This paper proves the existence of positive solutions for a class of quasilinear Schrödinger equations of Choquard type involving Riesz potentials, under certain conditions on the potential function V(x).
Contribution
It establishes the existence of positive solutions for a specific class of quasilinear Schrödinger equations with nonlocal Choquard terms, extending previous results to more general conditions.
Findings
01
Existence of positive solutions under specified conditions on V(x).
02
Extension of solution existence results to quasilinear Schrödinger equations with Choquard nonlinearity.
03
Applicable for a range of p values satisfying certain inequalities.
Abstract
In this paper, we study the following quasilinear Schr\"{o}dinger equation of Choquard type −△u+V(x)u−△(u2)u=(Iα∗∣u∣p)∣u∣p−2u,x∈RN, where N≥3,\ 0<α<N, N2(N+α)≤p<N−22(N+α) and Iα is a Riesz potential. Under appropriate assumptions on V(x), we establish the existence of positive solutions.
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Existence of Positive Solutions for a class of Quasilinear Schrödinger Equations of Choquard type
††thanks: This work was supported partially by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (11562021).
Shaoxiong Chen
and Xian Wu
Department of Mathematics, Yunnan Normal University, Kunming, Yunnan 650092, P. R. China
gxmail@126. comCorresponding Author: wuxian2042@163. com
Abstract: In this paper, we study the
following quasilinear Schrödinger equation of Choquard type
[TABLE]
where N≥3, 0<α<N,
N2(N+α)≤p<N−22(N+α) and Iα is a Riesz potential. Under appropriate assumptions on
V(x), we establish the existence of positive solutions.
Consider the following quasilinear Schrödinger equation
of Choquard type
[TABLE]
where N≥3, 0<α<N,
N2(N+α)≤p<N−22(N+α), V∈C(RN,R) and Iα:RN→R is the Riesz potential defined by
[TABLE]
and Γ is the Gamma function.
Eq.(1.1) is related to quasilinear Schrödinger
equations of more general form
[TABLE]
where V=V(x), x∈RN, is a given potential, k is a real constant and h,
g are real functions. The quasilinear schrödinger equations
(1.2) are derived as models of several physical phenomena, such as
see [10, 11, 13, 19, 22]. It has received considerable attention in mathematical analysis during the last 10 years [20]. When k=0 and g is a local term, several methods can be used to solve Eq. (1.2). The existence of a positive
ground state solution has been proved in [14, 21] by using a
constrained minimization approach. The problem is transformed to a
semilinear one in [4, 15, 5] by a change of variables. Nehari method is used to get the existence results of
ground state solutions in [16, 23].
For k=0, V(x)≡1 and g(x,ψ)=(Iα∗∣ψ∣p)∣ψ∣p−2ψ, Eq.(1.2)
is usually called the nonlinear Choquard or Choquard-Pekar
equation. It has several physical origins. The problem appeared at
least as early as in 1954, in a work by S. I. Pekar describing
the quantum mechanics of a polaron at rest. In 1976, for N=3,α=2, P. Choquard used it to describe
an electron trapped in its own hole, in a certain approximation to Hartree-Fock theory of
one component plasma(see [17]). In that case, a ground state solution is found in [17].
For p∈(NN+α,N−2N+α),
Moroz and Van Schaftingen in [17] proved existence, qualitative properties and decay estimates of ground
state solutions. In [24],
Seok consider a critical version of nonlinear Choquard equation
[TABLE]
Using some perturbation arguments, Seok gets a family of nontrivial solutions. It converges to a least energy solution
of the limiting critical local problem as α→0.
We can see some works of literature about the above equation in [1, 12, 28].
In this paper, we study
the existence of positive solution of (1.1) by a variational
argument. We need the following several notations. If x∈RN and R>0, the closed ball with
center at x and radius R is always denoted by BR(x). Let
C0∞(RN) be the collection of smooth
functions with compact support. For N≥3, let
[TABLE]
with the norm
[TABLE]
By the Sobolev inequality, D1,2(RN) is continuously
embedded in L2∗(RN). Let
[TABLE]
with the inner product
[TABLE]
and the norm
[TABLE]
We denote the norm of Lq(RN) by ∣⋅∣q.
In the following, we always assume V∈C(RN,R) and RNinfV(x)≥V0>0. Let us
consider the following two assumptions:
(V1)V(x) is periodic in
each variable of x1,⋯,xN.
(V2)V(x)≤V∞:=∣y∣→∞limV(y)<∞ for all x∈RN and V0<V∞.
Eq. (1.1) is the Euler-Lagrange equation of the energy
functional
[TABLE]
where u+=max{u,0}.
The main result of this paper is stated as follows:
Theorem 1.1.Suppose that N≥3,
N2(N+α)≤p<N−22(N+α) and the potential function V satisfies condition (V1) or (V2). Then Eq. (1.1) possesses a positive solution u∈H1(RN).
Remark 1.2. By the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality and the Sobolev embedding theorem, the natural interval for considering the Choquard equation is [N2(N+α),N−22(N+α)], however, the critical case p=N−22(N+α) is not considered in Theorem 1.1.
To deal with this type of problem, difficulties lie in two aspects. First, the approach of proving Theorem 1.1 is inspired by [4, 6, 8, 15]. Because the nonlinearity of Eq. (1.1) is nonlocal, the techniques in these papers developed for the local case cannot be adopted directly. Second, another major difficulty here is that the energy functional J(u) is not well
defined for all u∈H1(RN) if N≥3. To overcome these difficulties, we need to make a change u=f(v) of variable used in
[15], to analyze other properties of f more deeply due to the nonlocal nonlinearity and to develop some different techniques.
on [0,+∞), f(0)=0
and f(−t)=−f(t) on (−∞,0]. Then f has following
properties (see [3]):
(f1)f is
uniquely defined C∞ function and invertible.
(f2)0<f′(t)≤1 for all t∈R.
(f3)∣f(t)∣≤∣t∣ for all t∈R.
(f4)21f(t)≤tf′(t)≤f(t) for all
t≥0 and f(t)≤tf′(t)≤21f(t) for all
t≤0.
(f5)∣f(t)∣≤241∣t∣21 for all t∈R.
(f6) There exists a positive constant C such that
[TABLE]
(f7)∣f(t)f′(t)∣≤21 for all
t∈R.
(f8) For each ξ>0, there exists C(ξ)>0 such that
f2(ξt)≤C(ξ)f2(t).
After the change u=f(v) of variable, Eq. (1.1) can be rewritten as
[TABLE]
and J(u) can be reduced to
[TABLE]
From (V1) (or (V2) ), (f3), (f7) and the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality (Lemma 2.1),
we can deduce that the functional I∈C1(H1(RN)) for N2(N+α)≤p≤N−22(N+α).
It is easy to see that if v∈H1(RN) is a critical point of
I, i.e.,
[TABLE]
for all φ∈C0∞(RN), then
v is a weak solution of Eq. (1.3) and
u:=f(v) is a weak solution of Eq. (1.1).
We use C or Ci to denote various positive
constants in context. The outline of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, we give some preliminary results and the regularity of solutions. In Section 3, we prove Theorem 1.1 by using the mountain pass theorem.
2. Some lemmas
Lemma 2.1 ([17]) (Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality). Let r,s>1 and 0<α<N
be such that
[TABLE]
Let g∈Lr(RN) and h∈Ls(RN). There exists a sharp constant C(r,s,N,α),
independent of g, h, such that
[TABLE]
Remark 2.2 (1) Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality can be also stated that for every
s∈(1,αN), for every v∈Ls(RN), Iα∗v∈LN−αsNs(RN) and the following inequality holds:
[TABLE]
where C>0 depends only on α,N and s.
(2) By Lemma 2.1 and (f5),
[TABLE]
if v∈L2pr(RN) for r>1 with
[TABLE]
Since we will work on H1(RN), by the Sobolev embedding theorem, we must require that 2pr∈[2,2∗]. We have
[TABLE]
(3) H1(RN)⊂LN+α2Nq(RN) if and only if NN+α≤q≤N−2N+α where q:=2p (see [17]).
Lemma 2.3∣f(t)∣≤241∣t∣l* for all l∈[21,1], t∈R,.*
Proof. By (f3),(f5), for ∣t∣≤1,
[TABLE]
For ∣t∣>1,
[TABLE]
Lemma 2.4For N≥3,0<α<N, N2(N+α)≤p≤N−22(N+α), there exists C>0 and r∈[2,2∗) such that
[TABLE]
Proof. If 2p≥2, we put r=2p. Since p≤N−22(N+α) and α<N, r∈[2,2∗). By (f5),(f7), we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for all t≥0.
If 2p<2, by 2<N2(N+α)≤p and Lemma 2.3, then there exists l∈[21,1] such that r:=lp=2.
Hence
[TABLE]
Moreover,
for t≥1, using (f7),
[TABLE]
For 0≤t<1, by (f2) and (f3), we have
[TABLE]
In the spirit of the argument developed by the Proposition 4.1 in [17] and the Lemma 2.1 in [2], we have the following Lemma 2.5.
Lemma 2.5Assume that either assumption (V1) or (V2) holds. Let N≥3,0<α<N,N2(N+α)≤p<N−22(N+α),
v∈H1(RN) be a nontrivial and nonnegative weak solution of (1.3), then the following properties hold:
(1) For every s∈R with
Nα(1−p2)−N2<s1<1, we have
v∈Llocs(RN).
(2) Iα∗∣f(v)∣p∈Lloc∞(RN).
(3) v∈Wloc2,q(RN) for every q∈[2,∞).
(4) For any λ∈(0,1) such that
[TABLE]
(5) v is of class C1,λ for every λ∈(0,1) and v>0.
Proof. (1) We use an iterating argument (see [17]). Put r:=2p>1, since v∈H1(RN), By Remark 2.2-(3), v∈LN+α2Nr(RN). Set s0=s0=s0:=N+α2Nr and
[TABLE]
We have Iα∗∣v∣r∈Lt(RN). Further, set
[TABLE]
We get (Iα∗∣v∣r)∣v∣r−1∈Lq0(RN). By (f4),(f5),(f7),v≥0 and
[TABLE]
one has
[TABLE]
Set
[TABLE]
Using (f2),(f3),(V1) (or (V2)), we know that c(x)∈Lloc∞(RN) and c(x)v=V(x)f(v)f′(v).
Hence v is a weak solution of the following equation
[TABLE]
and hence, v∈Wloc2,q0(RN) by the Theorem 9.1.4 in [27].
Notice that N2(N+α)≤p<N−22(N+α).
By the Sobolev embedding theorem, v∈Llocs(RN)
provided
[TABLE]
Furthermore,
[TABLE]
Set s11=s02r−1−Nα and s11=s02r−1−Nα+2.
For every s∈(s1,s1), we have v∈Llocs(RN). Then we can prove
v∈Wloc2,q(RN)
provided
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
In fact, for every s with q1=s2r−1−Nα, the above inequalities follows that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
and hence Iα∗∣v∣r∈Lloct(RN). Further, since
[TABLE]
one has (Iα∗∣v∣r)∣v∣r−1∈Llocq(RN). Similar to the above segment, we can prove v∈Wloc2,q(RN).
Set
[TABLE]
If q11=Nα(1−r1) and q11=s12r−1−Nα<1, we use q1
in replace of q0 in the above argument. Similarly, if q11=s12r−1−Nα>Nα(1−r1) and q11=1, we use q1 in replace of q0.
So, without loss of generality, we can assume that Nα(1−r1)<s12r−1−Nα and
s12r−1−Nα<1 are satisfied. Hence, for every q∈R with s12r−1−Nα<q1<s12r−1−Nα, we know that v∈Wloc2,q(RN).
By the Sobolev embedding theorem again , v∈Llocs(RN)
provided
[TABLE]
We also have
[TABLE]
Furthermore, by N2(N+α)≤p<N−22(N+α),
[TABLE]
Set s21=s12r−1−Nα and s21=s12r−1−Nα+2. Then, for each s∈(s2,s2), we have v∈Llocs(RN). Continue the above process by setting
[TABLE]
Notice that
[TABLE]
If r=p/2=N+αN, then sk+11=sk1=⋯=s01=s1<1.
If N2(N+α)<p<N−22(N+α), then s11−s01>0.
Since r>1, there exists k0≥1 such that
[TABLE]
Hence (1) holds.
(2) Since p<N−22(N+α),
[TABLE]
Fix q1∈(Nα(1−p2)−N2,Np2α). It implies that v∈Llocq(RN) and N−1+2q−p2q(α−N)>−1. By virtue of the Lemma 2.4 and the Hölder’s inequality, for every closed ball B⊂RN, there exists r∈[2,2∗) such that
[TABLE]
for all x∈B.
That is Iα∗∣f(v)∣p∈Lloc∞(RN).
(3) For every closed ball B⊂RN, set
[TABLE]
By the Lemma 2.4, the conclusion (2), (V1) or (V2), it follows that
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
for all x∈B, a(x)∈L2N(B). Hence a(x)∈Lloc2N(RN). Apply the Lemma B.3 in [25] to the following equation
[TABLE]
It follows that v∈Llocq(RN) for any q∈[2,+∞). Hence, by the Theorem 9.1.4 of [27], v∈Wloc2,q(RN) for any q∈[2,+∞).
(4) From (3) and the Sobolev embedding theorem, we have that v∈Cloc1,λ(RN) for any λ∈(0,1).
Fix R>0. Take β∈C0∞(RN) such that β(t)=1 for t≤R, β(t)=0 for t≥2R.
Write Iα=βIα+(1−β)Iα. Put
[TABLE]
Then g(x)∈C0∞(RN).
By the Lemma 2.4, there exists r∈[2,2∗) such that
[TABLE]
for every x∈RN.
Using the Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem, we have
[TABLE]
It follows from p>2, f∈C∞(R) that ∣f(v)∣p,∣f(v)∣p−2f(v)f′(v)∈Cloc0,λ(RN).
It is easy to see that βIα∈L1(RN). Hence
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
(5) It follows from (4) that v∈Cloc1,λ(RN) for every λ∈(0,1). In the proof of conclusion (1), Eq. (1.3) can be rewritten as
[TABLE]
Since v is a continuous nonnegative function, there exists C>0 such that ∣c(x)∣≤C. Using the Theorem 8.19 in [9], we get that v>0 in RN. □
3. Proof of Theorem 1.1
We prove that the functional I exhibits the mountain pass geometry.
Lemma 3.1.There exist ρ0,α>0 such that
[TABLE]
Proof. From [8] we get that
there exist C1>0,ρ1>0 such that
[TABLE]
whenever ∥v∥≤ρ1. The above inequality was derived in [8] for (V1). Checking the proof of [8], we know that this inequality holds for (V2), too. Notice that N+αNp∈[2,2∗). By (f5), (2.1), (3.1) and
the Sobolev embedding theorem, we get
[TABLE]
whenever ∥v∥≤ρ1.
Choosing ρ0 small enough, we get the proof. □
Using the method in [6], we have the following lemma:
Lemma 3.2.There exists v0∈H1(RN) such that ∥v0∥>ρ0 and I(v0)<0.
Proof. By (f4), tf(t) is decreasing for t>0. Consider ϕ∈C0∞(RN) such that
0≤ϕ(x)≤1, ϕ(x)=1 for ∣x∣≤1, ϕ(x)=0 for ∣x∣≥2. We have
[TABLE]
for any x∈RN,t>0. Using (f3), we get
[TABLE]
By p>2 and (f6), we deduce that I(t0ϕ)<0 and t0∥ϕ∥>ρ0 for t0 large enough. Set v0=t0ϕ. Hence v0 is required. □
Lemma 3.3.All Cerami sequences for I at the level c>0 are bounded in H1(RN).
Proof. Let (vn)⊂H1(RN) be a Cerami sequence at the level c. Set wn:=f′(vn)f(vn).
It follows from (f4) that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
It follows that (wn)⊂H1(RN) is bounded.
So
[TABLE]
Since p>2, the sequence {∫RN∣∇vn∣2+∫RNV(x)f2(vn)} is bounded. By the Sobolev embedding theorem and (f6), we have
[TABLE]
where θ=2(2∗−1)2∗−2. Hence (vn) is bounded in H1(RN). □
Lemma 3.4.Let Ω be a domain in RN. Suppose {gn},{hn}⊂L1(Ω) and h∈L1(Ω). If
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
then n→∞lim∫Ωgn=0.
Proof. By Fatou’s lemma,
[TABLE]
Therefore, 0≤n→∞liminf∫Ωgn≤n→∞limsup∫Ωgn≤0, that is, n→∞lim∫Ωgn=0. □
In the following, we always assume that {vn}⊂H1(RN) is a Cerami sequence for I at the level c>0. By the preceding lemma, {vn} is bounded. We may assume,
going if necessary to a subsequence, vn⇀v∈H1(RN), vn(x)→v(x) a.e. x∈RN and vn→v in Llocq(RN) for all q∈[2,2∗). We have the following Lemma 3.5-3.8.
Lemma 3.5.If ∫RN∣f(vn)∣2→∫RN∣f(v)∣2 as n→∞, then
∥vn−v∥→0.
Proof. The proof of Lemma 3.5 will be carried out in a series of steps.
Step 1.∫RNV(x)∣f(vn−v)∣2→0 as n→∞.
By (f3), {f(vn)} is bounded in L2(RN). We can assume f(vn)⇀f(v) in L2(RN), and so
∫RN∣f(vn)−f(v)∣2→0. Therefore, by (V1) or (V1) , one has
[TABLE]
By (f8), there is C>0 such that f2(2t)≤Cf2(t). Since f2(t) is convex,
[TABLE]
Using the Lemma 3.4,
[TABLE]
Step 2. For any q∈[2,2∗), ∫RN∣vn−v∣q→0 as n→∞.
Check the proof of the Lemma 3.3. We have
[TABLE]
where θ=2(2∗−1)2∗−2. Since (vn) is bounded in H1(RN), ∫RN∣vn−v∣2→0 as n→∞. It follows from interpolation inequality that ∫RN∣vn−v∣q→0 for any q∈[2,2∗).
Step 3.∥vn−v∥→0 as n→0.
Using (2.1), (f5), (f7) and the Hölder’s inequality, we have
[TABLE]
where r2−Nα=1.
Since ∥I′(vn)∥→0 and {vn−v} is bounded,
[TABLE]
Further,
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
From arguments above, we get that ∥vn−v∥→0 as n→∞. □
Lemma 3.6Up to a subsequence, A:=n→∞lim∫RN∣f(vn)∣2>0.
Proof. We suppose, by contradiction, that A=0. By the Lemma 3.5, vn→0 in H1(RN). Hence
[TABLE]
where r2−Nα=1.
Since
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
a contradiction. The proof is completed. □
Lemma 3.7Up to a subsequence, there exist R,β>0 and {xn}⊂RN such that
[TABLE]
Proof. By the Lemma 3.6, up to a subsequence, one has A:=n→∞lim∫RN∣f(vn)∣2>0. If Lemma 3.7 is false, then
it follows from the Lemma 1.21 in [26] that, up to a subsequence,
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
a contradiction. This completes the proof. □
Lemma 3.8⟨I′(v),φ⟩=0* for any φ∈C0∞(RN).*
Proof. For any φ∈C0∞(RN), the support of φ is contained in BR0(0) for some R0>0.
Hence
[TABLE]
For I1:=∫RN∇(vn−v)∇φ, since vn⇀v in H1(RN),
I1→0 as n→∞.
For I2:=∫RNV(x)(f(vn)f′(vn)−f(v)f′(v))φ, by (f2) and (f3), we have
[TABLE]
By vn→v in Lloc2(RN) and the Lemma 3.4, we obtain
[TABLE]
Using the Hölder inequality, we have
[TABLE]
as n→∞.
Moreover,
[TABLE]
For r=N+α2N, by (f5) and (f7),
[TABLE]
Since N2(N+α)≤p<N−22(N+α), 2rp∈[2,2∗). By vn→v in Lloc2rp(RN) and the Lemma 3.4 again, we obtain
[TABLE]
By the boundedness of (vn), the Hölder inequality and (2.1), take n→∞,
[TABLE]
where r=N+α2N is given in Remark 2.2-(2).
For r=N+α2N, by N2(N+α)≤p<N−22(N+α), (f7) and the Hölder inequality, we have
[TABLE]
It follows from 2rp∈[2,2∗) that ∣f(v+)∣p−1f′(v+)φ∈Lr(RN).
In order to prove J2→0, we use an argument which is partly an adaptation of the proof of the Proposition 2.2 in [18]. Set a linear functional
[TABLE]
Then, by (2.1),
T:Lr(RN)→R, where r=N+α2N, is a continuous linear functional, that is,
[TABLE]
As (vn) is bounded in H1(RN) and ∣f(vn+)∣pr≤∣vn∣2pr, the sequence (∣f(vn+)∣p) is bounded in Lr(RN). We may assume, going if necessary to a subsequence, ∣f(vn+)∣p⇀∣f(v+)∣p in Lr(RN). Then T(∣f(vn+)∣p)→T(∣f(v+)∣p) as n→∞, that is,
[TABLE]
So I3=J1+J2→0 as n→∞. In a summary, up to a subsequence, we prove that ⟨I′(vn)−I′(v),φ⟩→0 as n→∞. Since ⟨I′(vn),φ⟩→0, we have
[TABLE]
Proof of Theorem 1.1
As a consequence of the Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2, for the constant
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Hence, by the Theorem 6.3 in [29], there exists a Cerami sequence (vn) in H1(RN) at the level c0, that is,
[TABLE]
By the Lemma 3.3, the sequence {vn} is bounded. Hence, up to a subsequence, one has vn⇀v∈H1(RN), vn(x)→v(x) a.e. x∈RN and vn→v in Llocq(RN) for all q∈[2,2∗). Hence, by the Lemma 3.8, ⟨I′(v),φ⟩=0 for any φ∈C0∞(RN), that is, v is a weak solution of (1.3). We must prove that v is nontrivial. For this, we follow the idea in [6], [15] and [4] to complete the proof of Theorem 1.1.
By the Lemma 3.7, up to a subsequence, there exist R,β>0 and {xn}⊂RN such that
[TABLE]
If (V1) holds, we may assume that {xn} is bounded. Then there exists ρ>0 such that BR(xn)⊂Bρ(0) for all n. Hence
[TABLE]
It follows that v is nontrivial. It is easy to see that v≥0 in RN. Hence v∈H1(RN) is a nontrivial, nonnegative, weak solution of Eq. (1.3). By the Lemma 2.5, v>0 in RN.
If (V2) holds, we assume, by contradiction, that v≡0. Consider the following two limit functionals:
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where u=f(v). Define
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Notice that V0<V∞, we have
[TABLE]
To complete the proof of Theorem 1.1, we divide into the following four lemmas.
Proof. Notice that (vn) is bounded in H1(RN), there exists M1>0 such that M1>2V∞ and M1>∫RNf2(vn). Since vn→v=0 in Llocq(RN) for all q∈[2,2∗) and V(x)≤V∞:=∣y∣→∞limV(y)<∞ for all x∈RN. For every ϵ>0, there is M>0 such that, for n large enough, one has
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
as n→+∞.
Similarly,
[TABLE]
as n→+∞.
It follows that {vn} is also a Cerami sequence of I∞ at the level c0. □
Lemma 3.10Let p>2,a>0,b≥0,c>0 and h(t):=a+bt2−ct2p−2 for t≥0. Then there exists a unique t0>0 such that
[TABLE]
The proof of Lemma 3.10 is standard.
Lemma 3.11.Let v0∈H1(RN), u0=f(v0) such that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Then there exist t1>t0>0 such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Proof. By the definitions of I∞(v) and J∞(u), we know that
[TABLE]
Set
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
By p>2 and the Lemma 3.10, there is an unique t0>0 such that g′(t0)=0, g′(t)>0 for 0<t<t0 and g′(t)<0 for t>t0. Hence
[TABLE]
Since p>2, it is easy to see that
[TABLE]
Therefore, there exists t1>t0 such that
[TABLE]
Remark 3.12 Set
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.13c∞≤c0.
Proof. By the Lemma 3.6 we have A:=n→∞lim∫RN∣f(vn)∣2>0.
Notice that
[TABLE]
Passing to a subsequence, for n large enough, we get
[TABLE]
for n large enough. Hence
[TABLE]
for large n.
By ⟨I∞′(vn),f′(vn)f(vn)⟩=on(1) again,
we have
[TABLE]
Set un:=f(vn). Then
[TABLE]
Put
an:=∫RN∣∇un∣2+∫RNV∞un2,bn:=4∫RNun2∣∇un∣2
and
cn:=∫RN(Iα∗∣un+∣p)∣un+∣p.
Then
[TABLE]
Furthermore, since (un) is bounded in H1(RN), (an),(bn),(cn) are all bounded. Hence, passing to a subsequence, we can assume that there are a,b,c∈[0,+∞) such that an→a,bn→b,cn→c as n→+∞ and a+b−c=0.
Moreover, for n large enough, one has
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
It follows that a>0,c>0. It follows from the Lemma 3.10 that there exists a unique sequence (tn)⊂(0,+∞) such that an+bntn2−cntn2p−2=0. Since c>0, (tn) is bounded. We may assume that there is t≥0 such that tn→t. Then, a+bt2−ct2p−2=0. Since a+b−c=0, by Lemma 3.10 again, we get t=1.
By the Lemma 3.11,
[TABLE]
Hence c∞≤J∞(tnun) by Remark 3.12. Further,
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
So,
[TABLE]
□
Contrasting the Lemma 3.13 and (3.2), we get a contradiction. It shows that v is nontrivial. As the case (V1), we know v>0. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1. □
Bibliography29
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] C. O. Alves, A. B. N brega, M. Yang, Multi-bump solutions for Choquard equation with deepening potential well, Calculus of Variations, 55(2015), 1-28.
2[2] C. O. Alves and M. Yang, Multiplicity and concentration of solutions for a quasilinear Choquard equation, J. Math. Phys. 55(2014), 423-443.
3[3] Y. Chen and X. Wu, Existence of nontrivial solutions and high energy solutions for a class of quasilinear Schrödinger equations via the dual-perturbation method, Abstract and Applied Analysis, (2013), DOI: 10. 1155/2013/256324.
4[4] M. Colin, L. Jeanjean, Solutions for a quasilinear Schrödinger equation: a dual approach, Nonlinear Anal. 56(2004), 213-226.
5[5] J. M. do Ó, O. H. Miyagaki, S. H. M. Soares, Soliton solutions for quasilinear Schrödinger equations: the critical exponential case, Nonlinear Anal. 67(2007), 3357-3372.
6[6] J. M. do Ó, O. H. Miyagaki, S. H. M. Soares, Soliton solutions for quasilinear Schrödinger equations with critical growth, J. Differ. Equation. 248(2010), 722-744.
7[7] X. Fan, A constrained minimization problem involving the p(x)-Laplacian in ℝ N superscript ℝ 𝑁 \mathbb{R}^{N} , Nonlinear Anal. 69(2008), 3661-3670.
8[8] X. Fang and A. Szulkin, Multiple solutions for a quasilinear Schrödinger equation, J. Differ. Equation. 254(2013), 2015-2032.