Global branches of solutions for a class of non uniformly fully nonlinear elliptic equations
N. B. Zographopoulos

TL;DR
This paper investigates the global solution structure of a class of fully nonlinear elliptic equations, establishing bifurcation results and analyzing eigenvalue behaviors under singular perturbations.
Contribution
It introduces new global bifurcation results for non-uniform fully nonlinear elliptic equations and characterizes eigenvalues in singular perturbation contexts.
Findings
Existence of simple eigenvalues for perturbed problems
Asymptotic behavior of eigenvalues analyzed
Global bifurcation branches of positive smooth solutions established
Abstract
We consider singular perturbations of eigenvalue problems. We prove that to these problems correspond simple eigenvalues and we study their asymptotic behavior. As a result, we prove global bifurcation results for non uniformly and fully nonlinear elliptic equations. These equations are defined on smooth enough bounded domains and the solutions belonging in these branches are smooth and positive.
Peer Reviews
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.
Taxonomy
TopicsNonlinear Partial Differential Equations · Advanced Mathematical Modeling in Engineering · Differential Equations and Numerical Methods
Global branches of solutions for non uniformly fully nonlinear elliptic equations
N. B. Zographopoulos [email protected], [email protected]
Abstract
We consider singular perturbations of eigenvalue problems. We prove that to these problems correspond simple eigenvalues and we study their asymptotic behavior. As a result, we prove global bifurcation results for non uniformly and fully nonlinear elliptic equations. These equations are defined on smooth enough bounded domains and the solutions belonging in these branches are smooth and positive.
1 Introduction
The purpose of this work is to obtain global bifurcation results for a class of nonlinear problems. Our method may be applied to the following problems:
[TABLE]
where is a bounded domain of , , which is smooth enough, at least . For the operator , we assume that is smooth enough, at least such that uniformly, as .
For the sake of the representation and simplicity reasons, we first assume that the space dimension is and and later on this paper we consider the general case of . Hence, we are going prove first the existence of a global bifurcation of solutions for the problem
[TABLE]
bifurcating from the principal eigenvalue of the corresponding linear equation
[TABLE]
In order to state the main result of this paper we give the following definition of what we mean with the existence of a branch of solutions of an operator equation ([6]).
THEOREM 1.1
Assume that is a Banach space with norm and consider , where is a compact linear map on and is compact and satisfies
[TABLE]
If is a simple eigenvalue of then the closure of the set
[TABLE]
possesses a maximal continuum (i.e. connected branch) of solutions, , such that and either:
(i) meets infinity in or,
(ii) meets , where is also an eigenvalue of .
One possible way to study problems of the form (1.2), is to approximate them by suitably elliptic problems, for which the classical methods apply. We introduce the Hilbert space , with norm given by
[TABLE]
Note that denotes the classic Sobolev space . Let also be the inner product in . For small enough positive number, we assume the problem:
[TABLE]
and the corresponding linear eigenvalue problem:
[TABLE]
The choice of the space had been made in order to use the imbedding theorems; any function belonging to must also belong to . In particular, is imbedded compactly, at least, in , , for sufficient smooth domains. In the sequel, we will frequently use that for , the compact embedding is up to .
Our intention is to prove that for each small enough, there exists a branch of solutions of (1.4) bifurcating from a certain simple eigenvalue of (1.5), such that these branches converge to the global branch of (1.2), as . In this direction, we face two main difficulties. The first is, that the properties of the eigenvalues of (1.5) are not known; it is unclear if they are close enough to , and what is their multiplicity. The second difficulty, since we have a singular perturbation, is to prove that the branches of solutions of (1.4) converge in ; we cannot expect that the branches of solutions of (1.4) converge uniformly. However, a careful application of Whyburn’s Lemma, is sufficient to give the desired (nonuniform) convergence.
In Section 2, we deal with the eigenvalue problem (1.5). We prove that for any small enough, admits a positive eigenvalue , which is simple with the associated eigenfunction being positive. The proof is not straightforward. Problem (1.3) (and (1.7 below), admits principal eigenvalue which is simple in the sense that the null space of the corresponding operator, , is spanned by the eigenfunction and the range of is the orthogonal complement of the null space in . In other words, is Fredholm with index 0, or equivalently has algebraic multiplicity one. In our case, we do not have this: considering problem (1.3) in the space , although , the situation is different. In the context of the space , the operator is no longer Fredholm with index 0. This means that the principal eigenvalue has multiplicity one (since there exists only one function satisfying (1.3)) but has not algebraic multiplicity one. This is the reason why the Theorem of perturbed eigenvalues (see for instance [1, 5]) cannot be applied in the case of (1.3) and (1.5). However, the eigenvalues of the singular perturbations, that remain close enough to , are proved to be algebraic simple.
THEOREM 1.2
There exists small enough, such that for every , with , problem (1.5) admits an eigenvalue which is (algebraic) simple in and the associated normalized eigenfunction is positive. The perturbed eigenpairs form a continuous curve:
[TABLE]
Moreover, for , (1.5) has no other eigenpair, close enough to , than that belonging in .
Let be a smooth function, , such that the measure of its positive part is not zero in . Then, Theorem 1.2 is also applicable in the case of the linear problems
[TABLE]
For such , there exists a principal eigenvalue for the problem
[TABLE]
and the corresponding normalized eigenfunction belongs in . Then, as in Theorem 1.2, there exist a local, to , curve of eigenpairs for the perturbed problems (1.6). Denote this curve by
[TABLE]
Our last result concerning eigenvalue problems is the following Proposition. For the proof we refer to Subsection 2.2.
PROPOSITION 1.1
Let and be functions, and let , be the principal eigenpairs of (1.7) with weights , , respectively. Then, in if and only if the set
[TABLE]
is compact in . The positive real numbers and , depend only on (1.7) with weight .
Based on these results, we prove the existence of a branch of solutions, , for the problem (1.4), for any small enough, bifurcating from . We are not in the position to exclude the second alternative of Theorem 1.1. The standard argument, based on the maximum principle, which ensures that the branches are global and the solutions belonging in these branches are positive, cannot be applied. However, we prove that if the second alternative of Theorem 1.1 holds, then , as .
In Section 3, we leave , in order to obtain a global branch of solutions for the problem (1.2). The main result for our model equation is the following theorem.
THEOREM 1.3
The principal eigenvalue of the problem (1.3) is a bifurcation point of the perturbed problem (1.2). More precisely, the closure of the set
[TABLE]
possesses a maximal continuum (i.e. connected branch) of solutions, , such that and is unbounded in . Moreover, there are maximal connected subsets , of containing in their closure, such that , for every , if , respectively.
This is done with the use of Whyburn’s Lemma [7]:
Let be any infinite collection of point sets. The set of all points such that every neighborhood of contains points of infinitely many sets of is called the superior limit of (). The set of all points such that every neighborhood of contains points of all but a finite number of sets of is called the inferior limit of ().
THEOREM 1.4
Let be a sequence of connected closed sets such that
[TABLE]
Then, if the set is relatively compact, is a closed, connected set.
The application of Whyburn’s Lemma in bifurcation theory is rather standard; We refer in [2] and the references therein. In our case, we prove that in , for any , where denotes the ball of with center and radius . This means that the branches tend to locally in .
Finally we state as a theorem the existence of global branches for the general case (1.1).
THEOREM 1.5
Assume that is smooth enough, at least such that , uniformly, as . Then, the principal eigenvalue of the operator is a bifurcation point of the problem (1.1). More precisely, the closure of the set
[TABLE]
possesses a maximal continuum (i.e. connected branch) of solutions, , such that and is unbounded in . Moreover, there are maximal connected subsets , of containing in their closure, such that , for every , if , respectively.
The proof of the above Theorem is given in Section 4.
The only work, up to our knowledge, obtained bifurcation results for fully nonlinear elliptic problems, was [3] and based on this existence result, the authors in [4] proved positivity. In both works the uniform ellipticity condition is assumed.
Notation Throughout this work we will consider the Sobolev space and the weighted space , with inner products
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for any , respectively.
2 Eigenvalue problems
Standard regularity results imply the following:
LEMMA 2.1
Let , be a solution of the problem (1.4). Then, is at least a -function.
Another well known result concerns the eigenvalue problems (1.3) and (1.7):
THEOREM 2.1
Problems (1.3) and (1.7) admit principal eigenvalues and , respectively, given by
[TABLE]
which are simple and the corresponding normalized eigenvalues and , respectively, belong to and they are the only positive eigenfunctions of (1.3) and (1.7). Since and we have that and belong also to .
Next we consider the eigenvalue problem
[TABLE]
for , in . We denote the eigenpairs of (2.2) as , . Standard spectral theory for compact self-adjoint operators imply the existence of these eigenpairs in and state their properties. In the sequel, we assume that consists an orthonormal basis of .
2.1 Proof of Theorem 1.2
We give the proof for the more general case of the problem (1.6). Throughout, this Subsection we assume that , thus , is fixed.
LEMMA 2.2
Assume that there exist eigenpairs of (1.6) in , i.e.
[TABLE]
for any , such that , as . Then, , in .
Proof Without loss of generality we assume that are normalized in . Observe that , so we may decompose it as
[TABLE]
where in , hence also in . From (2.3), we have that satisfy
[TABLE]
for any . Setting , we get that
[TABLE]
or
[TABLE]
Observe that is a bounded sequence in , since
[TABLE]
Also, implies that is also bounded in . Moreover, since in and remain close enough to , we have
[TABLE]
where denotes the second eigenvalue of (1.7). Assume now that converge weakly to some , in , as . If , then from (2.6) and (2.8,) we obtain that
[TABLE]
as , which is a contradiction. Then and in this case, from (2.7), we have that
[TABLE]
Thus, is strongly convergent to zero in . Finally, we conclude that , in .
We do the following observation: Assume that , where is an eigenfunction of (2.2), associated with some eigenvalue . We are not in the position to exclude this case, but if this happens can be characterized as exceptional and should hold for special weights . In this case, the curve of eigenpairs is given directly by , for every . The properties of this curve, are given by Theorem 1.2, and may be proved by a similar way (see Remark 2.1).
Thus, we will consider the general case; cannot coincide to any . Assume that
[TABLE]
for some fixed and denotes the ratio
[TABLE]
since is normalized in . From (2.9) we have that does not belong to ; if we assume the opposite then
[TABLE]
thus , which is a contradiction. From (2.9) we also have that is not orthogonal to ; if the opposite holds then , which is also a contradiction.
We note that there exists functions which are orthogonal to in , but cannot be orthogonal to in . The only case that this may happen is when coincides with an eigenfunction of (2.2), i.e., in the exceptional case. To see this, assume the opposite; all functions orthogonal to in are orthogonal also in . Then for some eigenfunction we have that
[TABLE]
where and is orthogonal to in both and . From (2.2) we have that
[TABLE]
for any . Setting now , we obtain that must satisfy
[TABLE]
which implies . From the point of view of (2.9) this is a contradiction.
Proof of Theorem 1.2 We give the proof for the general case where (2.9) holds. Assume that and are fixed, such that is small enough. We proceed with the proof in four steps.
Existence For every small enough, assume the problem (1.5). The compactness properties of the space imply, that is a well defined eigenvalue problem, and the set of the eigenvalues consists an orthonormal basis of . Moreover, its principal eigenvalue satisfies the variational characterization
[TABLE]
Moreover,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Since is normalized in , we obtain that
[TABLE]
This implies that is decreasing, and , as . Then, Lemma (2.2) implies that , in , as .
As a conclusion we get that, for any and any small enough there exists an eigenpair of (1.6), which form as , a set of eigenpairs with the eigenfunctions been positive and normalized. Moreover, and maybe written as
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for some .
Uniqueness For any fixed, assume that there are eigenpairs of (1.6), , , for some small enough. Assume also that and that are normalized in . Lemma (2.2) implies that , in , as . Then,
[TABLE]
where is the eigenpair corresponding to the same . Thus, and should be orthogonal in which is a contradiction, since they both converge to in , thus also in . As a conclusion we have the uniqueness of .
Simplicity For any fixed, assume that is an eigenpair of (1.6). We assume that is normalized in . Then, Lemma (2.2) implies that , in , as . This is also a contradiction, since and should be orthogonal in .
Algebraic Simplicity Consider the operator , defined by
[TABLE]
for any . From the above step (simplicity) we have that the null space of is . It suffices to prove that the range of is , the orthogonal complement of in . Assume the opposite; Let , such that , i.e.,
[TABLE]
for any . However, this is a contradiction if we set . Thus the proof is completed.
LEMMA 2.3
For any fixed , the curve of eigenpairs is continuous in .
Proof Let . If , from (2.11), we get that and from Lemma 2.2 we have that in . Assume that . Let in and in . Taking the limit, as , in
[TABLE]
we conclude that is an eigepair corresponding to . From Theorem 1.2, and the proof is completed.
REMARK 2.1
Assume the exceptional case where , where is an eigenfunction of (2.2), associated with some eigenvalue . Then, the curve of eigenfunctions , for every , has the properties of Theorem 1.2. More precisely, uniqueness maybe proved exactly as above and simplicity is implied from the simplicity of .
2.2 Proof of Proposition 1.1
We remind that if , then satisfies (2.16). For , are the principal eigenpairs of (1.7) with weights and denotes the principal eigenpair of (1.7) with weight .
Next result concerns the asymptotic behaviour of as in . In this case, in , and , where and are the second eigenvalues of (1.7), with weights and , respectively.
Proof of Proposition 1.1 Without loss of generalization, we assume that , , cannot coincide to any ; if there where a subsequence of such that , for some , then the corresponding curves are and the result follows. However, we do not exclude to be equal with any eigenfunction of (2.2).
In what follows leaving means that in . Let be a positive number, such that
[TABLE]
The convergence of , in , implies that there exists , such that
[TABLE]
for any . We introduce the following quantity, depending only on :
[TABLE]
Let and . Then,
[TABLE]
Next, for any , we decompose as in (2.12), (2.13). Decomposition (2.12) implies that
[TABLE]
for every , . Next we decompose as
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Observe that implies also . Moreover, from (2.12) and (2.21), maybe written as
[TABLE]
This equality and (2.12) imply that
[TABLE]
so satisfies also
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
since
[TABLE]
for any . Setting in (2.2) and using (2.12), (2.26) we obtain that
[TABLE]
since is normalized in . Finally, using (2.22) and setting
[TABLE]
we conclude that
[TABLE]
where is given by (2.10). Next we prove some estimates for , and . Holds that
[TABLE]
Assume that , for some . Then,
[TABLE]
which is a contradiction to the variational characterization (see (2.1)) of . Thus, remains positive for . For we have that, for , , since . Moreover, for any fixed , , as and from (2.13) and Lemma 2.3 we have that is continuous. Hence,
[TABLE]
Observe now that for any fixed , , as . Then, , as .
Next, we consider . First, we prove that, for , , if and only if . Let . From (2.23) we get that , which from (2.24) implies that . Let . From (2.21) we have that . Setting in (2.2) we get that
[TABLE]
However, the same argument as in Lemma 2.2 (see (2.8)), imply that
[TABLE]
where is the second eigenvalue of (1.7). Then, (2.31) holds only if , i.e., . Thus, , for , is equivalent to the exceptional case , which is a contradiction to our assumption. So, , for every and .
We prove now that , for every and . Using decomposition (2.23) in (2.16), setting also , we obtain
[TABLE]
or
[TABLE]
Using now (2.24) we get that
[TABLE]
Observe that , since if , (2.23) imply that . This is a contradiction to Lemma 2.2. The positivity of and , see (2.28), imply that is also positive. Then, from (2.32) and (2.33) we conclude that is positive, for any fixed and small enough. Note that for fixed , from (2.22) and Lemma 2.3 we have that is continuous. Hence,
[TABLE]
for every and . For positive , we also get that
[TABLE]
and finally, from (2.27), (2.35) and (2.19) we obtain the uniform bound for
[TABLE]
for every and . Our last estimate concerns in terms of and . Setting in (2.2), we have
[TABLE]
Using (2.27), (2.28) and (2.22) we get that
[TABLE]
Using decomposition (2.21) and (2.27)-(2.28) we have that
[TABLE]
Then (2.37) is written as
[TABLE]
or
[TABLE]
Observe now that is orthogonal to in and that the estimate (2.36) is uniform, i.e., holds for any and , thus
[TABLE]
Finally, from (2.38) we conclude that
[TABLE]
for any and .
The final step is to prove that every sequence , converges (up to some subsequence) to some , for every and every , in . Let . Holds that are normalized, hence bounded and is also bounded (see (2.36)). Then, up to some subsequence, in and .
Assume that , for some . From (2.16) we have that
[TABLE]
or
[TABLE]
since are normalized in . Taking the limit and , we get that
[TABLE]
Thus, . Moreover, (2.16) implies that
[TABLE]
for any , thus is an eigenpair belonging to and that in .
Assume now that . We will prove that in . Assume that , then
[TABLE]
and (2.39) implies that also
[TABLE]
However, these two limits contradict (2.20). Thus, and follows directly that and since both are normalized in we deduce that , in .
Finally we conclude that, for every and , every sequence , has a convergent subsequence to some , in , i.e., the set is compact in .
If now is compact in , then it is immediate that tends to in and the proof is completed.
3 Bifurcation Results
In this section, we will prove the existence of a global branch of solutions for the problem (1.2) bifurcating from the principal eigenvalue of the linear problem (1.3). To do this, we will first prove the existence of global branches for the problems (1.4) bifurcating from eigenvalues of the linear problem (1.5). Then we will leave .
From Theorem 1.2 we have the existence of a continuous curve, , of eigenpairs for the corresponding perturbed problems (1.5).
THEOREM 3.1
Let be a positive real number which is small enough. Then, for each , the eigenvalue of the problem (1.5) is a bifurcation point of the perturbed problem (1.4). More precisely, the closure of the set
[TABLE]
possesses a maximal continuum (i.e. connected branch) of solutions, , such that and either:
(i) meets infinity in or,
(ii) meets , where is also an eigenvalue of .
Proof The proof follows directly from Rabinowitz’s Theorem 1.1. We sketch the proof. For any fixed , small enough, we consider the operator , as
[TABLE]
Observe that may be written as , where is the linear and compact operator
[TABLE]
while is the compact nonlinear operator
[TABLE]
satisfying , as ; let , then and
[TABLE]
for any and . In addition, from Theorem 1.2, is a simple eigenvalue of . It is clear that the conditions of Rabinowitz’s Theorem are satisfied and the result follows. .
Next we prove some results, concerning the asymptotic behavior of the branches . Assume a sequence , and set
[TABLE]
We consider the following eigenvalue problems with weight :
[TABLE]
where . From Lemma 2.1 we have that , so . Then, Theorem 2.1 implies the existence of a principal eigenvalue with the associated normalized eigenfunction being positive and belonging in . We denote by the ”weight” function of (1.3), i.e., .
LEMMA 3.1
Let and assume that is a bounded sequence in , such that in . Then, in .
Proof Since in , the compact imbedding implies that , in , hence in and in . Moreover, the derivatives of order 5 and 6 of tend to zero in and the result follows.
LEMMA 3.2
Let , be a sequence that tends to [math], as , and . Assume that is a bounded sequence in , such that being nonnegative. Denote by and the limits (up to a subsequence) and (weakly) in . Then, converges strongly in in , and either
* is a nontrivial solution of (1.2), or* 2. 2.
. In this case, and in , such that the normalization of converges to in .
Proof Since , they satisfy
[TABLE]
for each and every , where . Since is a bounded sequence in , the compact imbedding implies that
[TABLE]
up to a subsequence, denoted again by .
Assume that, . Then, we consider the eigenvalue problems (3.2). Since, for each , , from Theorem 1.2 we have the existence of a curve, , of eigenpairs for the corresponding to perturbed problems:
[TABLE]
However, in , so Lemma 3.1 implies that in .. Then, Proposition 1.1 implies that there exists an interval , depending on , such that the set is compact in .
Choose now, small enough, such that and denote by the normalization of in . Then, dividing (3.3) by we get that is a solution of (3.5) with . We claim that , for each big enough. Assume the opposite; then problem (3.5) for the same and , admits two positive eigenfunctions corresponding to different eigenvalues. These eigenvalues should be orthogonal in , which is impossible, since is positive. (See Remark 3.1). Thus, must belong to , for each big enough. This means that and (strongly) in . However, this is true if and only if . Thus, converges strongly to [math] in . This proves the second alternative of the Lemma.
Assume now that . Taking the limit as , (3.3) implies that
[TABLE]
where . However, and is nonnegative. Thus, is the unique positive eigenfunction of the above eigenvalue problem. Suppose now that , then there exists a subsequence of , again denote it by , such that . Set . Is clear that converges weakly to some in . Then, diving (3.3) by and taking the limit, we obtain that is also a nonnegative eigenfunction of (3.6), which is impossible. Thus, and , strongly, in . This proves the first alternative of the Lemma. Thus, the proof is completed.
REMARK 3.1
In the proof of the second alternative, we used that is positive. However, this is not something crucial. Above we give a different proof for the second alternative; Assume that . We will prove that , thus , (using the notation of the above proof).
Dividing (3.3) by and setting
[TABLE]
we obtain that
[TABLE]
Since are normalized in , they converge weakly in to some function . The compact imbedding implies that , in . Taking the limit as in (3.7) we get
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
From (3.8) we have that and the limit of is finite. Since
[TABLE]
we have that converges in and this limit must be zero. Then, for any , we have that
[TABLE]
which in the limit gives
[TABLE]
However, this makes sense if and only if , where is the normalized in eigenfunction of (1.7) corresponding to the principal eigenvalue . Thus, and the rest of the proof follows exactly as in the proof of the above Lemma.
In the next result, we actually prove that for the nonpositive solutions belonging to the branches , must tend to infinity in .
LEMMA 3.3
Let be a sequence belonging to , such that and there exist , with . Then, is unbounded in .
Proof Assume the opposite i.e., there exists , such that , for any . Then, and , up to some subsequence. From Lemma 3.2, we have that if , the normalization of must converge to , in and thus in , which contradicts the positivity of . If on the other, , we get that , strongly in and is a solution of (1.7), with . The contradiction now follows from maximum principle.
LEMMA 3.4
Let . Then, the branches cannot be uniformly bounded, i.e., we cannot find such that , for any .
Proof Assume the opposite; for some there exists , such that , for any . Then, we have that the branches are compact (i.e., the second alternative of Theorem 3.1 holds), which means that must contain solutions of (1.4) that change sign. The connectness of these branches in and thus in implies that there exist with vanishing somewhere in and being positive elsewhere, with . However, this is impossible from Lemma 3.3.
The following result, which is immediate, will be used in the proof of Theorem 1.3.
LEMMA 3.5
Fix small enough. Then the branch is a closed set in .
Proof Let , to be a convergent sequence in , in some . Then, for any , we have that
[TABLE]
which in the limit gives that
[TABLE]
Thus, .
Next, we prove the main result of this Section; the existence of a global branch of solutions for (1.2) bifurcating from the principal eigenvalue of (1.3).
Proof of Theorem 1.3 We apply Whyburn’s Lemma 1.4 in order to prove that converge in , and this limit is the global branch of solutions of (1.2) bifurcating from the principal eigenvalue of (1.3). For some and some sequence , as , we define the sets as follows:
[TABLE]
For every , these sets are connected (see Theorem 3.1) and closed (see Lemma 3.5). Next, we claim that is not empty. To see this we consider the points belonging to . From Theorem 1.2 we have that , hence,
[TABLE]
It remains to prove that the set is relatively compact i.e., every sequence in contains a convergent subsequence. Let , then the sequence is bounded in and so (up to a subsequence) we have that and in . However, since is bounded, Lemma 3.3 implies that are positive in and Lemma 3.2 implies that converges strongly in , either to or to which satisfy (1.2). Thus, is relatively compact.
Then, we leave in order to obtain that , in , for any . In order to prove that is unbounded in , we may use, the sequences which converge to some in , satisfies (1.2), for any .
REMARK 3.2
Theorem 1.3 is also valid to the cases of space dimension or . The proof for follows the same arguments as that for . For the case for we have to adapt only the proof of Lemma 3.1; due to the embedding, the derivatives of order 4 of are not tending to zero in , however they tend to zero in , for any . This is sufficient for Lemma 3.1 to hold also, in the case of .
Finally, we state the global bifurcation result for the case of the problem
[TABLE]
where is a bounded domain of , , is smooth enough, at least . Using the same procedure as for the problem (1.2) we may prove the following:
THEOREM 3.2
Assume problem (3.10). Then, the principal eigenvalue is a bifurcation point of (3.10), such that the first alternative of Theorem 1.1 holds i.e., we have a global bifurcation.
4 The general case 1.1
Proof of Theorem 1.5. We will give the proof for and . Thus, we will prove the existence of global branches of solutions for the problem:
[TABLE]
bifurcating from the principal eigenvalue of in . Let be a small enough number. We assume the following approximating problems:
[TABLE]
Theorem 3.2 is directly applied for problem (4.2), for any , hence we have the existence of global branches bifurcating from . We will prove that for , these branches converge.
Proof of Theorem 1.5 We apply Whyburn’s Lemma 1.4 in order to prove that , where will denote the global branch of solutions of (4.1) bifurcating from . For some and some sequence , as , we define the sets , as follows:
[TABLE]
For every , these sets are connected (see Theorem 3.2) and closed (in the same way as in Lemma 3.5). Moreover, we note that is not empty since , for every .
It remains to prove that the set is relatively compact i.e., every sequence in contains a convergent subsequence. Let . The sequence is bounded in and so (up to a subsequence), we have that and in . Is sufficient to prove that if then in and .
Let , then in and
[TABLE]
Dividing (4.3) by we get that
[TABLE]
However,
[TABLE]
uniformly, as , thus
[TABLE]
Next we claim that ; Assume that , then from (4.3) we have that
[TABLE]
Then from (4.5) we get that,
[TABLE]
as . Using once again (4.3) we have that
[TABLE]
Setting
[TABLE]
from (4.7) we obtain that
[TABLE]
Observe that in , such that
[TABLE]
It is also true from (4.6) that
[TABLE]
Thus if , we get a contradiction from (4.8). Thus and (4.8) implies that , such that
[TABLE]
Since is nonnegative, should coincide with the principal eigenpair ( denotes the normalization of in ).
Observe now that (4.3) may be seen as
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
Denote by the normalization of in . Then, satisfies (4.9) and for , in and , we have that
[TABLE]
in . Using the same arguments as in Lemma 3.1 i.e., the compact imbedding implies that , in , hence in . Moreover, the derivatives of order 5 and 6 of tend to zero in . Thus, in . However, this is true only if , in .
It remains now to leave in order to obtain that , in , for any . In order to prove that is unbounded in , we may use the sequences , which converge to some , in , for any .
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] B. Bouffoni and J. Tolland, Analytic Theory of Global Bifurcation: An Introduction , Princeton University Press, 2003.
- 2[2] M. J. Esteban, J. Giacomoni, Existence of Global Branches of Positive Solutions for Semilinear Elliptic Gegenerate Problems , J. Math. Pures Appl. 79, (2000), no.7, 715-740.
- 3[3] P. M. Fitzpatrick and J. Pejsachowicz, An extension of the Leray-Schauder degree for fully nonlinear elliptic problems , Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., vol. 45, Amer. Math. Soc, Providence, RI, 1986, pp. 425-438.
- 4[4] T. J. Healey and H. Kielhöfer, Positivity of Global Branches of Fully Nonlinear Elliptic Boundary Value Problems , Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 115 (4), 1992, 1031-1036.
- 5[5] H. Kielhöfer, Bifurcation Theory. An Introduction with Applications to PD Es , Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin-Heidelberg, 2004.
- 6[6] P. H. Rabinowitz, Some Global Results for Nonlinear Eigenvalue Problems , J. Func. Anal. 7, (1971), 487-513.
- 7[7] G.T. Whyburn, Topological Analysis , Princeton University Press, 1958.
