Nonlinear Perturbations of a periodic magnetic Choquard equation with Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev critical exponent
Hamilton Bueno, Narciso Lisboa, Leandro Vieira

TL;DR
This paper investigates the existence of ground state solutions for a nonlinear magnetic Choquard equation with critical Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev exponent, considering periodic potentials and various nonlinearities, using variational methods.
Contribution
It establishes new existence results for ground states of a magnetic Choquard equation with critical exponent and periodic potentials, extending previous work to more general nonlinearities.
Findings
Existence of at least one ground state solution under certain conditions.
Results depend on the nonlinearity exponent p and parameters N, λ.
Applicable to a range of nonlinearities including power-type and critical cases.
Abstract
In this paper, we consider the following magnetic nonlinear Choquard equation \[-(\nabla+iA(x))^2u+ V(x)u = \left(\frac{1}{|x|^{\alpha}}*|u|^{2_{\alpha}^*}\right) |u|^{2_{\alpha}^*-2} u + \lambda f(u)\ \textrm{ in }\ \R^N,\] where is the critical exponent in the sense of the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality, , , , is an , -periodic vector potential and is a continuous scalar potential given as a perturbation of a periodic potential. Under suitable assumptions on different types of nonlinearities , namely, for , then for and (where ), we prove the existence of at least one ground…
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.
Nonlinear Perturbations of a periodic magnetic Choquard equation with Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev critical exponent
H. Bueno, N. H. Lisboa and L. L. Vieira
Abstract.
In this paper, we consider the following magnetic nonlinear Choquard equation
[TABLE]
where is the critical exponent in the sense of the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality, , , , is an , -periodic vector potential and is a continuous scalar potential given as a perturbation of a periodic potential. Under suitable assumptions on different types of nonlinearities , namely, for , then for and (where ), we prove the existence of at least one ground state solution for this equation by variational methods if belongs to some intervals depending on and .
Keywords: Variational methods, magnetic Choquard equation, Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev critical exponent
MSC[2010]: 35Q55, 35Q40, 35J20
1. Introduction
In this article we consider the problem
[TABLE]
where is the covariant derivative with respect to the , -periodic vector potential , i.e,
[TABLE]
The exponent is critical, in the sense of the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality, , is a continuous scalar potential and stands for different types of nonlinearities. Namely, we first consider for , then for , where is the critical exponent of immersion , and finally we examine .
Inspired by the seminal work of Coti Zelati and Rabinowitz [14], but also by Alves, Carrião and Miyagaki [1] and by Alves and Figueiredo [2], we assume that there is a continuous, -periodic potential , constants and with such that
;
,
where the last inequality is strict on a subset of positive measure in .
Since the problem is considered in the whole and has a critical nonlinearity in the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev sense, the verification of any compactness condition is not easy.
Our paper is motivated by Gao and Yang in [20], where a classical Choquard equation is considered in a bounded domain, i.e., the case and is studied in a bounded domain . There is a huge literature about the Choquard equation and we cite only Moroz and Van Schaftingen [27] for a good review of results on this important subject. In [20], Gao and Yang proved the existence of a ground state solution under restriction on and . Other recent advances in the study of the Choquard equation can be found, e.g., in [4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 22, 26, 30].
In Mukherjee and Sreenadh [28], the magnetic problem
[TABLE]
was examined. In this equation is also a parameter that interacts with the linear term in the right-hand side of the equation. Under suitable hypotheses on , the existence of a ground state solution was proved. The concentration of solutions as was also studied.
Changing the right-hand side of (1) to
[TABLE]
the problem was studied by Cingolani, Clapp and Secchi in [13]. In that paper the authors proved existence and multiplicity of solutions. In [12], the right-hand side (2) was generalized and a ground state solution was obtained, but the multiplicity result depend on more restrictive hypotheses than in [13].
Recent years have witnessed a growth of interest in the study of magnetic equations. The progress in this research can be found in a series of articles, e.g., [3, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16].
The main results of this paper are the following theorems.
Theorem 1**.**
For , under the hypotheses already stated on , and , problem
[TABLE]
has at least one ground state solution if either
, and ; 2.
, and sufficiently large; 3.
, and ; 4.
, and sufficiently large.
Theorem 2**.**
For , under the hypotheses already stated on , and , problem
[TABLE]
has at least one ground state solution if either
, and 2.
, and ; 3.
, and sufficiently large.
Theorem 3**.**
Under the hypotheses already stated on , and , the problem
[TABLE]
has at least one ground state solution in the intervals already described in Theorem 1.
Initially, we are going to prove the existence of a ground state solution for problem (1) considering the potential , that is, we consider the problem
[TABLE]
and as in Theorems 1, 2 and 3, where we maintain the notation introduced before and suppose that is valid.
As in Gao and Yang in [20], the key step to proof the existence of a ground state solution of problem (6) is the use of cut-off techniques on the extreme function that attains the best constant defined in the sequence. This allows us to estimate the mountain pass value associated with the energy functional related with (6) in terms of the level where the PS condition holds. In a demanding proof, this lead us to establish intervals for (depending on and ) where the PS condition is satisfied, as in the seminal work of Brézis and Nirenberg [11]. After that, the proof is completed by showing the mountain pass geometry, introducing the Nehari manifold associated with (6) and applying concentration-compactness arguments. In the sequel, we consider (1) for the different nonlinearities and prove that each problem has at least one ground state solution.
We observe that the conclusion of Theorem 2 is similar to that of Theorem 1.1 in Alves, Carrião and Miyagaki [1] and Theorem 1.1 in Miyagaki [25]. Being more precise, in [1] the authors have discussed the existence of a positive solution to the semilinear elliptic problem involving critical exponents
[TABLE]
where is a parameter, and is a positive continuous function. On its turn, Miyagaki [25] has studied the existence of nontrivial solution for the following class of semilinear elliptic equation in () involving critical Sobolev exponents
[TABLE]
where and are constants and is a continuous function such that for all , where is a constant.
Problems (6) and (1) are then related by showing that the minimax value of the latter satisfies . Once more, concentration-compactness arguments are applied to show the existence of a ground state solution.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 some preliminary results will be established. Section 3, 4 and 5 are then devoted to the proofs of Theorems 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
2. Preliminary results
We denote
[TABLE]
We handle problem (1) in the space
[TABLE]
endowed with the norm
[TABLE]
Observe that the norm generated by this scalar product is equivalent to the norm obtained by considering , see [24, Definition 7.20].
If , then and the diamagnetic inequality is valid (see [13] or [24, Theorem 7.21])
[TABLE]
As a consequence of the diamagnetic inequality, we have the continuous immersion
[TABLE]
for any . We denote and the norm in .
It is well-known that is dense in , see [24, Theorem 7.22].
Following Gao and Yang [21], we denote by
[TABLE]
where . The equality between and was proved in Mukherjee and Sreenadh [28]. We remark that is attained if and only if [28, Theorem 4.1]. See also [10, Theorem 1.1].
We state a result proved in [21].
Proposition 4** (Gao and Yang [21]).**
The constant defined in (8) is achieved if and only if
[TABLE]
where is a fixed constant, and are parameters. Furthermore,
[TABLE]
where is the best Sobolev constant of the immersion and depends on and .
If we consider the minimizer for given by (see [31, Theorem 1.42]), then
[TABLE]
is the unique minimizer for that satisfies
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
Proposition 5** (Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality, see [24]).**
Suppose that and for and satisfying . Then, there exists a sharp constant , independent of and , such that
[TABLE]
If , then
[TABLE]
In this case there is equality in if and only if for a constant and
[TABLE]
for some , and .
Lemma 6**.**
Let be any open set. For , let be a bounded sequence in such that a.e. Then in .
The proof of Lemma 6 only adapts the arguments given for the real case, as in [23, Lemme 4.8, Chapitre 1].
3. The case
3.1. The periodic problem
In this subsection we deal with problem (6) for as above, that is,
[TABLE]
where .
We consider the space
[TABLE]
endowed with scalar product
[TABLE]
and, therefore
[TABLE]
We observe that the energy functional on associated with (10) is given by
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Remark 3.1**.**
Notice that, by the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality, the integral
[TABLE]
is well defined if
[TABLE]
Here, as also in [6], is called the lower critical exponent and the upper critical exponent. This lead us to say that (1) is a critical nonlocal elliptic equation.
The Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality implies that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for constants and . For any the immersions (7) imply that and are well-defined. Consequently, is well-defined.
Observe that
[TABLE]
Definition 3.1**.**
A function is a weak solution of (10) if
[TABLE]
for all .
Since the derivative of the energy functional is given by
[TABLE]
we see that critical points of are weak solutions of (10).
Note that, if we obtain
[TABLE]
Lemma 7**.**
The functional satisfies the mountain pass geometry. Precisely,
there exist such that J_{A,V_{\mathcal{P}}}\big{|}_{S}\geq\delta>0 for any , where
[TABLE] 2.
for any there exists such that and .
*Proof. * Inequalities (11) and (12) yields
[TABLE]
thus implying () if we take sufficiently small.
In order to prove (), fix and consider the function given by
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
Since , we have
[TABLE]
completing the proof of ().
The mountain pass theorem without the PS condition (see [31, Theorem 1.15]) yields a Palais-Smale sequence such that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and .
Lemma 8**.**
Suppose that in . Then
[TABLE]
for all .
*Proof. * In this proof we adapt some ideas of [7]. We can suppose that a.e. in and, as consequence of the immersion (7), is bounded in . Thus, Lemma 6 allows us to conclude that
[TABLE]
The Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality allows us to conclude that
[TABLE]
for all . So, we have a continuous linear map from to . A new application of Lemma 6 yields (15).
Corollary 9**.**
Suppose that and consider
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for . Then and .
*Proof. * The immersion (7) guarantees that is bounded in . Since we can suppose that a.e. in , by applying Lemma 6, we conclude that
[TABLE]
for all , as .
Combining (15) with (16) yields
[TABLE]
as , for all . Consequently, for , it follows that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
that is,
[TABLE]
Lemma 10**.**
If is a sequence for , then is bounded. In addition, if weakly in as , then is ground state solution for problem (10).
*Proof. * Standard arguments prove that is bounded in . Then, up to a subsequence, we have weakly in as .
From Corollary 9 it follows that, for all , we have
[TABLE]
where or .
Thus, since for all we have , we obtain
[TABLE]
that is, is a ground state solution for (10).
We now consider the Nehari manifold associated with the .
[TABLE]
Lemma 11**.**
There exists a unique such that for all and . Moreover , where
[TABLE]
*Proof. * Let and defined on given by
[TABLE]
By the mountain pass geometry (Lemma 7), there exists such that
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
implying that , as consequence of (14). We now show that is unique. To this end, we suppose that there exists such that . Thus, we have both
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
Since both terms in parentheses have the same sign if and we also have , and , it follows that .
Now, the rest of the proof follows arguments similar to that found in [1, 19, 29, 31].
The following result controls the level of a Palais-Smale sequence of .
Lemma 12**.**
Let a sequence for such that
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
Then the sequence verifies either
* strongly in as *
or
There exists a sequence and constants such that
[TABLE]
where denotes the ball in of center at and radius .
*Proof. * Suppose that () does not hold. Applying a result by Lions [31, Lemma 1.21], it follows from inequality (11) that
[TABLE]
Since as , we obtain
[TABLE]
Let us suppose that
[TABLE]
Thus, as consequence of (18), we have
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
making yields
[TABLE]
On the other hand, it follows from (13) that
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
and from (19) and (20) we conclude that , which is a contradiction. Therefore, () is valid and the proof is complete.
We now state our result about the periodic problem (10).
Theorem 13**.**
Under the hypotheses already stated on and , suppose that is valid. Then problem (10) has at least one ground state solution if either
, and ; 2.
, and sufficiently large; 3.
, and ; 4.
, and sufficiently large.
*Proof. * Let be the mountain pass level and consider a sequence such that
[TABLE]
Claim. We affirm that , a result that will be shown after completing our proof, since it is very technical.
Lemma 10 guarantees that is bounded. So, passing to a subsequence if necessary, there is such that
[TABLE]
If we are done. If , it follows from Lemma 12 the existence of and such that
[TABLE]
A direct computation shows that we can assume that . Let
[TABLE]
Since both and are -periodic, we have
[TABLE]
Therefore there exists such that weakly in and in .
We claim that . In fact, it follows from (21)
[TABLE]
Since in , we have as , proving our claim.
But Corollary 9 guarantees that and it follows that . Consequently, is a ground state solution of problem (10).
We now prove the postponed Claim, that is, we show that . Observe that, once proved the existence of as in our next result, then
[TABLE]
Lemma 14**.**
There exists such that
[TABLE]
provided that either
, and ; 2.
, and sufficiently large; 3.
, and ; 4.
, and sufficiently large.
The arguments of this proof were adapted from the articles [20, 25]. Observe that the conditions stated in this result are exactly the same of Theorem 1 and Theorem 13.
*Proof. * We know that is a minimizer for , the best Sobolev constant of the immersion (see [31, Theorem 1.42] or [10, Section 3]) and also a minimizer for , according to Proposition 4.
If denotes the ball in of center at origin and radius , consider the balls and and take such that, for a constant ,
[TABLE]
We define, for
[TABLE]
In the proof we apply the estimates
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
which were obtained by Gao and Yang [21].
Case 1. and or and .
Proof of Case 1. Consider the function defined by
[TABLE]
The mountain pass geometry (Lemma 7) implies the existence of such that . Since , and , we obtain
[TABLE]
thus implying
[TABLE]
Now define by
[TABLE]
So,
[TABLE]
Since and , it follows that , and, consequently, is increasing in this interval. Thus,
[TABLE]
We conclude that
[TABLE]
and therefore
[TABLE]
Since , we have
[TABLE]
But implies
[TABLE]
Therefore, we conclude that
[TABLE]
Since, for all and any we have , considering
[TABLE]
it follows
[TABLE]
Taking into account (24) and (25), we conclude that
[TABLE]
We also have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We observe that, for sufficiently small, it holds
[TABLE]
So,
[TABLE]
Therefore, we conclude that, for any sufficiently small, we have
[TABLE]
Combining (27) with (29), for sufficiently small, we have
[TABLE]
We claim that there is a positive constant such that, for all
[TABLE]
In fact, suppose that there is a sequence , as , such that as . Thus,
[TABLE]
Since is bounded and , as , we have as , em .
The continuity of implies that . Therefore,
[TABLE]
a contradiction that proves the claim.
From (26), (30) and (31) we conclude that, for some constant and sufficiently small we have
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
where , and .
By direct computation we know that, for ,
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
Since is bounded, (33) and the last inequality imply that
[TABLE]
We are going to show that
[TABLE]
In order to do that, it suffices to show that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Assuming (36) and (37), let us proceed with our proof. Since
[TABLE]
from (35) follows
[TABLE]
for sufficiently small.
[TABLE]
for sufficiently small and fixed. Once (36) and (37) are verified, the proof of Case 1 is complete.
We now prove (36).
Lemma 15**.**
If and or and it follows that
[TABLE]
*Proof. * This limit is evaluated considering the cases and as follows. We initially observe that direct computation allows us to conclude that
[TABLE]
where denotes the volume of the unit ball in .
Now, define
[TABLE]
the second equality being a consequence of (39).
The case . In this case we have and therefore . We also observe that implies .
It is easy to show that
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
Our claim follows.
The case . In this case, implies and , since .
Changing variables, we obtain
[TABLE]
So,
[TABLE]
Our claim follows by applying L’Hospital rule.
The case . We have
[TABLE]
It is easy to show that, if , then the integral
[TABLE]
converges.
There are two cases to be considered:
- •
and ;
- •
and .
Let us suppose and . Since we have
[TABLE]
Also implies . Therefore, as .
Now we consider the case and . We have and therefore
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
we conclude that . We are done.
We now prove (37).
Lemma 16**.**
It holds
[TABLE]
*Proof. *Fix sufficiently large so that if . Since
[TABLE]
our proof is complete.
Case 2. For sufficiently large, and or and
Proof of Case 2. Define by
[TABLE]
We already know that as and is attained at some satisfying
[TABLE]
that is,
[TABLE]
since . Thus as and
[TABLE]
Since as and , we conclude that
[TABLE]
for sufficiently large.
Therefore,
[TABLE]
for sufficiently large.
3.2. The proof of Theorem 1
Some arguments of this proof were adapted from the articles [2, 25].
Maintaining the notation introduced in subsection 3.1, consider the energy functional given by
[TABLE]
We denote by the Nehari Manifold related to , that is,
[TABLE]
which is non-empty as a consequence of Theorem 13. As before, the functional satisfies the mountain pass geometry. Thus, there exists a sequence such that
[TABLE]
where is the minimax level, also characterized by
[TABLE]
We stress that, as a consequence of (), we have for all .
The next lemma compares the levels and .
Lemma 17**.**
The levels and verify the inequality
[TABLE]
for all .
*Proof. * Let be the ground state solution of problem (10) and consider such that , that is
[TABLE]
It follows from that
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
The second inequality was already known.
Proof of Theorem 1. Let be a sequence for . As before, is bounded in . Thus, there exists such that
[TABLE]
By the same arguments given in the proof of Theorem 13, is a ground state solution of problem (3), if .
Following close [2], we will show that cannot occur. Indeed, Lemma 6 yields
[TABLE]
since and in . So,
[TABLE]
showing that
[TABLE]
But, for such that , we have
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
Let such that . Mimicking the argument found in [1, 19, 29, 31], it follows that as . Therefore,
[TABLE]
Letting , we get
[TABLE]
obtaining a contradiction with Lemma 17. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.
4. The case
4.1. The periodic problem
In this subsection we deal with problem (6) for as above, that is,
[TABLE]
where .
We observe that in this case the energy functional is given by
[TABLE]
where, as before
[TABLE]
By the Sobolev immersion (7) and the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality, we have that is well defined.
Definition 4.1**.**
A function is a weak solution of (42) if
[TABLE]
for all .
As before, we see that critical points of are weak solutions of (42) and
[TABLE]
We obtain that satisfies the geometry of the mountain pass (see the proof of Lemma 7).
As in Section 3, the mountain pass theorem without the PS condition yields a sequence such that
[TABLE]
where and .
Considering the Nehari manifold
[TABLE]
by proceeding as in the proof of Lemma 11 we obtain
Lemma 18**.**
There exists a unique such that for all and . Moreover , where
[TABLE]
Lemma 19**.**
Suppose that and consider
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for . Then and as
Lemma 20**.**
If is a sequence for , then is bounded. In addition, if weakly in , as then is ground state solution for problem (42).
Lemma 21**.**
If is a sequence for such that
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
then there exists a sequence and constants such that
[TABLE]
where denotes the ball in of center at and radius .
The proof of Lemmas 19, 20 and 21 is similar to that of Corollary 9 Lemmas 10 and 12, respectively.
Lemma 22**.**
Let and as defined in (23). Then, there exists such that
[TABLE]
provided that either
, and 2.
, and ; 3.
, and sufficiently large.
*Proof. * Consider, for the cases () and () the function defined by
[TABLE]
and proceed as in the proof of Case 1, Lemma 14.
In the case of , and sufficiently large, consider defined by
[TABLE]
and proceed as in the proof of Case 2, Lemma 14.
Similar to the proof of Theorem 13, we now state our result about the periodic problem (42).
Theorem 23**.**
Under the hypotheses already stated on and , suppose that is valid. Then problem (42) has at least one ground state solution if either
, and 2.
, and ; 3.
, and sufficiently large.
4.2. Proof of Theorem 2
Some arguments of this proof were adapted from the proof of Theorem 1 below , that in turn were adapted from articles [2, 25].
Maintaining the notation already introduced, consider the functional defined by
[TABLE]
for all .
We denote by the Nehari Manifold related to , that is,
[TABLE]
which is non-empty as a consequence of Theorem 23. As before, the functional satisfies the mountain pass geometry. Thus, there exists a sequence , that is, a sequence satisfying
[TABLE]
where is the minimax level, also characterized by
[TABLE]
As in the Section 3, we have for all as a consequence of ().
Similar to the proof of Lemma 17 we have the following conclusion that shows as important inequality involving the levels and , what completes the proof of Theorem 2.
Lemma 24**.**
The levels and verify the inequality
[TABLE]
for all .
5. The case
5.1. Proof of Theorem 3
As observed by Gao and Yang [20], the proof of Theorem 3 is analogous to the proof of Theorem 1. The principal distinction is that the condition holds true below the level . It follows from [31, Lemma 1.46] that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
So, we have
[TABLE]
since
[TABLE]
Observe that the last result is a consequence of
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
The rest of the proof is omitted here.
Acknowledgements. The authors thank Prof. G. M. Figueiredo for many useful conversations and suggestions.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] C.O. Alves, P.C. Carrião, O.H. Miyagaki: Nonlinear perturbations of a periodic elliptic problem with critical growth, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 260 (2001), no. 1, 133-146.
- 2[2] C.O. Alves and G.M. Figueiredo: Nonlinear perturbations of a periodic Kirchhoff equation in ℝ N superscript ℝ 𝑁 \mathbb{R}^{N} , Nonlinear Anal. 75 (2012), no. 5, 2750–2759.
- 3[3] C.O. Alves, G.M. Figueiredo and M. Yang: Multiple semiclassical solutions for a nonlinear Choquard equation with magnetic field, Asymptot. Anal. 96 (2016), no. 2, 135–159.
- 4[4] C.O. Alves, F. Gao, M. Squassina and M. Yang: Singularly perturbed critical Choquard equations, J. Differential Equations 263 (2017), no. 7, 3943-3988.
- 5[5] C.O. Alves, A. Nobrega and M. Yang: Multi-bump solutions for Choquard equation with deepening potential well, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 55 (2016), no. 3, Art. 48, 28 pp.
- 6[6] C.O. Alves and M. Yang: Existence of semiclassical ground state solutions for a generalized Choquard equation, J. Differential Equations 257 (2014), no. 11, 4133-4164.
- 7[7] C.O. Alves and M. Yang: Investigating the multiplicity and concentration behaviour of solutions for a quasi-linear Choquard equation via the penalization method, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 146 (2016), no. 1, 23–58.
- 8[8] V. Ambrosio and P. D’Avenia: Nonlinear fractional magnetic Schrödinger equation: existence and multiplicity, J. Differential Equations 264 (2018), no. 5, 3336–3368.
