 11(2), 265–294 (2011)
Ambrosetti, A., Rabinowitz, P.H.: Dual variational methods in critical point theory and applications. J. Funct. Anal. 14, 349–381 (1973)
Ambrosio, V., Repovš, D.: Multiplicity and concentration results for a \((p, q)\)-Laplacian problem in \({\mathbb{R}}^N\). Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 72, 1–33 (2021)
Bartolo, R., Candela, A.M., Salvatore, A.: On a class of superlinear \((p, q)\)-Laplacian type equations on \({\mathbb{R}}^{N}\). J. Math. Anal. Appl. 438(1), 29–41 (2016)
Benci, V., Cerami, G.: Multiple positive solutions of some elliptic problems via the Morse theory and the domain topology. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 2, 29–48 (1994)
Bernstein, S.: Sur une classe d’équations fonctionnelles aux dérivées partielles. Bull. Acad. Sci. URSS. Sér. Math. [Izvestia Akad. Nauk SSSR] 4, 17–26 (1940)
Brézis, H., Lieb, E.: A relation between pointwise convergence of functions and convergence of functionals. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 88(3), 486–490 (1983)
Cammaroto, F., Vilasi, L.: A critical Kirchhoff-type problem involving the p&q-Laplacian. Math. Nachr. 287(2–3), 184–193 (2014)
Chen, C.-Y., Kuo, Y.-C., Wu, T.-F.: The Nehari manifold for a Kirchhoff type problem involving sign-changing weight functions. J. Differ. Equ. 250(4), 1876–1908 (2011)
Cherfils, L., Il’yasov, V.: On the stationary solutions of generalized reaction diffusion equations with p&q-Laplacian. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 1(4), 1–14 (2004)
Colasuonno, F., Pucci, P.: Multiplicity of solutions for \(p(x)\)-polyharmonic elliptic Kirchhoff equations. Nonlinear Anal. 74(17), 5962–5974 (2011)
Corrêa, F.J., Figueiredo, G.M.: On an elliptic equation of \(p\)-Kirchhoff type via variational methods. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 74(2), 263–277 (2006)
De Giorgi, E.: Sulla differenziabilità e l’analiticità delle estremali degli integrali multipli regolari. Mem. Accad. Sci. Torino. Cl. Sci. Fis. Mat. Nat. 3(3), 25–43 (1957)
Del Pino, M., Felmer, P.L.: Local mountain passes for semilinear elliptic problems in unbounded domains. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 4, 121–137 (1996)
Marcos do Ó, J.: On existence and concentration of positive bound states of \(p\)-Laplacian equations in \({\mathbb{R}}^N\) involving critical growth. Nonlinear Anal. 62, 777–801 (2005)
Ekeland, I.: On the variational principle. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 47, 324–353 (1974)
Fan, X., Zhao, D.: A class of De Giorgi type and Hölder continuity. Nonlinear Anal. Ser. A Theory Methods 36(3), 295–318 (1999)
Figueiredo, G.M.: Existence of positive solutions for a class of p&q elliptic problems with critical growth on \({\mathbb{R}}^N\). J. Math. Anal. Appl. 378, 507–518 (2011)
Figueiredo, G.M., Furtado, M.F.: Positive solutions for a quasilinear Schrödinger equation with critical growth. J. Dyn. Differ. Equ. 24(1), 13–28 (2012)
Figueiredo, G.M., Santos, J.R.: Multiplicity and concentration behavior of positive solutions for a Schrödinger–Kirchhoff type problem via penalization method. ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 20(2), 389–415 (2014)
Floer, A., Weinstein, A.: Nonspreading wave packets for the cubic Schrödinger equation with a bounded potential. J. Funct. Anal. 69(3), 397–408 (1986)
Fusco, N., Sbordone, C.: Some remarks on the regularity of minima of anisotropic integrals. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 18(1–2), 153–167 (1993)
Guo, Y., Nie, J.: Existence and multiplicity of nontrivial solutions for \(p\)-Laplacian Schrödinger–Kirchhoff-type equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 428(2), 1054–1069 (2015)
He, C., Li, G.: The regularity of weak solutions to nonlinear scalar field elliptic equations containing p&q-Laplacians. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. 33(2), 337–371 (2008)
He, C., Li, G.: The existence of a nontrivial solution to the p&q-Laplacian problem with nonlinearity asymptotic to \(u^{p-1}\) at infinity in \({\mathbb{R}}^{N}\). Nonlinear Anal. 68(5), 1100–1119 (2008)
He, Y., Li, G., Peng, S.: Concentrating bound states for Kirchhoff type problems in \({\mathbb{R}}^3\) involving critical Sobolev exponents. Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 14(2), 483–510 (2014)
Isernia, T., Repovš, D.: Nodal solutions for double phase Kirchhoff problems with vanishing potentials. Asymptot. Anal. 1, 1–26 (2020)
Kirchhoff, G.: Mechanik. Teubner, Leipzig (1883)
Ladyzhenskaya, O.A., Ural’tseva, N.N.: Linear and Quasilinear Elliptic Equations. Academic Press, Cambridge (1968)
Li, G., Zhang, G.: Multiple solutions for the p&q-Laplacian problem with critical exponent. Acta Math. Sci. Ser. B Engl. Ed. 29(4), 903–918 (2009)
Liang, S., Zhang, J.: Existence of solutions for Kirchhoff type problems with critical nonlinearity in \({\mathbb{R}}^N\). Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 66(3), 547–562 (2015)
Lions, J.L.: On some questions in boundary value problems of mathematical physics. North-Holland Math. Stud. 30, 284–346. In: Contemporary Developments in Continuum Mechanics and Partial Differential Equations (Proceedings of International Symposium of Institute of Mathematics, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 1977). North-Holland, Amsterdam (1978)
Lions, P.-L.: The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations. The locally compact case. II. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 1(4), 223–283 (1984)
Moser, J.: A new proof of De Giorgi’s theorem concerning the regularity problem for elliptic differential equations. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 13, 457–468 (1960)
Mugnai, D., Papageorgiou, N.S.: Wang’s multiplicity result for superlinear \((p, q)\)-equations without the Ambrosetti–Rabinowitz condition. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 366(9), 4919–4937 (2014)
Papageorgiou, N., Rădulescu, V.: Resonant \((p,2)\)-equations with asymmetric reaction. Anal. Appl. (Singap.) 13(5), 481–506 (2015)
Perera, K., Zhang, Z.T.: Nontrivial solutions of Kirchhoff-type problems via the Yang index. J. Differ. Equ. 221(1), 246–255 (2006)
Pohožaev, S.I.: A certain class of quasilinear hyperbolic equations. Mat. Sb. 96, 152–166 (1975)
Rabinowitz, P.: On a class of nonlinear Schrödinger equations Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 43(2), 270–291 (1992)
Rădulescu, V.: Isotropic and anisotropic double-phase problems: old and new. Opusc. Math. 39(2), 259–279 (2019)
Simon, J.: Régularité de la solution d’un problème aux limites non linéaires. Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math. 3, 247–274 (1981)
Szulkin, A., Weth, T.: The method of Nehari manifold. In: Gao, D.Y., Motreanu, D. (eds.) Handbook of Nonconvex Analysis and Applications, pp. 597–632. International Press, Boston (2010)
Trudinger, N.S.: On Harnack type inequalities and their application to quasilinear elliptic equations. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 20, 721–747 (1967)
Wang, X.: On concentration of positive bound states of nonlinear Schrödinger equations. Commun. Math. Phys. 53, 229–244 (1993)
Wang, J., Tian, L., Xu, J., Zhang, F.: Multiplicity and concentration of positive solutions for a Kirchhoff type problem with critical growth. J. Differ. Equ. 253(7), 2314–2351 (2012)
Willem, M.: Minimax Theorems, Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications, vol. 24. Birkhäuser Boston Inc, Boston (1996)
Xiu, Z.: The existence of a nontrivial solutions for a \(p\)-Kirchhoff type elliptic equation in \({\mathbb{R}}^{N}\). Abstr. Appl. Anal. Article ID 281949. 6 p (2013)
Yang, J., Zhu, X.: On the existence of nontrivial solution of a quasilinear elliptic boundary value problem for unbounded domains. I. Positive mass case. Acta Math. Sci. 7(3), 341–359 (1987)
Acknowledgements
The authors warmly thank the anonymous referee for her/his useful and nice comments on the paper. The authors were partly supported by the GNAMPA Project 2020 entitled: Studio Di Problemi Frazionari Nonlocali Tramite Tecniche Variazionali.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università Politecnica delle Marche within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
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
Ambrosio, V., Isernia, T. A multiplicity result for a (p, q)-Schrödinger–Kirchhoff type equation. Annali di Matematica 201, 943–984 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10231-021-01145-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10231-021-01145-y