Show Summary Details
More options …

Editor-in-Chief: Radulescu, Vicentiu / Squassina, Marco

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 6.636

CiteScore 2018: 5.03

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 3.215
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 3.225

Mathematical Citation Quotient (MCQ) 2017: 1.89

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2191-950X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 9, Issue 1

# A class of semipositone p-Laplacian problems with a critical growth reaction term

Kanishka Perera
• Corresponding author
• Department of Mathematical Sciences, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL 32901, USA
• Email
• Other articles by this author:
/ Ratnasingham Shivaji
/ Inbo Sim
Published Online: 2019-06-16 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/anona-2020-0012

## Abstract

We prove the existence of ground state positive solutions for a class of semipositone p-Laplacian problems with a critical growth reaction term. The proofs are established by obtaining crucial uniform C1,α a priori estimates and by concentration compactness arguments. Our results are new even in the semilinear case p = 2.

MSC 2010: Primary 35B33; Secondary 35J92; 35B09; 35B45

## 1 Introduction

Consider the p-superlinear semipositone p-Laplacian problem

$−Δpu=uq−1−μin Ωu>0in Ωu=0on ∂Ω,$(1.1)

where Ω is a smooth bounded domain in ℝN, 1 < p < N, p < qp, μ > 0 is a parameter, and p = Np/(Np) is the critical Sobolev exponent. The scaling uμ1/(q–1) u transforms the first equation in (1.1) into

$−Δpu=μ(q−p)/(q−1)uq−1−1,$

so in the subcritical case q < p, it follows from the results in Castro et al. [1] and Chhetri et al. [2] that this problem has a weak positive solution for sufficiently small μ > 0 when p > 1 (see also Unsurangie [3], Allegretto et al. [4], Ambrosetti et al. [5], and Caldwell et al. [6] for the case when p = 2). On the other hand, in the critical case q = p, it follows from a standard argument involving the Pohozaev identity for the p-Laplacian (see Guedda and Véron [7, Theorem 1.1]) that problem (1.1) has no solution for any μ > 0 when Ω is star-shaped. The purpose of the present paper is to show that this situation can be reversed by the addition of lower-order terms, as was observed in the positone case by Brézis and Nirenberg in the celebrated paper [8]. However, this extension to the semipositone case is not straightforward as u = 0 is no longer a subsolution, making it much harder to find a positive solution as was pointed out in Lions [9]. The positive solutions that we obtain here are ground states, i.e., they minimize the energy among all positive solutions.

We study the Brézis-Nirenberg type critical semipositone p-Laplacian problem

$−Δpu=λup−1+up∗−1−μin Ωu>0in Ωu=0on ∂Ω,$(1.2)

where λ, μ > 0 are parameters. Let $\begin{array}{}{W}_{0}^{1,p}\end{array}$(Ω) be the usual Sobolev space with the norm given by

$up=∫Ω|∇u|pdx.$

For a given λ > 0, the energy of a weak solution u$\begin{array}{}{W}_{0}^{1,p}\end{array}$(Ω) of problem (1.2) is given by

$Iμ(u)=∫Ω(|∇u|pp−λupp−up∗p∗+μu)dx,$

and clearly all weak solutions lie on the set

$Nμ=u∈W01,p(Ω):u>0 in Ω and ∫Ω|∇u|pdx=∫Ωλup+up∗−μudx.$

We will refer to a weak solution that minimizes Iμ on 𝓝μ as a ground state. Let

$λ1=infu∈W01,p(Ω)∖0∫Ω|∇u|pdx∫Ω|u|pdx$(1.3)

be the first Dirichlet eigenvalue of the p-Laplacian, which is positive. We will prove the following existence theorem.

#### Theorem 1.1

If Np2 and λ ∈ (0, λ1), then there exists μ > 0 such that for all μ ∈ (0, μ), problem (1.2) has a ground state solution uμC1,α(Ω) for some α ∈ (0, 1).

The scaling uμ–1/(pp) u transforms the first equation in the critical semipositone p-Laplacian problem

$−Δpu=λup−1+μup∗−1−1in Ωu>0in Ωu=0on ∂Ω$(1.4)

into

$−Δpu=λup−1+up∗−1−μ(p∗−1)/(p∗−p),$

so as an immediate corollary we have the following existence theorem for problem (1.4).

#### Theorem 1.2

If Np2 and λ ∈ (0, λ1), then there exists μ > 0 such that for all μ ∈ (0, μ), problem (1.4) has a ground state solution uμC1,α(Ω) for some α ∈ (0, 1).

We would like to emphasize that Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 are new even in the semilinear case p = 2.

The outline of the proof of Theorem 1.1 is as follows. We consider the modified problem

$−Δpu=λu+p−1+u+p∗−1−μf(u)in Ωu=0on ∂Ω,$(1.5)

where u+(x) = max {u(x), 0} and

$f(t)=1,t≥01−|t|p−1,−1

Weak solutions of this problem coincide with critical points of the C1-functional

$Iμ(u)=∫Ω(|∇u|pp−λu+pp−u+p∗p∗)dx+μ[∫u≥0udx+∫−1

where |⋅| denotes the Lebesgue measure in ℝN. Recall that Iμ satisfies the Palais-Smale compactness condition at the level c ∈ ℝ, or the (PS)c condition for short, if every sequence (uj) ⊂ $\begin{array}{}{W}_{0}^{1,p}\end{array}$(Ω) such that Iμ(uj) → c and $\begin{array}{}{I}_{\mu }^{\prime }\end{array}$(uj) → 0, called a (PS)c sequence for Iμ, has a convergent subsequence. As we will see in Lemma 2.1 in the next section, it follows from concentration compactness arguments that Iμ satisfies the (PS)c condition for all

$c<1NSN/p−1−1pμΩ,$

where S is the best Sobolev constant (see (2.1)). First we will construct a mountain pass level below this threshold for compactness for all sufficiently small μ > 0. This part of the proof is more or less standard. The novelty of the paper lies in the fact that the solution uμ of the modified problem (1.5) thus obtained is positive, and hence also a solution of our original problem (1.2), if μ is further restricted. Note that this does not follow from the strong maximum principle as usual since –μ f(0) < 0. This is precisely the main difficulty in finding positive solutions of semipositone problems (see Lions [9]). We will prove that for every sequence μj → 0, a subsequence of uμj is positive in Ω. The idea is to show that a subsequence of uμj converges in $\begin{array}{}{C}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω) to a solution of the limit problem

$−Δpu=λup−1+up∗−1in Ωu>0in Ωu=0on ∂Ω.$

This requires a uniform C1,α(Ω) estimate of uμj for some α ∈ (0, 1). We will obtain such an estimate by showing that uμj is uniformly bounded in $\begin{array}{}{W}_{0}^{1,p}\end{array}$(Ω) and uniformly equi-integrable in Lp(Ω), and applying a result of de Figueiredo et al. [10]. The proof of uniform equi-integrability in Lp(Ω) involves a second (nonstandard) application of the concentration compactness principle. Finally, we use the mountain pass characterization of our solution to show that it is indeed a ground state.

#### Remark 1.3

Establishing the existence of solutions to the critical semipositone problem

$−Δpu=μup−1+up∗−1−1in Ωu>0in Ωu=0on ∂Ω$

for small μ remains open.

## 2 Preliminaries

Let

$S=infu∈W01,p(Ω)∖0∫Ω|∇u|pdx∫Ω|u|p∗dxp/p∗$(2.1)

be the best constant in the Sobolev inequality, which is independent of Ω. The proof of Theorem 1.1 will make use of the following compactness result.

#### Lemma 2.1

For any fixed λ, μ > 0, Iμ satisfies the (PS)c condition for all

$c<1NSN/p−1−1pμΩ.$(2.2)

#### Proof

Let (uj) be a (PS)c sequence. First we show that (uj) is bounded. We have

$Iμ(uj)=∫Ω(|∇uj|pp−λuj+pp−uj+p∗p∗)dx+μ[∫uj≥0ujdx+∫−1(2.3)

and

$Iμ′(uj)v=∫Ω|∇uj|p−2∇uj⋅∇v−λuj+p−1v−uj+p∗−1vdx+μ[∫uj≥0vdx+∫−1(2.4)

Taking v = uj in (2.4), dividing by p, and subtracting from (2.3) gives

$1N∫Ωuj+p∗dx≤c+1−1pμΩ+o(1)uj+1,$(2.5)

and it follows from this, (2.3), and the Hölder inequality that (uj) is bounded in $\begin{array}{}{W}_{0}^{1,p}\end{array}$(Ω).

Since (uj) is bounded, so is (uj+), a renamed subsequence of which then converges to some v ≥ 0 weakly in $\begin{array}{}{W}_{0}^{1,p}\end{array}$(Ω), strongly in Lq(Ω) for all q ∈ [1, p) and a.e. in Ω, and

$|∇uj+|pdx→w∗κ,uj+p∗dx→w∗ν$(2.6)

in the sense of measures, where κ and ν are bounded nonnegative measures on Ω (see, e.g., Folland [11]). By the concentration compactness principle of Lions [12, 13], then there exist an at most countable index set I and points xiΩ, iI such that

$κ≥|∇v|pdx+∑i∈Iκiδxi,ν=vp∗dx+∑i∈Iνiδxi,$(2.7)

where κi, νi > 0 and $\begin{array}{}{\nu }_{i}^{p/{p}^{\ast }}\end{array}$κi/S. We claim that I = ∅. Suppose by contradiction that there exists iI. Let φ : ℝN → [0, 1] be a smooth function such that φ(x) = 1 for |x| ≤ 1 and φ(x) = 0 for |x| ≥ 2. Then set

$φi,ρ(x)=φx−xiρ,x∈RN$

for iI and ρ > 0, and note that φi,ρ : ℝN → [0, 1] is a smooth function such that φi,ρ(x) = 1 for |xxi| ≤ ρ and φi,ρ(x) = 0 for |xxi| ≥ 2 ρ. The sequence (φi,ρ uj+) is bounded in $\begin{array}{}{W}_{0}^{1,p}\end{array}$(Ω) and hence taking v = φi,ρ uj+ in (2.4) gives

$∫Ω(φi,ρ|∇uj+|p+uj+|∇uj+|p−2∇uj+⋅∇φi,ρ−λφi,ρuj+p−φi,ρuj+p∗+μφi,ρuj+)dx=o(1).$(2.8)

By (2.6),

$∫Ωφi,ρ|∇uj+|pdx→∫Ωφi,ρdκ,∫Ωφi,ρuj+p∗dx→∫Ωφi,ρdν.$

Denoting by C a generic positive constant independent of j and ρ,

$∫Ω(uj+|∇uj+|p−2∇uj+⋅∇φi,ρ−λφi,ρuj+p+μφi,ρuj+)dx≤C1ρ+μIj1/p+Ij,$

where

$Ij:=∫Ω∩B2ρ(xi)uj+pdx→∫Ω∩B2ρ(xi)vpdx≤Cρp∫Ω∩B2ρ(xi)vp∗dxp/p∗.$

So passing to the limit in (2.8) gives

$∫Ωφi,ρdκ−∫Ωφi,ρdν≤C(1+μρ)∫Ω∩B2ρ(xi)vp∗dx1/p∗+∫Ω∩B2ρ(xi)vpdx.$

Letting ρ ↘ 0 and using (2.7) now gives κiνi, which together with νi > 0 and $\begin{array}{}{\nu }_{i}^{p/{p}^{\ast }}\end{array}$κi/S then gives νiSN/p. On the other hand, passing to the limit in (2.5) and using (2.6) and (2.7) gives

$νi≤Nc+1−1pμΩ

by (2.2), a contradiction. Hence I = ∅ and

$∫Ωuj+p∗dx→∫Ωvp∗dx.$(2.9)

Passing to a further subsequence, uj converges to some u weakly in $\begin{array}{}{W}_{0}^{1,p}\end{array}$(Ω), strongly in Lq(Ω) for all q ∈ [1, p), and a.e. in Ω. Since

$|uj+p∗−1(uj−u)|≤uj+p∗+uj+p∗−1|u|≤2−1p∗uj+p∗+1p∗|u|p∗$

by Young’s inequality,

$∫Ωuj+p∗−1(uj−u)dx→0$

by (2.9) and the dominated convergence theorem. Then taking v = uju in (2.4) gives

$∫Ω|∇uj|p−2∇uj⋅∇(uj−u)dx→0,$

so uju in $\begin{array}{}{W}_{0}^{1,p}\end{array}$(Ω) for a renamed subsequence (see, e.g., Perera et al. [14, Proposition 1.3]).□

The infimum in (2.1) is attained by the family of functions

$uε(x)=CN,pε(N−p)/p2(ε+|x|p/(p−1))(N−p)/p,ε>0$

when Ω = ℝN, where the constant CN,p > 0 is chosen so that

$∫RN|∇uε|pdx=∫RNuεp∗dx=SN/p.$

Without loss of generality, we may assume that 0 ∈ Ω. Let r > 0 be so small that B2r(0) ⊂ Ω, take a function ψ$\begin{array}{}{C}_{0}^{\mathrm{\infty }}\end{array}$(B2r(0), [0, 1]) such that ψ = 1 on Br(0), and set

$u~ε(x)=ψ(x)uε(x),vε(x)=u~ε(x)∫Ωu~εp∗dx1/p∗,$

so that $\begin{array}{}\underset{\mathit{\Omega }}{\int }{v}_{\epsilon }^{{p}^{\ast }}\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}dx=1.\end{array}$ Then we have the well-known estimates

$∫Ω|∇vε|pdx≤S+Cε(N−p)/p,$(2.10)

$∫Ωvεpdx≥1Cεp−1,N>p21Cεp−1|log⁡ε|,N=p2,$(2.11)

where C = C(N, p) > 0 is a constant (see, e.g., Drábek and Huang [15]).

## 3 Proof of Theorem 1.1

First we show that Iμ has a uniformly positive mountain pass level below the threshold for compactness given in Lemma 2.1 for all sufficiently small μ > 0. Let vε be as in the last section.

#### Lemma 3.1

There exist μ0, ρ, c0 > 0, R > ρ, and β < $\begin{array}{}\frac{1}{N}\end{array}$ SN/p such that the following hold for all μ ∈ (0, μ0):

1. u∥ = ρIμ(u) ≥ c0,

2. Iμ(tvε) ≤ 0 for all tR and ε ∈ (0, 1],

3. denoting by Γ = {yC([0, 1], $\begin{array}{}{W}_{0}^{1,p}\end{array}$(Ω)) : y(0) = 0, y(1) = Rvε} the class of paths joining the origin to Rvε,

$c0≤cμ:=infy∈Γmaxu∈y([0,1])Iμ(u)≤β−1−1pμΩ$(3.1)

for all sufficiently small ε > 0,

4. Iμ has a critical point uμ at the level cμ.

#### Proof

By (1.3) and (2.1),

$Iμ(u)≥1p1−λλ1up−S−p∗/pp∗up∗−1−1pμΩ,$

and (i) follows from this for sufficiently small ρ, c0, μ > 0 since λ < λ1.

Since vε ≥ 0,

$Iμ(tvε)=tpp∫Ω(|∇vε|p−λvεp)dx−tp∗p∗+μt∫Ωvεdx$

for t ≥ 0. By the Hölder’s and Young’s inequalities,

$μt∫Ωvεdx≤μtΩ1−1/p∫Ωvεpdx1/p≤Cλμp/(p−1)+λtp2p∫Ωvεpdx,$

where

$Cλ=1−1p2λ1/(p−1)Ω,$

so

$Iμ(tvε)≤tpp∫Ω|∇vε|p−λ2vεpdx−tp∗p∗+Cλμp/(p−1).$(3.2)

Then by (2.10) and for ε, μ ∈ (0, 1],

$Iμ(tvε)≤(S+C)tpp−tp∗p∗+Cλ,$

from which (ii) follows for sufficiently large R > ρ.

The first inequality in (3.1) is immediate from (i) since R > ρ. Maximizing the right-hand side of (3.2) over t ≥ 0 gives

$cμ≤1N∫Ω|∇vε|p−λ2vεpdxN/p+Cλμp/(p−1),$

and (2.10) and (2.11) imply that the integral on the right-hand side is strictly less than S for all sufficiently small ε > 0 since Np2 and λ > 0, so the second inequality in (3.1) holds for sufficiently small μ > 0.

Finally, (iv) follows from (i)–(iii), Lemma 2.1, and the mountain pass lemma (see Ambrosetti and Rabinowitz [16]).□

Next we show that uμ is uniformly bounded in $\begin{array}{}{W}_{0}^{1,p}\end{array}$(Ω) and uniformly equi-integrable in Lp(Ω), and hence also uniformly bounded in C1,α(Ω) for some α ∈ (0, 1) by de Figueiredo et al. [10, Proposition 3.7], for all sufficiently small μ ∈ (0, μ0).

#### Lemma 3.2

There exists μ ∈ (0, μ0] such that the following hold for all μ ∈ (0, μ):

1. uμ is uniformly bounded in $\begin{array}{}{W}_{0}^{1,p}\end{array}$(Ω),

2. $\begin{array}{}\underset{E}{\int }|{u}_{\mu }{|}^{{p}^{\ast }}dx\to 0\text{\hspace{0.17em}}as\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\left|E\right|\to 0,\end{array}$ uniformly in μ,

3. uμ is uniformly bounded in C1,α(Ω) for some α ∈ (0, 1).

#### Proof

We have

$Iμ(uμ)=∫Ω(|∇uμ|pp−λuμ+pp−uμ+p∗p∗)dx+μ[∫uμ≥0uμdx+∫−1(3.3)

and

$Iμ′(uμ)v=∫Ω|∇uμ|p−2∇uμ⋅∇v−λuμ+p−1v−uμ+p∗−1vdx+μ[∫uμ≥0vdx +∫−1(3.4)

Taking v = uμ in (3.4), dividing by p, and subtracting from (3.3) gives

$1N∫Ωuμ+p∗dx≤cμ+1−1pμΩ≤β$(3.5)

by (3.1), and (i) follows from this, (3.4) with v = uμ, and the Hölder inequality.

If (ii) does not hold, then there exist sequences μj → 0 and (Ej) with |Ej| → 0 such that

$lim_⁡∫Ej|uμj|p∗dx>0.$(3.6)

Since (uμj) is bounded by (i), so is (uμj+), a renamed subsequence of which then converges to some v ≥ 0 weakly in $\begin{array}{}{W}_{0}^{1,p}\end{array}$(Ω), strongly in Lq(Ω) for all q ∈ [1, p) and a.e. in Ω, and

$|∇uμj+|pdx→w∗κ,uμj+p∗dx→w∗ν$(3.7)

in the sense of measures, where κ and ν are bounded nonnegative measures on Ω. By Lions [12, 13], then there exist an at most countable index set I and points xiΩ, iI such that

$κ≥|∇v|pdx+∑i∈Iκiδxi,ν=vp∗dx+∑i∈Iνiδxi,$(3.8)

where κi, νi > 0 and $\begin{array}{}{\nu }_{i}^{p/{p}^{\ast }}\end{array}$κi/S. Suppose I is nonempty, say, iI. An argument similar to that in the proof of Lemma 2.1 shows that κiνi, so νiSN/p. On the other hand, passing to the limit in (3.5) with μ = μj and using (3.7) and (3.8) gives νi < SN/p, a contradiction. Hence I = ∅ and

$∫Ωuμj+p∗dx→∫Ωvp∗dx.$

As in the proof of Lemma 2.1, a further subsequence of (uμj) then converges to some u in $\begin{array}{}{W}_{0}^{1,p}\end{array}$(Ω), and hence also in Lp(Ω), and a.e. in Ω. Then

$∫Ej|uμj|p∗dx≤∫Ω|uμj|p∗−|u|p∗dx+∫Ej|u|p∗dx→0,$

Finally, (iii) follows from (i), (ii), and de Figueiredo et al. [10, Proposition 3.7].□

We are now ready to prove Theorem 1.1.

#### Proof of Theorem 1.1

We claim that uμ is positive in Ω, and hence a weak solution of problem (1.2), for all sufficiently small μ ∈ (0, μ). It suffices to show that for every sequence μj → 0, a subsequence of uμj is positive in Ω. By Lemma 3.2 (iii), a renamed subsequence of uμj converges to some u in $\begin{array}{}{C}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω). We have

$Iμj(uμj)=∫Ω(|∇uμj|pp−λuμj+pp−uμj+p∗p∗)dx+μj[∫uμj≥0uμjdx +∫−1

by (3.1) and

$Iμj′(uμj)v=∫Ω|∇uμj|p−2∇uμj⋅∇v−λuμj+p−1v−uμj+p∗−1vdx+μj[∫uμj≥0vdx +∫−1

and passing to the limits gives

$∫Ω(|∇u|pp−λu+pp−u+p∗p∗)dx≥c0$

and

$∫Ω|∇u|p−2∇u⋅∇v−λu+p−1v−u+p∗−1vdx=0∀v∈W01,p(Ω),$

so u is a nontrivial weak solution of the problem

$−Δpu=λu+p−1+u+p∗−1in Ωu=0on ∂Ω.$

Then u > 0 in Ω and its interior normal derivative ∂u/∂ν > 0 on ∂Ω by the strong maximum principle and the Hopf lemma for the p-Laplacian (see Vázquez [17]). Since uμju in $\begin{array}{}{C}_{0}^{1}\end{array}$(Ω), then uμj > 0 in Ω for all sufficiently large j.

It remains to show that uμ minimizes Iμ on 𝓝μ when it is positive. For each w ∈ 𝓝μ, we will construct a path ywΓ such that

$maxu∈yw([0,1])Iμ(u)=Iμ(w).$

Since

$Iμ(uμ)=cμ≤maxu∈yw([0,1])Iμ(u)$

by the definition of cμ, the desired conclusion will then follow. First we note that the function

$g(t)=Iμ(tw)=tpp∫Ω(|∇w|p−λwp)dx−tp∗p∗∫Ωwp∗dx+μt∫Ωwdx,t≥0$

has a unique maximum at t = 1. Indeed,

$g′(t)=tp−1∫Ω(|∇w|p−λwp)dx−tp∗−1∫Ωwp∗dx+μ∫Ωwdx =tp−1−tp∗−1∫Ω(|∇w|p−λwp)dx+1−tp∗−1μ∫Ωwdx$

since w ∈ 𝓝μ, and the last two integrals are positive since λ < λ1 and w > 0, so g′(t) > 0 for 0 ≤ t < 1, g′(1) = 0, and g′(t) < 0 for t > 1. Hence

$maxt≥0Iμ(tw)=Iμ(w)>0$

since g(0) = 0. In view of Lemma 3.1 (ii), now it suffices to observe that there exists > max {1, R} such that

$Iμ(R~u)=R~pp∫Ω(|∇u|p−λup)dx−R~p∗p∗∫Ωup∗dx+μR~∫Ωudx≤0$

for all u on the line segment joining w to vε since all norms on a finite dimensional space are equivalent.□

## Acknowledgement

The third author was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korea Government (MEST) (NRF-2015R1D1A3A01019789).

## References

• [1]

Alfonso Castro, Djairo G. de Figueredo, and Emer Lopera. Existence of positive solutions for a semipositone p-Laplacian problem. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A, 146(3):475–482, 2016.

• [2]

M. Chhetri, P. Drábek, and R. Shivaji. Existence of positive solutions for a class of p-Laplacian superlinear semipositone problems. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A, 145(5):925–936, 2015.

• [3]

S. Unsurangie. Existence of a solution for a wave and elliptic Dirichlet problem. PhD thesis, University of North Texas, Denton, 1988. Google Scholar

• [4]

W. Allegretto, P. Nistri, and P. Zecca. Positive solutions of elliptic nonpositone problems. Differential Integral Equations, 5(1):95–101, 1992. Google Scholar

• [5]

A. Ambrosetti, D. Arcoya, and B. Buffoni. Positive solutions for some semi-positone problems via bifurcation theory. Differential Integral Equations, 7(3-4):655–663, 1994. Google Scholar

• [6]

Scott Caldwell, Alfonso Castro, Ratnasingham Shivaji, and Sumalee Unsurangsie. Positive solutions for classes of multiparameter elliptic semipositone problems. Electron. J. Differential Equations, pages No. 96, 10 pp. (electronic), 2007. Google Scholar

• [7]

Mohammed Guedda and Laurent Véron. Quasilinear elliptic equations involving critical Sobolev exponents. Nonlinear Anal., 13(8):879–902, 1989.

• [8]

Haïm Brézis and Louis Nirenberg. Positive solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations involving critical Sobolev exponents. Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 36(4):437–477, 1983.

• [9]

P.-L. Lions. On the existence of positive solutions of semilinear elliptic equations. SIAM Rev., 24(4):441–467, 1982.

• [10]

Djairo G. de Figueiredo, Jean-Pierre Gossez, and Pedro Ubilla. Local “superlinearity” and “sublinearity” for the p-Laplacian. J. Funct. Anal., 257(3):721–752, 2009.

• [11]

Gerald B. Folland. Real analysis. Pure and Applied Mathematics (New York). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, second edition, 1999. Modern techniques and their applications, A Wiley-Interscience Publication. Google Scholar

• [12]

P.-L. Lions. The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations. The limit case. I. Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana, 1(1):145–201, 1985. Google Scholar

• [13]

P.-L. Lions. The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations. The limit case. II. Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana, 1(2):45–121, 1985. Google Scholar

• [14]

Kanishka Perera, Ravi P. Agarwal, and Donal O’Regan. Morse theoretic aspects of p-Laplacian type operators, volume 161 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2010. Google Scholar

• [15]

Pavel Drábek and Yin Xi Huang. Multiplicity of positive solutions for some quasilinear elliptic equation in RN with critical Sobolev exponent. J. Differential Equations, 140(1):106–132, 1997.

• [16]

Antonio Ambrosetti and Paul H. Rabinowitz. Dual variational methods in critical point theory and applications. J. Functional Analysis, 14:349–381, 1973.

• [17]

J. L. Vázquez. A strong maximum principle for some quasilinear elliptic equations. Appl. Math. Optim., 12(3):191–202, 1984.

Accepted: 2018-10-14

Published Online: 2019-06-16

Published in Print: 2019-03-01

Citation Information: Advances in Nonlinear Analysis, Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages 516–525, ISSN (Online) 2191-950X, ISSN (Print) 2191-9496,

Export Citation