Professional Documents
Culture Documents
P Laplciano
P Laplciano
P Laplciano
Presented by L. Sanchez
0 – Introduction
The aim of this paper is to obtain existence results for the Dirichlet problem
(
−∆p u = f (x, u) in Ω ,
u|∂Ω = 0 .
∂ ∂u
Here ∆p = ∂x i
(|∇u|p−2 ∂x i
), 1 < p < ∞, is the so-called p-Laplacian and
f : Ω×R → R is a Carathéodory function which satisfies some special growth
conditions. One of the main ideas is to present the operator −∆p as a duality
mapping between W01,p (Ω) and its dual W −1,p (Ω), p1 + p10 = 1, corresponding
0
to the normalization function ϕ(t) = tp−1 . This idea, coming from Lions’ book
[23], proves to be a very fruitful one. The properties of the Nemytskii operator
(Nf u)(x) = f (x, u(x)), generated by the Carathéodory function f , the homo-
topy invariance of the Leray–Schauder degree (under the form of a priori esti-
mate, uniformly with respect to λ ∈ [0, 1], of the solutions set of the equation
u = λ(−∆p )−1 Nf u with (−∆p )−1 Nf : W01,p (Ω) → W01,p (Ω) compact), the well
known Mountain Pass Theorem of Ambrosetti and Rabinowitz and the varia-
tional characterization of the first eigenvalue of −∆p on W01,p (Ω) are the other
essential tools which are also used.
The main idea of this paragraph is to present the operator −∆p , 1 < p < ∞,
as duality mapping Jϕ : W01,p (Ω) → W −1,p (Ω), p1 + p10 = 1, corresponding to the
0
0
if the equality −∆p u = f is satisfied in the sense of W −1,p (Ω).
For the convenience of the reader we have considered to put away the def-
initions and the results concerning the duality mapping, which will be used in
the sequel. Because these results are already known, the proof is often omit-
ted; however the proof is given when these results achieve specific properties for
p-Laplacian.
Below, X always is a real Banach space, X ∗ stands for its dual and h·, ·i is
the duality between X ∗ and X. The norm on X and on X ∗ is denoted by k k.
Given a set valued operator A : X → P(X ∗ ), the range of A is defined to be
the set
[
R(A) = Ax
x∈D(A)
for x ∈ X.
By the Hahn–Banach theorem, it is easy to check that D(Jϕ ) = X.
Some of the main properties of the duality mapping are contained in the
following
For proof we refer to Beurling and Livingston [5], Browder [8], Lions [23],
Ciorãnescu [9].
f (x + t h) − f (x)
lim = hf 0 (x), hi
t→0 t
for all h ∈ X.
If the convex function f : X → R is Gâteaux differentiable at x ∈ X, then
it is a simple matter to verify that ∂f (x) consists of a single element, namely
x∗ = f 0 (x).
This simple remark will be essentially used in the sequel.
342 G. DINCA, P. JEBELEAN and J. MAWHIN
The geometry of the space X (or X ∗ ) supplies further properties of the duality
mapping. That is why we recall the following (see e.g. Diestel [11])
For proof see e.g. Brézis [6] or Diestel [11] — where the original proof of Pettis
is given.
In the sequel, ϕ will be a normalization function.
Proposition 1.
(i) If X is strictly convex, then Jϕ is strictly monotone:
Proof: (i) First, it is easy to check that (see e.g. James [18]) if X is strictly
convex, then for each x∗ ∈ X ∗ \{0} there exists at most an element x ∈ X with
kxk = 1, such that hx∗ , xi = kx∗ k.
Now, supposing by contradiction that there exist x1 , x2 ∈ X with x1 6= x2
and x∗1 ∈ Jϕ x1 , x∗2 ∈ Jϕ x2 , satisfying
hx∗1 − x∗2 , x1 − x2 i = 0
DIRICHLET PROBLEMS WITH p-LAPLACIAN 343
we have
³ ´³ ´
0 = hx∗1 − x∗2 , x1 − x2 i ≥ ϕ(kx1 k) − ϕ(kx2 k) kx1 k − kx2 k ≥ 0
it follows ³ ´³ ´
ϕ(kxn k) − ϕ(kxk) kxn k − kxk| → 0
hJϕ xn , xn i → hx∗ , xi .
But,
We get hx∗ , xi = ϕ(kxk) kxk and so, ϕ(kxk) ≤ kx∗ k. Finally hx∗ , xi = ϕ(kxk) kxk
and ϕ(kxk) = kx∗ k, which means x∗ = Jϕ x.
Proof: The result follows from a well known theorem of Browder [8]: if X
is reflexive and T : X → X ∗ is monotone, hemicontinuous and coercive, then T
is surjective.
In our case, Jϕ is monotone by Theorem 1 (ii). The fact that Jϕ is hemicon-
tinuous means: D E
lim Jϕ (u + t v), w = hJϕ u, wi
t→0
Finally,
hJϕ u, ui
= ϕ(kuk) → ∞ with kuk → ∞ ,
kuk
hence Jϕ is coercive.
From (1) and because a duality mapping maps bounded subsets into bounded
subsets, it is immediately that Jϕ−1 is bounded.
To see that Jϕ−1 is continuous, let x∗n → x∗ in X ∗ .
From (1) and by Proposition 3 we have that Jϕ−1 x∗n * Jϕ−1 x∗ . By the defini-
tion of the duality mapping Jϕ , it is easy to see that kJϕ−1 x∗n k → kJϕ−1 x∗ k. But
the space X is assumed to be locally uniformly convex, and so, Jϕ−1 x∗n → Jϕ−1 x∗ .
To prove the monotonicity of Jϕ−1 , the space X is identified with X ∗∗ by the
canonical isomorphism χ. Then, for x∗1 , x∗2 ∈ X ∗ , we have:
D E D E
χ(Jϕ−1 x∗1 ) − χ(Jϕ−1 x∗2 ), x∗1 − x∗2 = Jϕ∗−1 x∗1 − Jϕ∗−1 x∗2 , x∗1 − x∗2
W01,p (Ω) = the closure of C0∞ (Ω) in the space W 1,p (Ω)
n o
= u ∈ W 1,p (Ω) | u|∂Ω = 0
Z
h−∆p u, vi = |∇u|p−2 ∇u ∇v for u, v ∈ W01,p (Ω) .
Ω
DIRICHLET PROBLEMS WITH p-LAPLACIAN 347
the functional
W01,p (Ω) 3 u 7−→ kuk1,p : = k|∇u|k0,p
Proof: First, let p ∈ [2, ∞). Then (see e.g. Adams [1, pp. 36]) for each
z, w ∈ RN , it holds:
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯p ³ ´
¯ z + w ¯p ¯ ¯
¯ ¯ + ¯ z − w ¯ ≤ 1 |z|p + |w|p .
¯ 2 ¯ ¯ 2 ¯ 2
which yields
° ° µ ¶p
° u + v °p ε
(2) ° ° ≤ 1− .
° 2 ° 2
1,p
If p ∈ (1, 2), then (see e.g. Adams [1, pp. 36]) for each z, w ∈ RN , it holds:
¯ ¯ 0 ¯ ¯ 0 · ³ ´¸ p−1
1
¯ z + w ¯p ¯ z − w ¯p 1
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ p p
¯ 2 ¯ + ¯ 2 ¯ ≤ 2 |z| + |w| .
A straightforward computation shows that if v ∈ W01,p (Ω) then |∇v|p ∈ Lp−1 (Ω)
0
0 0
and k|∇v|p k0,p−1 = kvkp1,p .
348 G. DINCA, P. JEBELEAN and J. MAWHIN
Let v1 , v2 ∈ W01,p (Ω). Then |∇v1 |p , |∇v2 |p ∈ Lp−1 (Ω), with 0 < p − 1 < 1
0 0
Consequently,
° ° 0 ° ° p0 °¯ ¯ 0° °¯ ¯ 0°
° v1 + v 2 ° p ° ° ° ¯ v1 + v 2 ¯ p ° ° ¯ v1 − v 2 ¯ p °
° ° + ° v1 − v 2 ° ° ¯
= ° ¯∇ ¯ ° °
+ ∇ ¯ ¯ °
° 2 °1,p ° 2 °1,p 2 ¯ °0,p−1 °¯ 2 ¯ °0,p−1
°¯ °
°¯ v + v ¯¯p0 ¯¯ v − v ¯¯p0 °
°¯ 1 2¯ ¯ 1 2¯ °
≤ ° ¯∇ + ¯∇ °
° 2 ¯ 2 ¯ ° 0,p−1
1
Z ï ¯ 0 ¯ ¯ 0 !p−1 p−1
¯ ∇v1 +∇v2 ¯p ¯ ∇v1 −∇v2 ¯p
= ¯ ¯ +¯ ¯
¯ 2 ¯ ¯ 2 ¯
Ω
" Z ³ # 1
1 ´ p−1
p p
≤ |∇v1 | + |∇v2 |
2
Ω
· ¸ 1
1 1 p−1
= kv1 kp1,p + kv2 kp1,p .
2 2
For u, v ∈ W01,p (Ω) with kuk1,p = kvk1,p = 1 and ku − vk1,p ≥ ε ∈ (0, 2], we
get
° ° 0 µ ¶p0
° u + v °p ε
(3) ° ° ≤ 1 − .
° 2 ° 2
1,p
From (2) and (3), in either case there exists δ(ε) > 0 such that ku + vk 1,p ≤
2 (1 − δ(ε)).
Below, the space W01,p (Ω) always will be considered to be endowed with the
norm k k1,p .
Theorem 7. The operator −∆p : W01,p (Ω) → W −1,p (Ω) is a potential one.
0
kuk
R 1,p
Proof: Since ψ(u) = ϕ(t) dt, it is sufficient to prove that ψ is Gâteaux
0
differentiable and ψ 0 (u) = −∆p u for all u ∈ W01,p (Ω) (see Theorem 1 (iii) and
Remark 1).
If u ∈ W01,p (Ω) is such that |∇u| = 0Lp (Ω) (this implies that kuk1,p = 0 i.e.
u = 0W 1,p (Ω) ), then it is immediately that hψ 0 (u), hi = 0 for all h ∈ W01,p (Ω).
0
Therefore, we may suppose that |∇u| 6= 0Lp (Ω) .
It is obvious that ψ can be written as a product ψ = QP , where Q : Lp (Ω) → R
is given by Q(v) = p1 kvkp0,p and P : W01,p (Ω) → Lp (Ω) is given by P (v) = |∇v|.
The functional Q is Gâteaux differentiable (see Vainberg [28]) and
continuous.
0
Remark 3. In fact, the above Theorem 8 asserts that for each f ∈ W −1,p (Ω),
the equation −∆p u = f has a unique solution in W01,p (Ω).
The properties of (−∆p )−1 show how the solution u = (−∆p )−1 f depends on
the data f . These properties will be used in the sequel.
Since the elements of W01,p (Ω) vanish on the boundary ∂Ω in the sense of the
trace, it is natural that the unique solution in W01,p (Ω) of the equation −∆p u = f
to be called solution of the Dirichlet problem
(
−∆p u = f ,
u|∂Ω = 0 .
We shall conclude this section with two technical results which will be useful
in the sequel.
We have seen (Theorem 7) that the functional ψ(u) = p1 kukp1,p is Gâteaux
differentiable on W01,p (Ω). Moreover, we have:
For the proof we need the following lemma (see Glowinski and Marrocco [16]).
Lemma 1.
(i) If p ∈ [2, ∞) then it holds:
¯ ¯ ³ ´p−2
¯ p−2 ¯
¯|z| z − |y|p−2 y ¯ ≤ β |z − y| |z| + |y| for all y, z ∈ RN
g(u) = |∇u|p−2 ∇u ,
which yields
h i 0
³ ´p0 (p−2)
(6) g(u) − g(v) ≤ C ku − vkp1,p kuk1,p + kvk1,p
0,p
or h i
p−1
(7) g(u) − g(v) ≤ C 0 ku − vk1,p
0,p0
0
Thus, first of all, appropriate conditions on f ensuring that Nf u ∈ W −1,p (Ω)
must be formulated, Nf being the well known Nemytskii operator defined by f ,
i.e. (Nf u)(x) = f (x, u(x)) for x ∈ Ω. Hence, we are guided to consider some basic
results on the Nemytskii operator. Simple proofs of these facts can be found in
e.g. de Figueiredo [14] or Kavian [20] (see also Vainberg [28]).
is measurable in Ω.
R R
(ii) the functional Φ : Lq (Ω)→R defined by Φ(u) : = NF u = F (x, u) is
Ω Ω
continuously Fréchet differentiable and Φ0 (u) = NF u for all u ∈ Lq (Ω).
The restriction q ∈ (1, p∗ ) ensures that the imbedding W01,p (Ω) ,→ Lq (Ω) is
compact. Hence, the diagram
Id Nf 0 Id∗ 0
W01,p (Ω) ,→ Lq (Ω) → Lq (Ω) ,→ W −1,p (Ω)
shows that Nf is a compact operator (continuous and maps bounded sets into
relatively compact sets) from W01,p (Ω) into W −1,p (Ω).
0
(11) − ∆p u = N f u
0
in the sense of W −1,p (Ω) i.e.
or Z Z
(12) |∇u| p−2
∇u ∇v = f (x, u) v for all v ∈ W01,p (Ω) .
Ω Ω
The search for solutions of problem (9) is, now, reduced to the search of critical
points of F, i.e. of those u ∈ W01,p (Ω) such that F 0 (u) = 0.
In this section, the “a priori estimate method” will be used in order to es-
tablish the existence of fixed points for the compact operator T = (−∆p )−1 Nf :
W01,p (Ω) → W01,p (Ω) (see Dinca and Jebelean [13]).
For it suffices to prove that the set
n o
S = u ∈ W01,p (Ω) | u = α T u for some α ∈ [0, 1]
the constant C1 coming from the continuous imbedding W01,p (Ω) → Lq (Ω).
DIRICHLET PROBLEMS WITH p-LAPLACIAN 357
with K1 , K2 ≥ 0 constants.
Remark that if (14) would imply that there is a constant a ≥ 0 such that
kT uk1,p ≤ a, then the boundedness of S would be proved, because we would have
kuk1,p = α kT uk1,p ≤ a.
But this is obviously true if q ∈ (1, p).
We have obtained
Remark 5. We shall see that if (10) holds with b ∈ L∞ (Ω) then the vari-
ational approach allows to weaken the hypotheses of Theorem 11 and problem
(9) still has solutions but the boundedness of the set of all solutions will not be
ensured.
It is clear that
kukp1,p
(15) λ = .
kukp0,p
Because kvk0,p ≤ C1 kvk1,p for all v ∈ W01,p (Ω), from (15), it results that 1−λC1p ≤ 0.
358 G. DINCA, P. JEBELEAN and J. MAWHIN
Rs
where F (x, u) = f (x, τ ) dτ .
0
Remark that the compact imbedding W01,p (Ω) ,→ Lq (Ω) implies that F is
weakly lower semicontinuous in W01,p (Ω) .
So, by a standard result, in order to derive sufficient conditions for (9) has
solutions, a first suitable way is to ensure the coerciveness of F. Such results
DIRICHLET PROBLEMS WITH p-LAPLACIAN 359
were obtained by Anane and Gossez [4] even in more general conditions on f . It
is not our aim to detail this direction. However, we depict a few such of results.
First we refer to a result of Anane and Gossez [4].
Let G : Ω × R → R be a Carathéodory function, such that, for any R > 0,
λ1 |s|p
We write G(x, s) = p + H(x, s), where λ1 is the first eigenvalue of −∆p
on W01,p (Ω) (see e.g. Anane [3], Lindqvist [22]) and let us define H ± (x) as the
superior limit of H(x,s)
|s|p as s → ±∞ respectively.
It holds (see Proposition 2.1 in Anane–Gossez [4]):
is well defined on W01,p (Ω), takes values in ]− ∞, +∞], is weakly lower semicon-
tinuous and coercive.
p F (x, s)
(17) lim sup ≤ α(x) ≤ λ1 uniformly in Ω .
s→±∞ |s|p
360 G. DINCA, P. JEBELEAN and J. MAWHIN
We obtain
µ ¶
H(x, s) F (x, s) λ1
H ± (x) = lim sup p
= lim sup − =
s→±∞ |s| s→±∞ |s|p p
F (x, s) λ1 α(x) − λ1
= lim sup p
− ≤
s→±∞ |s| p p
the infimum being attained exactly when v is multiple of some function u1 > 0.
By (17) and (19) it follows that N (v) ≥ 0 for all v ∈ W01,p (Ω).
Supposing, by contradiction, that there is a sequence (vn ) in W01,p (Ω) with
kvn k1,p = 1 and N (vn ) → 0, we can find a subsequence of (vn ), still denoted by
(vn ), and some v0 ∈ W01,p (Ω) with vn * v0 , weakly in W01,p (Ω) and vn → v0 ,
strongly in Lp (Ω).
DIRICHLET PROBLEMS WITH p-LAPLACIAN 361
R
The functional v 7→ α(x) |v|p is continuous on Lp (Ω) and weakly continuous
Ω
on W01,p (Ω).
By the weakly lower semicontinuity of N on W01,p (Ω), we infer
Z
0 ≤ kv0 kp1,p − α(x) |v0 |p ≤ lim inf N (vn ) = 0
n→∞
Ω
R R
and so, kv0 kp1,p = α(x) |v0 |p . But N (vn ) → 1 − α(x) |v0 |p , hence
Ω Ω
Z
kv0 kp1,p = α(x) |v0 |p = 1
Ω
which yields v0 6= 0.
Then, by (17) and (19) we have
Z
(20) λ1 kv0 kp0,p ≤ kv0 kp1,p = α(x) |v0 |p ≤ λ1 kv0 kp0,p
Ω
kv0 kp1,p
which implies that λ1 = kv0 kp0,p
.
It results that v0 is a nonzero multiple of u1 .
Consequently, |v0 (x)| > 0 a.e. in Ω.
But, then, denoting Ω1 : = {x ∈ Ω | α(x) < λ1 }, because meas(Ω1 ) > 0, we get
Z Z Z
α(x) |v0 |p = α(x) |v0 |p + α(x) |v0 |p < λ1 kv0 kp0,p
Ω Ω1 Ω\Ω1
α(x) + ε p
(22) F (x, s) ≤ |s| + k + c(x) for x ∈ Ω, s ∈ R .
p
362 G. DINCA, P. JEBELEAN and J. MAWHIN
1³ ´
F(v) ≥ ε0 kvkp1,p − ε kvkp0,p − k1
p
λ 1 ε0 − ε
≥ kvkp1,p − k1 → ∞
p
as kvk1,p → ∞.
Remark 8.
(i) If in (10) the function b is required to be in L∞ (Ω) then it is easy to
check that if q ∈ (1, p) then (17) holds with α ≡ 0 and so, problem
(9) has solutions. But, as we have already remarked (see Remark 5), if
b ∈ L∞ (Ω) and only (17) is required then the boundedness of the set of
solutions (as in Theorem 11) is not stated.
(ii) The idea of the above direct proof of Theorem 13 is a suitable one in
proving the existence of solutions for a multivalued variant of problem
(9) (see Proposition 4.1 in Jebelean [19]).
where n o
Γ = g ∈ C([0, 1], X) | g(0) = 0, g(1) = e .
But
hNf unk , unk − ui → 0
because of ¯ ¯
¯ ¯
¯hNf unk , unk − ui¯ ≤ kNf unk ko,q 0 kunk − uk0,q
and, by unk * u in W01,p (Ω) and by the compact imbedding W01,p (Ω) ,→ Lq (Ω),
0
we get unk → u strongly in Lq (Ω). Notice that (Nf unk ) is bounded in Lq (Ω).
By (23) we obtain
h−∆p unk , unk − ui → 0
which, together with Theorem 10 shows that unk → u strongly in W01,p (Ω).
Remark 9. It is worth noticing that (24) extends the well known condition
there are θ > 2 and s0 > 0 such that
0 < θ F (x, s) ≤ s f (x, s) for x ∈ Ω, |s| ≥ s0
which was first formulated by Ambrosetti and Rabinowitz [2] as a sufficient con-
dition to ensure that F satisfies (PS) in the particular case p = 2.
Proof of Theorem 15: It suffices to show that any sequence (un ) ⊂ W01,p (Ω)
for which (F(un )) is bounded and F 0 (un ) → 0, is bounded. Then Lemma 2 will
accomplish the proof.
Let d ∈ R be such that F(un ) ≤ d for all n ∈ N. For each n ∈ N, we denote
n o
Ωn = x ∈ Ω | |un (x)| ≥ s0 , Ω0n = Ω\Ωn .
We have µ Z Z ¶
1
(25) kun kp1,p − F (x, un ) + F (x, un ) ≤ d.
p
Ωn Ω0n
We proceed with obtaining estimations independent of n for the integrals in
(25).
Let n ∈ N be arbitrary chosen.
If x ∈ Ω0n , then |un (x)| < s0 and by Proposition 6 (i), it follows
F (x, un ) ≤ C1 |un (x)|q + c(x) ≤ C1 sq0 + c(x)
and hence Z Z
(26) F (x, un ) ≤ C1 sq0 · meas(Ω) + c(x) = K1 .
Ω0n Ω
which yields
Z
1 K2
(28) − f (x, un ) un ≤ .
θ θ
Ω0n
or ¯ ¯
¯ p ¯
¯kun k1.p − hNf un , un i¯ ≤ kun k1,p
which gives
1 1 1
(30) kun kp1,p − kun k1,p ≤ − hNf un , un i .
−
θ θ θ
Now, from (29) and (30) it results
µ ¶
1 1 1
− kun kp1,p − kun k1,p ≤ K
p θ θ
and taking into account that θ > p, we conclude that (un ) is bounded.
Now, viewing (I2 ) in Theorem 14, the next step is to obtain sufficient con-
ditions for F be unbounded below in W01,p (Ω). The following lemma will throw
light in the role of this unboundedness.
it is clear that
Remark 11. Assume F is unbounded from below. Then, for any ρ > 0
there is an element e ∈ W01,p (Ω) with kek1,p ≥ ρ, such that F(e) ≤ 0.
Indeed, suppose by contradiction that there is some ρ > 0 such that for all
u ∈ W01,p (Ω) with kuk ≥ ρ, it holds F(u) ≥ 0. Then by Lemma 3 (ii), the set
{F(u) | kuk1,p < ρ} is bounded. It results that F is bounded from below, which
is a contradiction.
or
(ii) there are numbers θ > p and s1 < 0 such that
More precisely, we’ll show that if u ∈ W01,p (Ω), u > 0 is such that
meas(M1 (u)) > 0 holds, with
n o
M1 (u) = x ∈ Ω | u(x) ≥ s1 ,
then F(λu) → −∞ as λ → ∞.
First, for λ ≥ 1, let us denote
n o
Mλ (u) = x ∈ Ω | λ u(x) ≥ s1
and let us remark that M1 (u) ⊂ Mλ (u), and hence meas(Mλ (u)) > 0.
On the other hand, there is a function γ ∈ L1 (Ω), γ > 0 such that
Therefore,
Z Z Z
(35) F (x, λu) ≥ λθ γ(x) uθ ≥ λθ γ(x) uθ = λθ K1 (u) ,
Mλ (u) Mλ (u) M1 (u)
Therefore,
¯ Z ¯ Z
¯ ¯
(36) ¯
¯ F (x, λu) ¯¯ ≤ C1 sq1 · meas(Ω) + c(x) = K2 .
Ω\Mλ (u) Ω
λp
F(λu) ≤ kukp1,p − λθ K1 (u) + K2 → −∞ as λ → ∞
p
and the proof is complete.
with C ≥ 0 constant;
(ii)
f (x, s)
lim sup < λ1 uniformly with x ∈ Ω
s→0 |s|p−2 s
where λ1 is the first eigenvalue of −∆p on W01,p (Ω).
Then there are constants ρ, α > 0 such that F|kuk1,p =ρ ≥ α.
f (x, s)
h(x) = lim sup .
s→0 |s|p−2 s
By (ii) we can find µ ∈ (0, λ1 ) such that h(x) < µ uniformly with x ∈ Ω.
Therefore, there is some δµ > 0 such that
f (x, s)
≤ µ for x ∈ Ω, 0 < |s| < δµ ,
|s|p−2 s
or
(37) f (x, s) ≤ µ sp−1 for x ∈ Ω, s ∈ (0, δµ ) ,
(38) − µ |s|p−1 ≤ f (x, s) for x ∈ Ω, s ∈ (−δµ , 0) .
Remark that the Carathéodory function f satisfies f (x, 0) = 0 for x ∈ Ω.
DIRICHLET PROBLEMS WITH p-LAPLACIAN 369
with C1 ≥ 0 constant.
Choose q1 ∈ (max{p, q}, p∗ ). Then by (40), there is a constant C2 ≥ 0 such
that
(41) |F (x, s)| ≤ C2 |s|q1 for x ∈ Ω, |s| ≥ δµ .
From (39) and (41), we have
µ p
(42) F (x, s) ≤ |s| + C2 |s|q1 for x ∈ Ω, s ∈ R .
p
Now, by the variational characterization of the first eigenvalue λ1 (see (19)),
by the estimate (42) and by the imbedding W01,p (Ω) ,→ Lq1 (Ω), it results
Z
1
F(u) = kukp1,p − F (x, u)
p
Ω
Z Z
1 µ
≥ kukp1,p − p
|u| − C2 |u|q1
p p
Ω Ω
1 µ
≥ kukp1,p − kukp0,p − C3 kukq1,p
1
p p
" µ ¶ #
p 1 kukp0,p q1 −p
= kuk1,p 1−µ − C3 kuk1,p
p kukp1,p
" µ ¶ #
1 µ q1 −p
≥ kukp1,p 1− − C3 kuk1,p ≥ α > 0,
p λ1
Lemma 4.
(i) If u ∈ W01,p (Ω) is a solution of problem (9) with f (x, s) ≥ 0 for x ∈ Ω
and s ≤ 0, then u ≥ 0.
(ii) If u ∈ W01,p (Ω) is a solution of problem (9) with f (x, s) ≤ 0 for x ∈ Ω
and s ≥ 0, then u ≤ 0.
370 G. DINCA, P. JEBELEAN and J. MAWHIN
From Z Z
|∇u|p−2 ∇u ∇u− = f (x, u) u−
Ω Ω
we obtain Z Z
p
− |∇u| = − f (x, u) u ≥ 0 .
Ω− Ω−
At this stage we are in position to prove the main result of this section.
with C ≥ 0 constant;
(ii)
f (x, s)
lim sup < λ1 uniformly with x ∈ Ω
s→0 |s|p−2 s
where λ1 is the first eigenvalue of −∆p on W01,p (Ω);
(iii) there are constants θ > p and s0 > 0 such that
f+ (x,s)
(ii)+ lim sup |s|p−2 s
< λ1 uniformly with x ∈ Ω;
s→0
(iii)+ θ F+ (x, s) ≤ s f+ (x, s) for x ∈ Ω, |s| ≥ s0 ;
(iv)+ 0 < θ F+ (x, s) ≤ s f+ (x, s) for x ∈ Ω, s ≥ s0 .
Indeed, (i)+ , (iii)+ and (iv)+ are easily seen.
To see (ii)+ , we have
( )
f+ (x, s) f+ (x, s) f+ (x, s)
lim sup p−2
= max lim sup p−2
, lim sup
s→0 |s| s s%0 |s| s s&0 |s|p−2 s
( )
f (x, s)
= max 0, lim sup p−2 < λ1 uniformly with x ∈ Ω .
s&0 |s| s
From (i)+ –(iv)+ we infer that the C1 functional F+ : W01,p (Ω)→ R defined by
Z
1
F+ (u) = kukp1,p − F+ (x, u)
p
Ω
Furthermore, by (iv)+ , Theorem 16 (i) and Lemma 3 (ii) (also see Remark 11),
there is an element e ∈ W01,p (Ω) with kek1,p ≥ ρ, such that F+ (e) ≤ 0.
Finally, by (iii)+ and Theorem 15, F+ satisfies the (PS) condition.
The nontrivial critical point u+ ∈ W01,p (Ω), whose existence is ensured by
Theorem 14, satisfies
Z Z
(43) |∇u+ |p−2 ∇u+ ∇v = f+ (x, u+ ) v for all v ∈ W01,p (Ω) .
Ω Ω
f (x, s)
(44) lim = +∞ .
|s|→∞ |s|p−2 s
Moreover, (44) shows that the generality of Theorem 18 is not lost if in (i) q is
required to be in (p, p∗ ) instead of (1, p∗ ).
On the other hand, a reasoning similar to that in the proof of Theorem 16
shows that conditions (iii) and (i) in Theorem 18 yield the existence of some
γ ∈ L∞ (Ω), γ > 0, such that F (x, s) ≥ γ(x) |s|θ for x ∈ Ω, and |s| ≥ s0 (also see
the proof of Proposition 7 bellow). This shows that the potential F grows faster
than |s|p with |s| → ∞. For an existence result allowing F to grow faster than
|s|p or slower than |s|p we refer the reader to Costa and Magalhaes [10].
DIRICHLET PROBLEMS WITH p-LAPLACIAN 373
Taking into account the minimax methods in critical point theory, invoking
the “Mountain Pass Theorem” in order to prove existence of nontrivial solutions
for problem (9), make natural the question: what about multiple solutions?
More precisely, following the particular case p = 2, it would be expected
that under the basic hypothesis of Theorem 18, the oddness of f be sufficient to
guarantee the existence of an unbounded sequence of solutions for problem (9).
Such a result will conclude the paper.
We need the following
Therefore, (46) holds with γ(x) = min{γ1 (x), γ2 (x)} for x ∈ Ω, as claimed.
We shall prove that F satisfies
Z
1
(49) F(v) ≤ kvkp1,p − γ(x) |v|θ − K for all v ∈ W01,p (Ω)
p
Ω
with K ≥ 0 constant.
Let v be arbitrary chosen in W01,p (Ω) and let us denote Ω< = {x ∈ Ω |
|v(x)| < s0 }.
By (45) we have
Z Z Z
F (x, v) ≥ −C1 (|v|q + 1) ≥ −C1 (sq0 + 1) =
Ω< Ω< Ω
= −C1 (sq0 + 1) · meas(Ω) = K1
and by (46) it holds
Z Z
F (x, v) ≥ γ(x) |v|θ .
Ω\Ω< Ω\Ω<
Then
µZ Z ¶
1
F(v) = kvkp1,p − F (x, v) + F (x, v)
p
Ω< Ω\Ω<
Z
1
≤ kvkp1,p − γ(x) |v|θ − K1
p
Ω\Ω<
Z Z
1
= kvkp1,p − γ(x) |v|θ + γ(x) |v|θ − K1
p
Ω Ω<
Z
1
≤ kvkp1,p − γ(x) |v|θ + K ,
p
Ω
is a norm on W01,p (Ω).On the finite dimensional subspace X1 the norms k k1,p
f = K(X
and k kγ being equivalent, there is a constant K f 1 ) > 0 such that
µZ ¶1
θ
f
kvk1,p ≤ K γ(x) |v|θ for all v ∈ X1 .
Ω
DIRICHLET PROBLEMS WITH p-LAPLACIAN 375
We also need the following Z2 symmetric version of the “Mountain Pass The-
orem” (see e.g. Theorem 9.12 in Rabinowitz [26]).
Theorem 19. Let X be an infinite dimensional real Banach space and let
I ∈ C 1 (X, R) be even, satisfy (PS) condition and I(0) = 0. If:
(I1 ) there are constants ρ, α > 0 such that I|kxk=ρ ≥ α;
(I02 ) for each finite dimensional subspace X1 of X the set {x ∈ X | I(x) ≥ 0}
is bounded,
then I possesses an unbounded sequence of critical values.
REFERENCES
G. Dinca,
University of Bucharest, Faculty of Mathematics,
Str. Academiei 14, 70109, Bucharest – ROMANIA
and
P. Jebelean,
West University of Timisoara, Faculty of Mathematics,
Bv. V. Pârvan 4, 1900 Timisoara – ROMANIA
and
J. Mawhin,
Institut de Mathématique Pure et Appliquée,
Bât. Marc de Hemptinne, Chemin du Cyclotron 2, B-1348, Louvain-la-Neuve – BELGIQUE