Advances in Nonlinear Analysis 2023; 12: 182–209

Research Article

Ky Ho and Inbo Sim*

On sufficient “local” conditions for existence

results to generalized p(.)-Laplace equations
involving critical growth
https://doi.org/10.1515/anona-2022-0269
received April 11, 2022; accepted July 17, 2022

Abstract: In this article, we study the existence of multiple solutions to a generalized p(⋅ )-Laplace equation
with two parameters involving critical growth. More precisely, we give sufficient “local” conditions, which
mean that growths between the main operator and nonlinear term are locally assumed for p(⋅ )-sublinear,
p(⋅ )-superlinear, and sandwich-type cases. Compared to constant exponent problems (e.g., p-Laplacian
and ( p , q )-Laplacian), this characterizes the study of variable exponent problems. We show this by
applying variants of the mountain pass theorem for p(⋅ )-sublinear and p(⋅ )-superlinear cases and con-
structing critical values defined by a minimax argument in the genus theory for sandwich-type case.
Moreover, we also obtain a nontrivial nonnegative solution for sandwich-type case changing the role of
parameters. Our work is a generalization of several existing works in the literature.

Keywords: Leray-Lions-type operators, critical growth, concentration-compactness principle, variational

methods

MSC 2020: 35B33, 35J20, 35J25, 35J62, 46E35

1 Introduction and main results

In this article, we are concerned with the existence and multiplicity of solutions to the following problem:

⎧− div a(x , ∇u) = λf (x , u) + θb(x )∣u ∣t (x ) − 2 u in Ω,

(1.1)
⎨u = 0 on ∂Ω,
⎩
where Ω is a bounded domain in N with a Lipschitz boundary ∂Ω; a : Ω × N → N is a Carathéodory
function which generalizes ∣ξ ∣p(x )− 2 ξ , where p ∈ C+(Ω) with

{
C+(Ω) ≔ r ∈ C (Ω) : 1 < r − ≔ min r (x ) ≤ r + ≔ max r (x ) < ∞ ;
x∈Ω x∈Ω
}
f : Ω ×  →  is a Carathéodory function having subcritical growth; t ∈ C+(Ω) with p+ < t − ≤ t (x ) ≤ p∗ (x )
for all x ∈ Ω such that
 ≔ {x ∈ Ω : t (x ) = p∗ (x )} ≠ ∅,
Np(x )
where p∗ (x ) ≔ N − p(x )
if p+ < N and p∗ (x ) ≔ p0 (x ) for any fixed p0 ∈ C+(Ω) with p(x ) < p0 (x ) for all x ∈ Ω if
p+ ≥ N ; b ∈ L∞(Ω) and b(x ) > 0 for a.e. x ∈ Ω; and λ , θ are parameters.


* Corresponding author: Inbo Sim, Department of Mathematics, University of Ulsan, Ulsan 44610, Republic of Korea,
e-mail: ibsim@ulsan.ac.kr
Ky Ho: Institute of Applied Mathematics, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, 59C, Nguyen Dinh Chieu St., Dist. 3, Ho Chi
Minh City, Vietnam, e-mail: kyhn@ueh.edu.vn

Open Access. © 2023 Ky Ho and Inbo Sim, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License.
 On sufficient “local” conditions for existence results  183

Throughout this article, we always assume the following conditions on a:

(A0) a(x , −ξ ) = −a(x , ξ ) for a.e. x ∈ Ω and all ξ ∈ N .
(A1) There exists a Carathéodory function A : Ω × N →  , continuously differentiable with respect to its
second variable, such that A(x, 0) = 0 for a.e. x ∈ Ω and a(x , ξ ) = ∇ξ A(x , ξ ) for a.e. x ∈ Ω and
all ξ ∈ N .
(A2) ∣a(x , ξ )∣ ≤ C[1 + ∣ξ ∣p(x ) − 1 ] for a.e. x ∈ Ω and all ξ ∈ N , where C is a positive constant.
(A3) ∣ξ ∣p(x ) ≤ a(x , ξ )⋅ ξ ≤ p(x )A(x , ξ ) for a.e. x ∈ Ω and all ξ ∈ N .
(A4) 0 < [a(x , ξ ) − a(x , η)]⋅(ξ − η) for a.e. x ∈ Ω and all ξ , η ∈ N , ξ ≠ η.

The operator satisfying (A0)–(A4) is of Leray-Lions-type and typical examples are

div(∣∇u ∣p(x ) − 2 ∇u) and div[(1 + ∣∇u ∣2 )( p(x ) − 2) / 2 ∇u],

which we call the p(⋅ )-Laplacian and the generalized mean curvature operator, respectively. Another
remarkable example is
n
div ⎡
⎢∑∣∇u ∣
pi (x ) − 2 ∇u⎤ ,
⎥
⎣i=1 ⎦
which satisfies (A0)–(A4) with p(x ) ≔ max1 ≤ i ≤ n pi (x ) , and we call this operator the multiple p(⋅ )-Laplacian.
A special case of the multiple p(⋅ )-Laplacian is the operator div(∣∇u ∣p − 2 ∇u + ∣∇u ∣q − 2 ∇u) with 1 < q ≤ p < ∞,
which is called the ( p , q )-Laplacian and has received a great attention from mathematicians in the last decade.
The study of p(⋅ )-Laplacian was initiated to describe some materials (e.g., electrorheological fluids) that
are inadequate to deal with in a constant p(⋅ ). Indeed, Rǎdulescu [27] gave a couple of examples that
required the setting of p(⋅ )-Laplacian problems that portray phenomenon strongly depending on the posi-
tion. Thus, it is natural to ask for sufficient effects of the ration of p(⋅ ) and growth of a nonlinear term in a
local sense. It is worth mentioning that the set  is the other condition of locality. Meanwhile, a local effect
was also assumed in this study when p(⋅ ) is even constant in the sequel papers [4–6]. More precisely, the
authors were concerned with the “local” growth of nonlinearities, investigating the existence, nonexis-
tence, and multiplicity of solutions for the family of problems
p − 2 ∇u)
⎧− div(∣∇u ∣ = f λ (x , u ) in Ω,
u>0 in Ω,
⎨
⎩u = 0 on ∂Ω,

where f is locally “ p-sublinear” at 0 and is locally “ p-superlinear” at ∞, namely (roughly speaking):

f λ (x , s )
lim =∞
s → 0+ s p−1
for x in a subdomain Ω1 of Ω and
f λ (x , s )
lim =∞
s →∞ s p−1
for x in a subdomain Ω2 of Ω. We emphasize that such local assumptions are effective for a nonautonomous
nonlinear term and does not allow higher or lower growth than p, respectively. Recently, Komiya and
Kajikiya [20] studied the existence of infinitely many solutions to problem (1.1) when a(x , ξ ) = ∣ξ ∣p − 2 ξ + ∣ξ ∣q − 2 ξ
with 1 < q ≤ p < ∞ and θ = 0. Indeed, they obtained a sequence of solutions with C 1-norms converging to 0
F (x , τ )
(resp. ∞) when f satisfies a locally q -sublinear condition, i.e., infx ∈ Bε(x0) ∣τ∣q
→ ∞ as τ → 0 (resp. a locally
F (x , τ )
p-superlinear condition, i.e., infx ∈ Bε(x0) ∣τ∣ p
→ ∞ as ∣τ∣ → ∞) for some ball Bε (x0) ⊂ Ω. Here and in what
τ
follows, F (x , τ ) ≔ ∫0 f (x , s)ds and Bε(x0) denotes a ball in N centered at x0 with radius ε. It is worth
mentioning that they did not treat the case of growth between p and q , which we call sandwich-type growth
184  Ky Ho and Inbo Sim

for the ( p , q )-problem. These results have recently been obtained for problem (1.1) under (A0)–(A4) in [12]. Note
that both [20] and [12] only considered subcritical problems. The existence of infinitely many solutions to critical
problems involving the p-Laplacian for this kind of locally p-superlinear condition was investigated in [28].
Regarding critical and sandwich-type growth, in [15] we considered problem (1.1) of the form:
∗
⎧− div(∣∇u ∣p − 2 ∇u + ∣∇u ∣q − 2 ∇u) = λm(x )∣u ∣s − 2 u + θb(x )∣u ∣ p − 2 u in Ω,
(1.2)
⎨u = 0 on ∂Ω,
⎩
where 1 < q < s < p and the weight m is possibly sign-changing. We obtained the existence of nontrivial
nonnegative solutions to [1] for a fixed λ and some range of parameter θ (depending on λ ). In [1], Baldelli
et al. obtained the multiplicity of solutions for problem (1.2) when Ω = N in a reverse way, that is, for θ fixed
and small, they find some range of λ . The subcritical problem of sandwich-type growth involving variable
exponent was studied by Mihailescu-Rǎdulescu in [25]. In that article, the authors studied (1.1) of the form:

⎧− div(∣∇u ∣p(x ) − 2 ∇u + ∣∇u ∣q(x ) − 2 ∇u) = λ∣u ∣s(x ) − 2 u in Ω,

(1.3)
⎨u = 0 on ∂Ω,
⎩
with p , q , s ∈ C+(Ω) satisfying q + < s− ≤ s+ < p− and s+ < q∗(x ) for all x ∈ Ω and showed that there exists
λ∗ > 0 such that problem (1.3) admits a nontrivial solution for any λ ∈ [λ∗, ∞).
Motivated by [1,4–6,11,15,20,25,28], our aim is to show the existence of multiple solutions to problem
(1.1), which may include a critical term and generalize previous results, in particular [15,25,28] when f
satisfies one of three types of growth conditions: locally p(⋅ )-sublinear, locally p(⋅ )-superlinear, and sand-
wich-type. Moreover, we also obtain a nontrivial nonnegative solution for the sandwich-type case by
changing the role of the parameters. We look for solutions to problem (1.1) in W01, p(⋅ )(Ω), that is the comple-
tion of Cc∞(Ω) with respect to the norm
‖u‖ ≔ ‖∇u‖L p(⋅ )(Ω) .
1
Note that if p+ < N and p is logarithmic Hölder continuous (notation: p ∈ C 0, ∣log t ∣ (Ω)), namely,
C 1
∣p(x ) − p( y )∣ ≤ for all x , y ∈ Ω with 0 < ∣x − y∣ < ,
∣log∣x − y∣∣ 2

then the following critical imbedding holds

(1.4)
∗
W01, p(⋅ )(Ω) ↪ L p (⋅ )(Ω)

(see Section 2 for the definitions and properties of the variable exponent Lebesgue-Sobolev spaces). Since
1
we mainly focus on critical problems, throughout this article we always assume p ∈ C 0, ∣log t ∣ (Ω) when p+ < N
in our main results.
Before giving a statement of the main results, we note that under (A1), we have that for a.e. x ∈ Ω and
for all ξ ∈ N ,
1

A(x , ξ ) = ∫a(x, tξ )⋅ ξ dt. (1.5)

0

Thus, (A2) yields

∣A(x , ξ )∣ ≤ C͠ [1 + ∣ξ ∣p(x ) ] for a.e. x ∈ Ω and all ξ ∈ N , (1.6)

where C͠ is a positive constant. Also, from (A2) we obtain

p(x )
∣a(x , ξ )∣ p(x ) −1 ≤ C¯ [1 + ∣ξ ∣p(x ) ] (1.7)

for a.e. x ∈ Ω and all ξ ∈ N . In what follows, for r ∈ C (Ω) with r (x ) ≥ 1 for all x ∈ Ω and an open set D ⊆ Ω,
denote
rD− ≔ inf r (x ), rD+ ≔ sup r (x ) ,
x∈D x∈D
 On sufficient “local” conditions for existence results  185

and

L+r (⋅ )(D) ≔ {u ∈ Lr (⋅ )(D) : u > 0 a.e. in D} .

First, let us start with the locally p(⋅ )-sublinear case. In this case, we additionally assume for the
operator a that:
(A5) For each ball B ⊂ Ω, there exist constants CB, δB > 0, and qB ∈ [1, ∞) such that
∣a(x , ξ )∣ ≤ CB∣ξ ∣qB − 1 for a.e. x ∈ B and all ∣ξ ∣ < δB.

It is clear that the multiple p(⋅ )-Laplacian and the generalized mean curvature operator above also satisfy
(A5). Note that (A3) and (A5) yield qB ≤ pB− and moreover, from (A5) and (1.5) we obtain
CB qB
∣A(x , ξ )∣ ≤ ∣ξ ∣ for a.e. x ∈ B and all ∣ξ ∣ < δB. (1.8)
qB

Assume that f satisfies the following conditions.

(F1) f : Ω × [−ε0, ε0] →  is a Carathéodory function with an ε0 > 0 such that f is odd with respect to the
second variable and d (⋅ ) ≔ sup∣ τ ∣≤ ε0∣f (⋅ ,τ )∣ ∈ L+σ (⋅ )(Ω) with σ ∈ C+(Ω) satisfying σ (x ) > max 1, { N
p(x ) } for
all x ∈ Ω.
(F2) There exist a ball B ⊂ Ω and m ∈ L+1(B) such that
F (x , τ )
lim =∞ uniformly for a.e. x ∈ B ,
τ→0 m(x )∣τ∣qB

where qB is determined as in (A5).

The existence result for the locally p(⋅ )-sublinear case is stated as follows.

Theorem 1.1. Let (A0)–(A5), (F1), and (F2) hold. Then, for any λ > 0 and θ ≥ 0, problem (1.1) admits a
1, p(⋅ )
sequence of nontrivial solutions {un}∞
n = 1 converging to zero in W0 (Ω) ∩ L∞(Ω).

Next, we study problem (1.1) with a nonlinearity f of locally p(⋅ )-superlinear-type growth. In this case,
we need the following additional assumption on the exponent p:
p∗(⋅ )
p∗(⋅ ) − p(⋅ )
(P) There exists w ∈ L+ ( Ω) such that

∫Ω ∣∇φ∣p(x ) dx
μ1 ≔ inf ∈ (0, ∞) . (1.9)
φ ∈ Cc∞(Ω) ∫Ω w (x )∣φ∣p(x ) dx

Obviously, condition (P) automatically holds true when p(⋅ ) is constant due to the Hölder and Sobolev
inequalities. For variable exponent case, (P) is fulfilled if there is a vector x0 ∈ N ⧹{0} such that for any
x ∈ Ω, h(τ ) ≔ p(x + τx0) is monotone for τ ∈ Ix = {τ : x + τx0 ∈ Ω} (by taking w ∈ L+∞(Ω)), see [10, Theorems
3.2–3.3]. It is worth pointing out that μ1 given by (1.9) is zero if there is an open ball B ε0(x0) ⊂ Ω such that
p(x0)< (or >) p(x ) for all x ∈ ∂B ε0(x0), see [10, Proof of Theorem 3.1].
Now, we state conditions on f for the locally p(⋅ )-superlinear case.
(F3) f : Ω ×  →  is a Carathéodory function such that f is odd with respect to the second variable.
t (⋅ )
rj
t (⋅ ) − r j (⋅ )
(F4) There exist functions rj, aj with rj ∈ C+(Ω), infx ∈ Ω[t (x ) − rj (x )] > 0, aj ∈ L+ ⎛b− t −rj , Ω⎞ ( j = 1, … , m0),
⎝ ⎠
and max1 ≤ j ≤ m0rj+ > p− such that
m0
∣ f (x , τ )∣ ≤ ∑ aj(x )∣τ∣r (x ) −1
j for a.e. x ∈ Ω and all τ ∈  .
j=1
186  Ky Ho and Inbo Sim

(F5) There exist an open ball B ⊂ Ω and a function m ∈ L+1(B) such that
F (x , τ )
lim + = ∞ uniformly for a.e. x ∈ B .
∣ τ ∣→∞ m(x )∣τ∣ pB

(F6) For w given by (P), there exist α ∈ [ p+ , t −) and e ∈ L+1(Ω) such that
α − p+
αF (x , τ ) − τf (x , τ ) ≤ w (x )∣τ∣p(x ) + e(x ) for a.e. x ∈ Ω and all τ ∈  .
p+

The existence result for the locally p(⋅ )-superlinear case is stated as follows.

Theorem 1.2. Let (P), (A0)–(A4), and (F3)–(F6) hold. For a given λ ∈ (0, μ1], there exists a sequence {θn}∞ n=1
with 0 < θn + 1 < θn for all n ∈  such that for any θ ∈ (θn + 1, θn), problem (1.1) admits at least n distinct pairs of
nontrivial solutions.

In the last part, we study problem (1.1) with the nonlinearity f of locally sandwich-type growth.
Precisely, we consider problem (1.1) of the form:

⎧− div a(x , ∇u) = λm(x )∣u ∣s(x ) − 2 u + θb(x )∣u ∣t (x ) − 2 u in Ω,

(1.10)
⎨u = 0 on ∂Ω,
⎩
where a satisfies (A0)–(A5) and the following assumptions hold:
t + t −
(S) s ∈ C+(Ω) with s+ < p− and ( ) <( ).
p s
t (⋅ )
( s
(W) m ∈ Lt (⋅ ) −s(⋅ ) b− t −s , Ω . )
Furthermore, the subcritical nonlinearity satisfies the following local condition:
(L1) There exists a ball B ⊂ Ω such that qB < sB− and meas {x ∈ B : m(x ) > 0} > 0, where qB is defined by B
as in (A5).

Note that under (L1), from (1.6) and (1.8) we find positive constants CB and Cp such that
+
∣A(x , ξ )∣ ≤ CB∣ξ ∣qB + Cp∣ξ ∣ pB for a.e. x ∈ B and for all ξ ∈ N . (1.11)

Let us start to study the sandwich case by investigating the multiplicity of solutions to problem (1.10). The
following multiple existence result is a counterpart of [1, Theorem 1] for the bounded domain case involving
Leray-Lions-type operators.

Theorem 1.3. Let (A0)–(A5), (S), (W), and (L1) hold. Assume furthermore that m(x ) > 0 for a.e. x ∈ B . Then
k = 1 with 0 < θk < θk + 1 for all k ∈  such that for each k ∈  , for θ ∈ (0, θk ) given, there exist
there exists {θk }∞
λ⋆, λ⋆ > 0 with λ⋆ < λ⋆ such that for any λ ∈ (λ⋆, λ⋆), problem (1.10) admits at least k pairs of distinct solutions
with negative energy.

It is worth pointing out that [1, Theorem 1] actually asserted the existence of a sequence of solutions
provided the L∞ norm of K (x ) ≔ θb(x ) is sufficiently small. However, we found that their argument can only
produce a finite number of solutions in the same way as the statement of Theorem 1.3 and discussed it with
the authors of [1] about this issue; please see Remark 4.4 for more details.
Finally, we investigate a nontrivial nonnegative solution to problem (1.10) changing the role of para-
meters. For this purpose, in addition to (L1) we assume that
(L2) There exists ϕ ∈ Cc∞(B) such that ∫B ms((xx)) ϕ+s(x )dx > 0 with ϕ+ ≔ max{ϕ, 0} and for each τ > 0, there
exists sB(τ ) ∈ [sB−, sB+] such that
 On sufficient “local” conditions for existence results  187

∫ ms((xx)) ϕ+s(x)τ s(x)dx = τ s (τ)∫ ms((xx)) ϕ+s(x)dx.

B

B B

Clearly, (L2) automatically holds true if either m(x ) > 0 a.e. in B or s(⋅ ) is constant in B and
meas{x ∈ B : m(x ) > 0} > 0 (see, e.g., [18, Proposition 4.2]). Denote by  the set of all ϕ ∈ Cc∞(B) satis-
fying (L2) and define
pB+ −η
η − qB
pB+−q pB+ −q
B B
C∗(η) ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
λ⋆ ≔ inf max ∫ pB+
∫ qB (1.12)
ϕ ∈  η ∈ [sB , sB ]
− + m(x ) s(x ) ⎜⎜ ∣∇ϕ ∣ dx ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ∣∇ϕ ∣ dx ⎟⎟ ,
∫ ϕ dx
B s(x ) + ⎝B ⎠ ⎝B ⎠
where
+ −η
pB η − qB η − qB pB+ − η
p + − qB ⎞ pB+ −qB ⎛ pB+ − qB ⎞ pB+−qB pB+ − qB pB+ − qB
C∗(η) ≔ ⎜⎛ B+ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ Cp CB for η ∈ [sB−, sB+],
⎝ pB − η ⎠ ⎝ η − qB ⎠
where Cp and CB are constants taken from (1.11). Clearly, λ⋆ is well defined and λ⋆ ∈ [0, ∞). The existence of
a nontrivial nonnegative solution for the sandwich case is shown in the next theorem.

Theorem 1.4. Let (A0)–(A5), (S), (W), (L1), and (L2) hold. Then for each given λ > λ⋆, there exists θ⋆ > 0 such
that for any θ ∈ [0, θ⋆), problem (1.10) has a nontrivial nonnegative solution.

Remark 1.5. It is worth pointing out that if b(x )∣u ∣t (x )− 2 u is replaced by a subcritical term ω(x )∣u ∣r (x )− 2 u,
p∗(⋅ )
p∗(⋅ ) − r (⋅ )
where < s+ p−
≤ p+
< r−
and r (x ) < p∗ (x )
for all x ∈ Ω and ω ∈ then we can obtain one more L+ ( Ω) ,
nontrivial nonnegative solution to problem (1.10) without assuming any combined condition on m and ω by
p∗(⋅ )
applying the mountain pass theorem. If r (⋅ ) is constant, it suffices to assume ω ∈ L p∗(⋅ ) −r (⋅ ) (Ω) and
p∗(⋅ )
p∗(⋅ ) − r (⋅ )
meas {x ∈ Ω : ω(x ) > 0} > 0 instead of ω ∈ L+ ( Ω) (see Theorem 4.6).

Outline of the article. We organize the article as follows: In Section 2, we review the definition and
properties of Lebesgue-Sobolev spaces with variable exponents and introduce notations that are used
throughout this article. In Section 3, we investigate the existence of infinitely many solutions for the locally
p(⋅ )-sublinear case and the multiplicity of solutions for the locally p(⋅ )-superlinear case by giving proofs of
Theorems 1.1 and 1.2. Section 4 is devoted to the study of the existence of k pairs of solutions with an
arbitrarily given number k and a nontrivial nonnegative solution to problem (1.1) when the nonlinear f is of
a (locally) sandwich type by giving a proof of Theorems 1.3 and 1.4. In this section, we also discuss problem
(1.10) when the growth is subcritical. Finally, in Section 5, we comment on the regularity of solutions to
problem (1.1) obtained in the previous sections.

2 Notions and preliminary results

Let Ω be a bounded Lipschitz domain in N . Denote
C+(Ω) ≔ {h ∈ C (Ω) : 1 < inf h(x ) ≤ sup h(x ) < ∞} ,
x∈Ω x∈Ω

and for h ∈ C+(Ω) , denote

h+ ≔ sup h(x ) and h− ≔ inf h(x ) .
x∈Ω x∈Ω
188  Ky Ho and Inbo Sim

For p ∈ C+(Ω) and for a Lebesgue measurable and positive a.e. function w : Ω →  , define the weighted
variable exponent Lebesgue space L p(⋅ )(w, Ω) as

⎧ ⎫
L p(⋅ )(w , Ω) ≔ u : Ω → 
⎨
is measurable , ∫w(x )∣u(x )∣p(x) dx < ∞⎬
⎩ Ω ⎭
endowed with the Luxemburg norm

⎧ p(x ) ⎫
u(x )
‖u‖L p(⋅ )(w,Ω) ≔ inf λ > 0 :
⎨
∫w(x ) λ
dx ≤ 1 .
⎬
⎩ Ω ⎭
Set L+p(⋅ )(w , Ω) ≔ {u ∈ L p(⋅ )(w , Ω) : u > 0 a.e. in Ω} . When w ≡ 1, we write L p(⋅ )(Ω), L+p(⋅ )(Ω), and ‖u‖L p(⋅ )(Ω) in
place of L p(⋅ )(w, Ω), L+p(⋅ )(w, Ω), and ‖u‖L p(⋅ )(w,Ω), respectively. Some basic properties of L p(⋅ )(w, Ω) are listed in
the next three propositions.

Proposition 2.1. [9,21] The space L p(⋅ )(Ω) is a separable, uniformly convex Banach space, and its dual space
is L p ′ (⋅ )(Ω), where 1 / p(x ) + 1 / p′(x ) = 1. For any u ∈ L p(⋅ )(Ω) and v ∈ L p ′ (⋅ )(Ω), we have

∫uv dx ≤ 2‖u‖L p(⋅ )(Ω) ‖v‖L p ′(⋅ )(Ω) .

Ω

Proposition 2.2. [7] Define ρ : L p(⋅ )(w , Ω) →  as

ρ (u ) ≔ ∫w(x )∣u(x )∣p(x) dx, ∀u ∈ L p(⋅ )(w , Ω) .

Ω

Then, for all u ∈ L p(⋅ )(w, Ω) we have

(i) ‖u‖L p(⋅ )(w,Ω) < 1 (=1, >1) if and only if ρ(u) < 1 (=1, >1), respectively;
− +
(ii) if ‖u‖L p(⋅ )(w,Ω) > 1, then ‖u‖Lpp(⋅ )(w,Ω) ≤ ρ(u) ≤ ‖u‖Lpp(⋅ )(w,Ω);
+ −
(iii) if ‖u‖L p(⋅ )(w,Ω) < 1, then ‖u‖Lpp(⋅ )(w,Ω) ≤ ρ(u) ≤ ‖u‖Lpp(⋅ )(w,Ω).

Consequently, we have
− +
‖u‖Lpp(⋅ )(w,Ω) − 1 ≤ ρ(u) ≤ ‖u‖Lpp(⋅ )(w,Ω) + 1, ∀u ∈ L p(⋅ )(w , Ω) .

Proposition 2.3. [19] Let p ∈ C+(Ω) and q ∈ C (Ω) such that pq ∈ C+(Ω). For all u ∈ L p(⋅ )q(⋅ )(w, Ω), it holds that
− +
(i) if ‖u‖L p(⋅ )q(⋅ )(w,Ω) ≥ 1, then ‖u‖qL p(⋅ )q(⋅ )(w,Ω) ≤ ∥∣u ∣q ∥ L p(⋅ )(w,Ω) ≤ ‖u‖qL p(⋅ )q(⋅ )(w,Ω);
+ −
(ii) if ‖u‖L p(⋅ )q(⋅ )(w,Ω) < 1, then ‖u‖qL p(⋅ )q(⋅ )(w,Ω) ≤ ∥∣u ∣q ∥ L p(⋅ )(w,Ω) ≤ ‖u‖qL p(⋅ )q(⋅ )(w,Ω).

Consequently, we have
− +
‖u‖qL p(⋅ )q(⋅ )(w,Ω) − 1 ≤ ∥∣u ∣q ∥ L p(⋅ )(w,Ω) ≤ ‖u‖qL p(⋅ )q(⋅ )(w,Ω) + 1, ∀u ∈ L p(⋅ )q(⋅ )(w , Ω) .

Define

W 1, p(⋅ )(Ω) ≔ {u ∈ L p(⋅ )(Ω) : ∣∇u∣ ∈ L p(⋅ )(Ω)}

endowed with the norm

‖u‖W1,p(⋅ )(Ω) ≔ ‖u‖L p(⋅ )(Ω) + ∥∣∇u∣∥ L p(⋅ )(Ω).

We recall the following crucial imbeddings on W 1, p(⋅ )(Ω).

 On sufficient “local” conditions for existence results  189

Proposition 2.4. [7,9,21] The space W 1, p(⋅ )(Ω) is a reflexive separable Banach space. Moreover, the following
assertions hold:
(i) if q ∈ C+(Ω) with q (x ) < p∗ (x ) for all x ∈ Ω, then
W 1, p(⋅ )(Ω) ↪↪ Lq(⋅ )(Ω) ;
1
(ii) if p ∈ C 0, ∣log t ∣ (Ω) and p+ < N , then
∗
W 1, p(⋅ )(Ω) ↪ L p (⋅ )(Ω) .

The space W01, p(⋅ )(Ω) defined in Section 1 is in fact the closure of Cc∞(Ω) in W 1, p(⋅ )(Ω) due to the following
Poincaré-type inequality.

Proposition 2.5. [9] There exists a positive constant C such that

‖u‖L p(⋅ )(Ω) ≤ C∥∇u ∥ L p(⋅ )(Ω), ∀u ∈ W01, p(⋅ )(Ω) .

Next, we present a compact result that will be frequently utilized in the next sections. Let t ∈ C+(Ω) and
t (⋅ )
b : Ω →  be measurable and positive a.e. in Ω such that W01, p(⋅ )(Ω) ↪ Lt (⋅ )(b, Ω). Let m ∈ Lt (⋅ ) −σ(⋅ ) b− t −σ , Ω ( σ
)
for some σ ∈ C (Ω) satisfying 1 ≤ σ (x ) < t (x ) for all x ∈ Ω. Then, m∣u ∣σ ∈ L1(Ω) for all u ∈ W01, p(⋅ )(Ω) in view of
Proposition 2.1. Furthermore, we have the following.

Proposition 2.6. Let t , b, and σ be as above. Then, for un ⇀ u in W01, p(⋅ )(Ω) as n → ∞, we have

∫m(x )∣un ∣σ(x) dx → ∫m(x )∣u∣σ(x) dx as n → ∞ , (2.1)

Ω Ω

∫∣m(x )∣∣un − u∣σ(x) dx → 0 as n → ∞ , (2.2)

Ω

and

∫∣m(x )∣∣un ∣σ(x)−1 ∣un − u∣dx → 0 as n → ∞ . (2.3)

Ω

t (⋅ )

( σ
Consequently, if m ∈ L+t (⋅ ) − σ (⋅ ) b− t −σ , Ω , then )
W01, p(⋅ )(Ω) ↪↪ Lσ (⋅ )(m , Ω) .

Proof. Clearly, (2.1) follows if we can prove that

∫∣vn∣dx → 0 as n → ∞ , (2.4)
Ω

where vn ≔ m(∣un ∣σ (x ) − ∣u ∣σ (x ) ) . To this end, we first note that up to a subsequence, vn → 0 a.e. in Ω as

n → ∞ . Then, by the Vitali convergence theorem it suffices to show that for a given and arbitrary ε > 0,
there exists δ = δ (ε ) > 0 such that for any measurable subset Q ⊂ Ω with meas(Q) < δ ,

∫∣vn∣dx < ε. (2.5)

Q

1, p(⋅ )
Indeed, let ε > 0 be given and arbitrary. Since {un}∞
n = 1 is bounded in W0 (Ω) we have that {un}∞
n = 1 is bounded
t (⋅ )
in L (b, Ω) and hence

M ≔ ε + 2⎡2 + ‖u‖σLt (⋅ )(b,Ω) + sup ‖un‖σLt (⋅ )(b,Ω) ⎤ ∈ (0, ∞) .

+ +
(2.6)
⎢
⎣ n∈ ⎥
⎦
190  Ky Ho and Inbo Sim

t (⋅ )
( σ
)
On the other hand, the assumption m ∈ Lt (⋅ ) −σ(⋅ ) b− t −σ , Ω implies that there exist δ = δ (ε ) > 0 such that for
any measurable subset Q ⊂ Ω with meas(Q) < δ ,
t (x ) +
ε ( t−σ )
σ (x ) t (x ) − σ (x )
t
−
∫ m (x )b (x ) t (x ) dx < ⎛ ⎞
M
⎝ ⎠
( <1) . (2.7)
Q

Invoking Proposition 2.2 and using (2.6) and (2.7) we have

∫∣vn∣dx = ∫∣m(x )∣∣∣un ∣σ(x) − ∣u∣σ(x) ∣dx

Q Q
σ
≤ 2‖mb− t ‖ t (⋅ ) ∥b∣∣un ∣σ − ∣u ∣σ ∣∥ t (⋅ )
L t (⋅ ) − σ (⋅ ) (Q) L σ (⋅ ) (Q)
σ + +
≤ 2‖mb− t ‖ t (⋅ ) [2 + ‖un‖σLt (⋅ )(b, Q) + ‖u‖σLt (⋅ )(b, Q) ]
L t (⋅ ) − σ (⋅ ) (Q)
1
t (x ) +
⎛ −
σ (x ) t (x ) − σ (x ) ⎞ ( t −t σ )
⎜
∫
≤ M ⎜ m(x )b(x ) t (x ) dx ⎟
⎟
⎝Q ⎠
< ε, ∀n ∈  .

That is, we have proved (2.5), and hence, in turn we obtain (2.4) and (2.1). The proof for (2.2) is similar and
we omit it. To see (2.3), by Propositions 2.1 and 2.2 we have

∫∣m(x )∣∣un ∣σ(x)−1 ∣un − u∣dx

Ω
σ−1 1
≤ 2 ∣m ∣ σ ∣un ∣σ − 1 σ (⋅ ) ∣m ∣σ ∣un − u∣
L σ (⋅ ) − 1 (Ω) Lσ (⋅ )(Ω)
+
⎡
⎛ ⎞
( σ−1
σ )⎤ ⎧ σ+ σ
1 1
−
⎫
⎢ ⎥ ⎪⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎪
∫ σ (x
≤ 2⎢1 + ⎜ ∣m(x )∣∣un ∣ dx ⎟
⎜
)
⎟
∫σ (x ) σ (x )
⎥max ⎨⎜⎜ ∣m(x )∣∣un − u ∣ dx ⎟⎟ , ⎜⎜ ∣m(x )∣∣un − u ∣ dx ⎟⎟ ∫ ⎬
.
⎢ ⎝Ω ⎠ ⎥ ⎪⎝ Ω ⎠ ⎝Ω ⎠ ⎪
⎣ ⎦ ⎩ ⎭

Combining this with (2.1) and (2.2) we obtain (2.3). □

We conclude this section with a concentration-compactness principle for variable exponent spaces. Let
1
p ∈ C 0, ∣log t ∣ (Ω) with p+ < N and let t ∈ C+(Ω) with p(x ) < t (x ) ≤ p∗ (x ) for all x ∈ Ω such that
 ≔ {x ∈ Ω : t (x ) = p∗ (x )} ≠ ∅.

Let b ∈ L+∞(Ω). Then, it follows from (1.4) that

‖u‖
Sb ≔ inf ∈ (0, ∞) . (2.8)
u ∈ W01, p(⋅ )(Ω) ⧹ {0} ‖u‖Lt (⋅ )(b,Ω)

Let  (Ω) denote the space of Radon measures on Ω; that is, the dual of C (Ω). By the Riesz representation
theorem, for each μ ∈  (Ω) , there is a unique signed Borel measure on Ω, still denoted by μ, such that

⟨μ , f ⟩ = ∫f dμ, ∀f ∈ C (Ω) .
Ω

We identify L1(Ω) with a subspace of  (Ω) through the imbedding T : L1(Ω) →  (Ω) defined by

⟨Tu , f ⟩ = ∫uf dx, ∀u ∈ L1(Ω) , ∀f ∈ C (Ω)

Ω

(see e.g., [3, p. 116]). The next theorem is the concentration-compactness principle for variable exponent
spaces, which plays a key role in our arguments in the next sections.
 On sufficient “local” conditions for existence results  191

1, p(⋅ )
Theorem 2.7. (cf. [2,14]) Let {un}∞
n = 1 be a bounded sequence in W0 (Ω) such that

un ⇀ u in W01, p(⋅ )(Ω) ,

∗
∣∇un ∣p(x ) ⇀ μ in  (Ω) ,
∗
b∣un ∣t (x ) ⇀ν in  (Ω) .

Then, there exist {xi } i ∈  ⊂  of distinct points and {νi } i ∈  , {μi } i ∈  ⊂ (0, ∞), where  is at most countable,
such that

ν = b∣u ∣t (x ) + ∑ νiδx ,i
i∈

μ ≥ ∣∇u ∣p(x ) + ∑ μi δ x , i
i∈

Sbνi1 / t (xi) ≤ μi1 / p(xi) , ∀i ∈ .

Other notations:
E : the space W01, p(⋅ )(Ω) endowed with the norm ‖u‖ ≔ ‖∇u‖L p(⋅ )(Ω)
E∗: the dual of E
⟨⋅ , ⋅⟩: the duality pairing between a Banach space (from the context) and its dual

Bρ: the open ball in E centered at 0 with radius ρ

Bρ(x0): the open ball in N centered at x0 with radius ρ

∣Q∣: the Lebesgue measure of Q ⊂ N .

3 The locally p(⋅)-sublinear and locally p(⋅)-superlinear cases

In this section, we will prove Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 by employing variants of the mountain pass theorem.

3.1 The locally p(⋅)-sublinear case

The existence of a sequence of small solutions to problem (1.1) for the locally p(⋅ )-sublinear case, Theorem
1.1, can be obtained easily by adapting [12, Proof of Theorem 1.1], which employed a critical points theorem
obtained in [17].

Proof of Theorem 1.1. Let λ > 0 and θ ≥ 0. Consider the problem

⎧− div a(x , ∇u) = f͠ (x , u) in Ω,

⎨u = 0 on ∂Ω,
⎩
where f͠ (x , u) ≔ λf (x , u) + θb(x )∣u ∣t (x ) − 2 u. Note that f͠ also satisfies (F1) and (F2) in place of f and hence,
by repeating the argument used in [12, Proof of Theorem 1.1] in which we apply [29, Theorem 1.1] instead of
[12, Proposition A.1], the desired conclusion follows. □

Remark 3.1. It is clear that Theorem 1.1 remains valid for any t ∈ C+(Ω), and therefore, we do not need to
1
assume p ∈ C 0, ∣log t ∣ (Ω) when p+ < N in this theorem.
192  Ky Ho and Inbo Sim

3.2 The locally p(⋅)-superlinear case

In this subsection, we will prove Theorem 1.2 by using the idea of [28]. We will restrict our proof to the case
p+ < N since the proof for the case p+ ≥ N is similar and simpler. We will make use of the following abstract
result for symmetric C 1 functionals.

Proposition 3.2. [28] Let X = V ⊕ W , where X is a real Banach space and V is finite dimensional. Suppose
that I ∈ C 1(X, ) is an even functional satisfying I (0) = 0 and
(I1) there exist constants ρ , β > 0 such that I (u) ≥ β for all u ∈ ∂Bρ ∩ W ;
(I2) there exist a subspace X͠ of X and L > 0 such that dim V < dim X͠ < ∞ and supu ∈ X͠ I (u) < L;
(I3) considering L given by (I 2), I satisfies the (PS)c condition for any c ∈ [0, L].

Then I possesses at least dim X͠ − dim V pairs of nontrivial critical points.

To determine solutions to problem (1.1), we will apply Proposition 3.2 for X = E and I : E →  defined
as

I (u ) ≔ ∫A(x, ∇u)dx − λ∫F (x, u)dx − θ∫ bt ((xx)) ∣u∣t(x) dx, u ∈ E. (3.1)

Ω Ω Ω

It is clear that under the assumption of Theorem 1.2, I is of class C 1 and a critical point of I is a weak solution
to problem (1.1). Moreover, I is even on E and I (0) = 0. In order to verify condition (I3) of Proposition 3.2, we
need the following lemma.

Lemma 3.3. Let (P), (F4), and (F6) hold. Then, for λ ∈ (0, μ1] and θ > 0, I satisfies the (PS )c condition for all
c ∈  satisfying
‖e‖L1(Ω) λ 1 1
c<−
α
1 1
+ ⎛ − − ⎞SbN min θ − h+−1 , θ − h−−1
⎝α t ⎠ { } (3.2)

t (x )
with e , α given by (F6), Sb given by (2.8), and h(x ) ≔ p(x )
for x ∈ Ω.

Proof. Let λ ∈ (0, μ1] and θ > 0 and let {un}∞n = 1 be a (PS)c -sequence for I with c satisfying (3.2). We first claim
that {un}∞
n=1 is bounded in E . Indeed, by ( A3 ) we have

1 1 1
I (un) −
α
⟨I ′(un) , un⟩ ≥ ⎛ + − ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ∫a(x, ∇un)⋅∇undx − αλ ∫[αF (x, un) − f (x, un)un]dx
⎝p α⎠
Ω Ω

+θ ∫⎛ α1
⎜ −
1 ⎞
t (x ) ⎠
b(x )∣un ∣t (x ) dx.
⎟

Ω
⎝

From this, (A3), and (F6) we obtain

1 1 1 λ (α − p+ )
I (un) − ⟨I ′(un) , un⟩ ≥ ⎛ + − ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ∫∣∇un ∣p(x) dx − ∫w(x )∣un ∣p(x) dx
α ⎝ p α ⎠ αp+
Ω Ω
(3.3)
λ‖e‖L1(Ω) 1 1
−
α
+ θ⎛ − − ⎞
⎝ α t ⎠
∫ b(x )∣un ∣t (x ) dx.
Ω

Note that by (P) it holds that

(α − p+ )μ1 α − p+
p+
∫w(x )∣un ∣p(x) dx ≤ p+
∫∣∇un ∣p(x) dx, ∀n ∈  . (3.4)
Ω Ω
 On sufficient “local” conditions for existence results  193

Combining (3.3) with (3.4) and recalling I (un) → c and I ′(un) → 0 we deduce that for n large,
(μ1 − λ )(α − p+ ) λ‖e‖L1(Ω) 1 1
c + 1 + ‖un‖ ≥
μ1 αp+
∫∣∇un ∣p(x) dx − α ⎝α t ⎠
∫
+ θ ⎛ − − ⎞ b(x )∣un ∣t (x ) dx.
Ω Ω

Thus,

∫b(x )∣un ∣t(x) dx ≤ C1(1 + ‖un‖), ∀n ∈  . (3.5)

Ω

Here and in the remaining proof, Ci (i ∈  ) denotes a positive constant independent of n . On the other hand,
we deduce from (A3), (F4), and Proposition 2.2 that for n large,
1
p+
−
(‖un‖p − 1) ≤ I (un) + λ ∫F (x, un)dx + θ ∫ bt ((xx)) ∣un ∣t(x) dx
Ω Ω
m0 (3.6)
aj (x ) θ
≤c + 1 + λ∑ ∫ rj(x ) ∣un ∣rj(x ) dx + −
t
∫b(x )∣un ∣t (x ) dx.
j=1
Ω Ω

By the Young’s inequality, we have

t (x )
rj (x )
t (x ) − rj (x ) −
t (x ) − r j (x )
rj (x )
aj∣un ∣rj(x ) ≤ ajb t (x ) + b∣un ∣t (x ) .
t (x ) t (x )

Plugging this into (3.6) and recalling the assumption of aj , we arrive at

− ⎛ ⎞
‖un‖p ≤ C2⎜1 +
⎜
∫b(x )∣un ∣t(x) dx ⎟⎟. (3.7)
⎝ Ω ⎠
From (3.5) and (3.7) we obtain the boundedness of {un}∞
in E since p− > 1. Then by Theorem 2.7, there exist
n=1
μ , ν ∈  (Ω), {xi } i ∈  ⊂  , and {μi } i ∈  , {νi } i ∈  ⊂ (0, ∞), where  is at most countable, such that up to a
subsequence we have
un(x ) → u(x ) a.e. x ∈ Ω, (3.8)
un ⇀ u in E , (3.9)
∗
∣∇un ∣p(x ) ⇀ μ ≥ ∣∇u ∣p(x ) + ∑ μi δ x i
in  (Ω) , (3.10)
i∈
∗
b∣un ∣t (x ) ⇀ ν = b∣u ∣t (x ) + ∑ νiδx i
in  (Ω) , (3.11)
i∈

Sbνi1 / t (xi) ≤ μi1 / p(xi) , ∀i ∈ , (3.12)

where δ xi is the Dirac mass at xi . We claim that  = ∅. Suppose, on the contrary, that there exists i ∈ .
Arguing similarly to that obtained (3.5), we have

1 ‖e‖L1(Ω) λ 1 1
c + on(1) = I (un) −
α
⟨I ′(un) , un⟩ ≥ −
α
+ ⎛ − − ⎞θ b(x )∣un ∣t (x ) dx.
⎝α t ⎠
∫
Ω

Passing to the limit as n → ∞ in the last inequality and using (3.11), we obtain
‖e‖L1(Ω) λ 1 1
c≥− + ⎛ − − ⎞θνi. (3.13)
α ⎝α t ⎠
Next, we will prove that
μi ≤ θνi. (3.14)
194  Ky Ho and Inbo Sim

To this end, let ϕ ∈ Cc∞(N ) be such that 0 ≤ ϕ ≤ 1, ϕ ≡ 1 on B21 (0) and supp(ϕ) ⊂ B1(0). For ε > 0, define
( )
x−x
ϕi, ε (x ) ≔ ϕ ε i for x ∈ N . Fixing such an ε, we obtain that

∫a(x, ∇un)⋅∇(ϕi,εun)dx = ⟨I′(un), ϕi,εun⟩ + λ∫f (x, un)ϕi,εundx + θ∫b(x )∣un ∣t(x) ϕi,εdx,
Ω Ω Ω

i.e.,

∫ϕi,εa(x, ∇un)⋅∇undx = ⟨I′(un), ϕi,εun⟩ − ∫una(x, ∇un)⋅∇ϕi,εdx + λ∫ϕi,ε f (x, un)undx

Ω Ω Ω
(3.15)
∫
+ θ ϕi, εb(x )∣un ∣t (x ) dx.
Ω

Let δ > 0 be arbitrary and fixed. By the Young’s inequality, we have

p(x )
∣una(x , ∇un)⋅∇ϕi, ε∣ ≤ δ∣a(x , ∇un)∣ p(x ) −1 + C ( p , δ )∣∇ϕi, ε ∣p(x ) ∣un ∣p(x ) ,

where C ( p , δ ) is a positive constant independent of n and ε . Using this estimation and (A3), we deduce from
(3.15) that

∫ϕi,ε∣∇un ∣p(x) dx ≤ ⟨I′(un), ϕi,εun⟩ + C∗δ + C ( p, δ)∫∣∇ϕi,ε ∣p(x) ∣un ∣p(x) dx + λ∫ϕi,ε∣f (x, un)un∣dx
Ω Ω Ω

∫
+ θ ϕi, εb(x )∣un ∣t (x ) dx ,
Ω
p(x )
where C∗ ≔ supn ∈ ∫ ∣a(x , ∇un)∣ p(x ) −1 dx ∈ [0, ∞) due to (1.7) and the boundedness of {un}∞ n = 1 in E . Then, by
Ω
passing to the limit as n → ∞ in the last estimation and invoking Propositions 2.4 and 2.6 to taking into
account (3.9), the fact that I ′(un) → 0 and the boundedness of {ϕi, εun}∞ n = 1 in E , we arrive at
m0
∫ϕi,εdμ ≤ C∗δ + C ( p, δ)∫∣∇ϕi,ε ∣p(x) ∣u∣p(x) dx + λ∫ϕi,ε ∑ aj(x )∣u∣r (x) dx + θ∫ϕi,εdν. j
(3.16)
j=1
Ω Ω Ω Ω
∗
Note that u ∈ L p (⋅ )(Ω) in view of Proposition 2.4; hence, by Proposition 2.1,

∫∣∇ϕi,ε ∣p(x) ∣u∣p(x) dx ≤ 2∥∣u∣p ∥ L p∗(⋅ )

p(⋅ ) (Bε (xi ) ∩ Ω)
∥∣∇ϕi, ε ∣p ∥ N
L p(⋅ ) (Bε (xi ) ∩ Ω)
. (3.17)
Ω

On the other hand, invoking Proposition 2.2 we have

−
∥∣∇ϕi, ε ∣p ∥ p N
L p(⋅ ) (Bε (xi ) ∩ Ω)
≤1+ ∫ ∣∇ϕi, ε ∣N dx ≤ 1 + ∫ ∣∇ϕ( y )∣N dy.
Bε (xi ) ∩ Ω B1(0)
∗
From this and the fact that u ∈ L p (⋅ )(Ω) it follows from (3.17) that

lim
ε → 0+
∫∣∇ϕi,ε ∣p(x) ∣u∣p(x) dx = 0.
Ω

Clearly, lim ε → 0+∫ ϕ ∑m0 aj (x )∣u ∣rj(x ) dx = 0. By letting ε → 0+ in (3.16) and taking into account the last two
Ω i, ε j = 1
limits we arrive at
μi ≤ C∗δ + θνi.

Thus, we obtain (3.14) since δ > 0 was chosen arbitrarily. Combining (3.14) and (3.12) and noting
Np(x )
t (xi ) = N − p(ix ) , we have
i
p(xi )
θνi ≥ μi ≥ SbN θ − t (xi) −p(xi) . (3.18)
 On sufficient “local” conditions for existence results  195

Combining (3.13) and (3.18) gives

‖e‖L1(Ω) λ 1 1
c≥−
α
1
{ 1
+ ⎛ − − ⎞SbN min θ − h+−1 , θ − h−−1 ,
⎝α t ⎠ }
which contradicts to (3.2). That is,  = ∅ and hence,

∫b(x )∣un ∣t(x) dx → ∫b(x )∣u∣t(x) dx.

Ω Ω

From this and (3.8) we deduce that un → u in Lt (⋅ )(b, Ω) in view of the Brézis-Lieb lemma (see e.g.,
[14, Lemma 3.6]). Thus, by Propositions 2.1 and 2.2 we easily obtain

∫b(x )∣un ∣t(x)−2 un(un − u)dx → 0. (3.19)

Ω

On the other hand, in view of (F4) and Proposition 2.6 it follows from (3.9) that

∫f (x, un)(un − u)dx → 0. (3.20)

Ω

Using (3.19), (3.20), the boundedness of {un}∞ ∗

n = 1 in E , and the fact that I ′(un ) → 0 in E , we obtain

∫a(x, ∇un)⋅(∇un − ∇u)dx = ⟨I′(un), un − u⟩ + λ∫f (x, un)(un − u)dx + θ∫b(x )∣un ∣t(x)−2 un(un − u)dx → 0;
Ω Ω Ω

hence, un → u in E due to the (S+) property of Leray-Lions operators with variable growths (see [23, Theorem
4.1]). In other words, I satisfies the (PS)c condition and the proof is complete. □

In order to verify condition (I2) of Proposition 3.2, we will take X͠ from a sequence {Ek }∞
k = 1 of linear
subspaces of E , which is constructed as follows. For each k ∈  , define
Ek ≔ span{φ1 , φ2 , … , φk } , (3.21)

where φn is an eigenfunction corresponding to the nth eigenvalue of the following eigenvalue problem with
B in (F5):

⎧− Δu = μu in B ,
⎨u = 0 on ∂B ,
⎩
which is extended to Ω by putting φn(x ) = 0 for x ∈ Ω⧹B .

Lemma 3.4. Let (F4) and (F5) hold. Let λ > 0 and let θ > 0. Then, for each k ∈ , there exists Rk > 1
independent of θ such that
I (u) < 0, ∀u ∈ Ek ⧹B Rk . (3.22)

Proof. Let k ∈  . Since all norms on Ek are equivalent, we can find δk > 0 such that
δk‖u‖ ≤ ‖u‖L pB+(m, B) , ∀u ∈ Ek . (3.23)

Let γk > 0 be positive constant such that

+
λγkδkpB − C͠ > 0 (3.24)

with C͠ in (1.6). Then, by (F5) we find Tk > 0 such that

+
F (x , τ ) ≥ γkm(x )∣τ∣ pB , for a.e. x ∈ B and all ∣τ∣ ≥ Tk .
196  Ky Ho and Inbo Sim

Hence,
+
F (x , τ ) ≥ γkm(x )∣τ∣ pB − sup ∣F (x , τ )∣ , for a.e. x ∈ B and all τ ∈  . (3.25)
∣ τ ∣≤ Tk

From (1.6) and (3.23)–(3.25), for u ∈ Ek ⧹B Rk with Rk > 1 large enough we have

I (u) ≤ C͠ ∫(∣∇u∣p(x) + 1)dx − λ ∫F (x, u)dx

B B

pB+ pB+
≤ C͠ (‖u‖ + ∣B∣) − λγk‖u‖ +
L pB (m, B)
+λ ∫∣τsup
∣≤ T
∣F (x , τ )∣dx
k
B
pB+ +
≤ − (λγkδk − C͠ )‖u‖pB + λ ∫∣τsup
∣≤ T
∣F (x , τ )∣dx + C͠ ∣B∣
k
B
pB+ pB+
≤ − (λγkδk − C͠ )Rk + λ ∫∣τsup
∣≤ T
∣F (x , τ )∣dx + C͠ ∣B∣ < 0,
k
B

proving (3.22). Here we have used the fact that sup∣ τ ∣≤ Tk ∣F (⋅ ,τ )∣ ∈ L1(B) due to (F4). Obviously, Rk above can
be chosen independently of θ . □

Finally, to verify the remaining conditions of Proposition 3.2, we introduce a sequence {Vk }∞ k = 1 of finite
dimensional linear subspaces of E as follows. Let {en}∞
n=1 ⊂ E be a Schauder basis of E and let { f }∞ ∗
n n = 1 ⊂ E be
such that for each n ∈  ,
∞
⟨fn , u⟩ = αn for u = ∑ αjej ∈ E.
j=1

For each k ∈  , define

Vk ≔ {u ∈ E : ⟨fn , u⟩ = 0, ∀n > k }

and
Wk ≔ {u ∈ E : ⟨fn , u⟩ = 0, ∀n ≤ k } .

Then, E = Vk ⊕ Wk and dim Vk = k . Define

δk ≔ sup max ‖v‖Lrj(⋅ )(aj,Ω) .
v ∈ Wk 1 ≤ j ≤ m0 (3.26)
‖v ‖≤ 1

The next lemma was proved in [12].

k = 1 above satisfies 0 < δk + 1 ≤ δk for all k ∈  and

Lemma 3.5. The sequence {δk }∞
lim δk = 0.
k →∞

We are now in a position to complete the proof of Theorem 1.2.

Proof of Theorem 1.2. Let λ ∈ (0, μ1] be given and let θ > 0. We will show that conditions (I1)–(I3) of
Proposition 3.2 are fulfilled with X = E and I given by (3.1). First, we will show that I satisfies (I1). By Lemma
3.5, we find k 0 ∈  such that δ k0 ∈ (0, 1). By using (A3) and (F4) we have that for any u ∈ Wk0 with ‖u‖ > 1,
0 m
1 p− − 1) − λ 1 r+ θ
I (u ) ≥
p+
( ‖ u‖ ∑
r −
(‖u‖Ljrj(⋅ )(a ,Ω) + 1) − −
j t
∫b∣u∣t(x) dx. (3.27)
j=1 j
Ω
 On sufficient “local” conditions for existence results  197

Note that for u ∈ E with ‖u‖ > 1, it follows from Proposition 2.2 and (2.8) that
+ +
∫b∣u∣t(x) dx ≤ (1 + Sb−t )‖u‖t . (3.28)
Ω

Moreover, by considering v = z / ‖z‖ for z ∈ Wk0⧹{0} we deduce from the definition (3.26) of δk that
max ‖z‖Lrj(⋅ )(aj,Ω) ≤ δ k0‖z‖ , ∀z ∈ Wk0. (3.29)
1 ≤ j ≤ m0

Invoking (3.28) and (3.29), we obtain from (3.27) that for all u ∈ Wk0 with ‖u‖ > 1,
m0λδ kr∗0
+
1 p− − ∗ m λ 1 (1 + Sb−t )θ t +
I (u ) ≥ +
‖ u‖ ‖u‖r − ⎛ 0 + + ⎞ − ‖u‖ ,
⎜ ⎟ (3.30)
p r∗ ⎝ r∗ p ⎠ t−

where r∗ ≔ min1 ≤ j ≤ m0rj− and r∗ ≔ max1 ≤ j ≤ m0rj+. Let ρk0 > 0 be such that
1
m0λδ kr∗0 ∗ 1 p− ⎛ r∗ ⎞
r∗− p−

ρkr0 = ρ i.e., ρk0 =⎜ .

+λδ r ⎟
∗
r∗ 2p+ k0 2m p
⎝ 0 k0 ⎠

By Lemma 3.5, we can fix k 0 ∈  from the beginning such that

1 p− ⎛ m0λ 1 1 p−
0 < δ k0 < 1 < ρk0 and ρ − + +⎞ > ρ .⎜ ⎟

2p+ k0 r
⎝ ∗ p ⎠ 4p+ k0

Thus, (3.30) yields

+
1 p− (1 + Sb−t )θ t +
I (u ) ≥ ρ − ρk 0 , ∀u ∈ ∂B ρk0 ∩ Wk0.
4p+ k0 t−
− +
t −ρkp0 − t
Therefore, by choosing V ≔ Vk0 , W ≔ Wk0 , and θ0 ≔ + > 0, we have that for any θ ∈ (0, θ0),
4p+ (1 + Sb−t )
I (u ) ≥ β , ∀u ∈ ∂Bρ ∩ W
+ +
(1 + Sb−t )ρkt
0
with ρ = ρk0 and β = (θ0 − θ ) > 0. That is, I satisfies (I1) in Proposition 3.2.
t−
k = 1 be defined by (3.21). For
Next, we will show that I satisfies (I2) in Proposition 3.2. To this end, let {Ek }∞
each k ∈  we have
sup I (u) = max I (u)
u ∈ Ek u ∈ Ek (3.31)
‖u ‖≤ Rk

due to the fact that I (0) = 0 and Lemma 3.4. Note that by using (1.6) and (F4), we have that for any u ∈ E
with ‖u‖ ≤ Rk ,

I (u) < C͠ ∫(∣∇u∣p(x) + 1)dx − λ ∫F (x, u)dx

Ω Ω
m0
a (x )
+
≤ C͠ ‖u‖p + C͠ (∣Ω∣ + 1) + λ ∑ ∫ rjj(x ) ∣u∣r (x) dx
j

j=1
Ω
m0
+ λ r+
≤ C͠ ‖u‖p + C͠ (∣Ω∣ + 1) + ∑ − (‖u‖Ljrj(⋅ )(a,Ω) + 1)
r
j=1 j
m0
λ + m 0λ
∑ Cjr ‖u‖r
+ +
≤ C͠ ‖u‖p + j j + + C͠ (∣Ω∣ + 1)
r∗ j=1
r∗
m0
+ λ + +
͠ p +
≤ CR k ∑ Cjr Rkr
j j
+ m0λ + C͠ (∣Ω∣ + 1) ≕ Lk ,
r∗ j=1
198  Ky Ho and Inbo Sim

where Cj ( j = 1, … , m0) denotes the imbedding constant for E ↪ Lrj(⋅ )(aj , Ω). From this and (3.31) we obtain
sup I (u) < Lk , ∀k ∈  . (3.32)
u ∈ Ek

k = 1 ⊂ (0, θ0) be such that for any k ∈  ,

Finally, let {θk }∞

⎧ ‖e‖ 1 λ 1 1 − +1 − −1
⎪ L k0+ k < − L (Ω) + ⎛ − ⎞SbN min ⎧θk h − 1 , θk h − 1 ⎫ ,
α ⎝α t− ⎠ ⎨ ⎬ (3.33)
⎨ ⎩ ⎭
⎪ θk + 1 < θk .
⎩
Then, for any θ ∈ (θk + 1, θk ) we have
‖e‖L1(Ω) λ 1 1
L k0+ k < −
α ⎝ α t ⎠
1
{ 1
+ ⎛ − − ⎞SbN min θ − h+−1 , θ − h−−1 }
and hence, I satisfies the (PS)c for any c ∈ [0, L k0+ k ] in view of Lemma 3.3. Thus, I satisfies (I2) and (I3) with
X͠ = Ek0+ k and L = L k0+ k . So, I admits at least dim X͠ − dim V = k pairs of nontrivial critical points in view of
Proposition 3.2; hence, problem (1.1) has at least k pairs of nontrivial solutions. The proof is complete. □

Remark 3.6. We would like to discuss problem (1.1) without a parameter in the subcritical term as follows:

⎧− div a(x , ∇u) = f (x , u) + θb(x )∣u ∣t (x ) − 2 u in Ω,

(3.34)
⎨u = 0 on ∂Ω.
⎩
The existence of a sequence of nontrivial solutions to problem (3.34) for the p(⋅ )-sublinear case was
obtained in Theorem 1.1 (for all θ ≥ 0). For the p(⋅ )-superlinear case, by repeating the proof of Theorem
1.2, we find a sequence {θn}∞n = 1 with 0 < θn + 1 < θn for all n ∈  such that for any θ ∈ (θn + 1, θn ), problem (3.34)
admits at least n distinct pairs of nontrivial solutions under (P), (A0)–(A4), (F3)–(F5), and (F6), replaced by
∼
(F6) For w given by (P), there exist α ∈ [ p+ , t −) and e ∈ L+1(Ω) such that
(α − p+ )μ1
αF (x , τ ) − τf (x , τ ) ≤ w (x )∣τ∣p(x ) + e(x ) for a.e. x ∈ Ω and all τ ∈  .
p+

The result remains valid under (A0)–(A4), (F3)–(F5), and (F6) replaced by
t (⋅ )

( σ
)
(F6) There exist α ∈ [ p+ , t −) and functions σ ∈ C+(Ω) with σ + < p−, w ∈ L+t (⋅ ) − σ (⋅ ) b− t −σ , Ω , and e ∈ L+1(Ω)
such that
αF (x , τ ) − τf (x , τ ) ≤ w (x )∣τ∣σ (x ) + e(x ) for a.e. x ∈ Ω and all τ ∈  .

In this case, Theorem 1.2 generalizes of [28, Theorem A] that treated for the p-Laplacian.

4 The sandwich case

Throughout this section we always assume that (A0)–(A5), (S), (W), and (L1) hold. As in Section 3.2, we will
restrict our proof to the case p+ < N . To determine (nonnegative) solutions of problem (1.10), we introduce
the functionals J , Ψ : E →  defined as

J (u ) = ∫A(x, ∇u)dx − λ∫ ms((xx)) u+s(x)dx − θ∫ bt ((xx)) u+t(x)dx (4.1)

Ω Ω Ω
 On sufficient “local” conditions for existence results  199

and

Ψ(u) = ∫A(x, ∇u)dx − λ∫ ms((xx)) ∣u∣s(x) dx − θ∫ bt ((xx)) ∣u∣t(x) dx (4.2)

Ω Ω Ω

for u ∈ E . Here and in the rest of the article, both ϕ+ and ϕ+ stand for max{ϕ , 0} . Under the given assump-
tions, J, Ψ are of class C 1(E, ) and a critical point of J (resp. Ψ ) is a nonnegative solution (resp. a solution)
to problem (1.10). We will make use of the critical point theorems and genus theory to determine critical
points of J and Ψ . In order to verify the (PS) condition for J and Ψ , we need the next lemma.

Lemma 4.1. The following assertions hold.

(i) For θ = 0 and λ ∈  , J , and Ψ satisfy the (PS)c condition for all c ∈  .
(ii) For θ > 0 and λ ∈  , J , and Ψ satisfy the (PS)c condition for all c ∈  satisfying

1 1
⎜

⎝p t ⎠
⎟
1
{ } 1
{ ℓ+ ℓ−
c < ⎛ + − − ⎞SbN min θ − h+−1 , θ − h−−1 − K max θ − ℓ+−1 , θ − ℓ−−1 max ∣λ ∣ℓ+−1 , ∣λ ∣ℓ−−1 ,
1 1
} { } (4.3)

t (x ) t (x )
where K = K ( p , s, t , m , b, Ω) > 0, h(x ) ≔ p(x )
, and ℓ(x ) ≔ s(x )
for x ∈ Ω.

Proof. We only prove the conclusions for J since those of Ψ are proved similarly. We first show that for
λ ∈  , θ ≥ 0, and c ∈  , any (PS)c -sequence of J is bounded in E. Indeed, let {un}∞
n = 1 be a (PS)c -sequence of J .
Then, for n large we have

1 1 1 1 1
c + 1 + ‖un‖ ≥ J (un) − ⟨J ′(un) , un⟩ ≥ ⎛ + − − ⎞ ∣∇un ∣p(x ) dx − ∣λ∣⎛ − − − ⎞ ∣m(x )∣∣un ∣s(x ) dx.
⎜ ⎟∫ ∫
t− ⎝ p t ⎠Ω ⎝ s t ⎠
Ω

On the other hand, by invoking Propositions 2.1–2.3 and utilizing (2.8) we have
−
∫∣∇un ∣p(x) dx ≥ ‖un‖p −1
Ω

and

∫∣m(x )∣∣un ∣s(x) dx ≤ 2 ∥mb−1∥L t (⋅ )

t (⋅ ) − s(⋅ ) (b,Ω)
∥∣un ∣s ∥ t (⋅ )
L s(⋅ ) (b,Ω)
Ω
+
≤ 2 ∥mb−1∥ t (⋅ ) (‖un‖sLt (⋅ )(b,Ω) + 1)
L t (⋅ ) − s(⋅ ) (b,Ω)
+ +
≤ 2 ∥mb−1∥ t (⋅ ) (Sb−s ‖un‖s + 1) .
L t (⋅ ) − s(⋅ ) (b,Ω)

From the last three estimations we deduce the boundedness of {un}∞ + −

n = 1 in E since 1 < s < p . Hence, up to a
subsequence we have
un ⇀ u in E as n → ∞ . (4.4)

(i) Case θ = 0, λ ∈  . Since

∫a(x, ∇un)⋅(∇un − ∇u)dx = ⟨J′(un), un − u⟩ + λ∫m(x )(un+)s(x)−1(un − u)dx,

Ω Ω

we easily obtain from (4.4) and Proposition 2.6 that

∫a(x, ∇un)⋅(∇un − ∇u)dx → 0 as n → ∞ .

Ω

Then, as in the proof of Lemma 3.3 we obtain un → u in E as n → ∞.

(ii) Case θ > 0, λ ∈  . By Theorem 2.7 again, we infer from the boundedness of {un}∞
n = 1 that up to a
subsequence,
200  Ky Ho and Inbo Sim

un(x ) → u(x ) a.e. x ∈ Ω, (4.5)

∗
∣∇un ∣p(x ) ⇀ μ ≥ ∣∇u ∣p(x ) + ∑ μi δ x i
in  (Ω) , (4.6)
i∈
∗
b∣un ∣t (x ) ⇀ ν = b∣u ∣t (x ) + ∑ νiδx i
in  ( Ω) , (4.7)
i∈

Sbνi1 / t (xi) ≤ μi1 / p(xi) , ∀i ∈ . (4.8)

We claim that  = ∅. Suppose by contradiction that there exists i ∈  . Arguing as that obtained (3.18), we
obtain

{ 1
θνi ≥ SbN min θ − h+−1 , θ − h−−1 .
1
} (4.9)

On the other hand, we have

1 1 1 1 1
c = J (un) − ⟨J ′(un) , un⟩ + on(1) ≥ −∣λ∣⎛ − − + ⎞ ∣m(x )∣∣un ∣s(x ) dx + θ ⎛ + − − ⎞ b(x )∣un ∣t (x ) dx + on(1) .
⎜ ⎟ ∫ ⎜ ⎟∫
p+ ⎝ s p ⎠Ω ⎝ p t ⎠Ω

Passing to the limit as n → ∞ in the last estimation and invoking Proposition 2.6 again and using (4.7), we
obtain

1 1 1 1 ⎛ ⎞
c ≥ −∣λ∣⎛ − − + ⎞ ∣m(x )∣∣u ∣s(x ) dx + θ ⎛ + − − ⎞⎜ b(x )∣u ∣t (x ) dx + νi ⎟ .
⎜ ⎟ ∫ ⎜ ⎟ ∫
⎝s p ⎠ ⎝p t ⎠⎜ ⎟
Ω ⎝Ω ⎠
Invoking (4.9) the preceding inequality gives

1 1 1 1
c ≥ ⎛ + − − ⎞θ b(x )∣u ∣t (x ) dx − ∣λ∣⎛ − − + ⎞ ∣m(x )∣∣u ∣s(x ) dx + k (θ ) ,
⎜ ⎟ ∫ ⎜ ⎟ ∫
⎝ p t ⎠ Ω ⎝ s p ⎠Ω

where k (θ ) ≔ ( 1
p+
−
1
t− )S N
b { 1 1
}
min θ − h+−1 , θ − h−−1 . From Proposition 2.1, we have

∫∣m∣∣u∣s(x) dx = ∫b∣mb−1∣∣u∣s(x) dx ≤ 2‖mb−1‖L ℓ( ⋅ )

ℓ(⋅ ) − 1 (b,Ω)
∥∣u ∣s ∥ Lℓ(⋅ )(b,Ω), (4.10)
Ω Ω
t (x )
where ℓ(x ) ≔ s(x )
. From the last two inequalities, we obtain

∫
c ≥ a1θ b(∣u ∣s(x ) )ℓ(x )dx − b1∣λ∣∥∣u ∣s ∥ Lℓ(⋅ )(b,Ω) + k (θ ) , (4.11)
Ω

where a1 ≔
1
p+
−
1
t−
> 0 and b1 ≔ 2 ( 1
s−
−
1
p+ )‖mb−1‖ ℓ(⋅ )
L ℓ(⋅ ) − 1 (b,Ω)
> 0.
• If ∥∣u ∣s ∥ Lℓ(⋅ )(b,Ω) ≥ 1, then (4.11) and Proposition 2.2 yield

−
c ≥ a1θξ ℓ − b1∣λ∣ξ + k (θ ) ≕ g1(ξ ) with ξ = ∥∣u ∣s ∥ Lℓ(⋅ )(b,Ω) ≥ 1.

Thus,
1
−
⎛ b ∣λ∣ ℓ −1 ⎞
c ≥ min g1(ξ ) = g1⎜⎛ −1 ⎞ ⎟ ,
⎜ ⎟

ξ ≥0 ℓ aθ
⎝⎝ 1 ⎠ ⎠
i.e.,
− −1 ℓ−
ℓ− −
c ≥ k (θ ) − (ℓ− − 1)(ℓ−)− ℓ−−1 a1 ℓ − 1 b ℓ− − 1 θ − ℓ−1− 1 ∣λ ∣ ℓ−ℓ − 1 .
1
 On sufficient “local” conditions for existence results  201

• If ∥∣u ∣s ∥ Lℓ(⋅ )(b,Ω) < 1, then (4.11) and Proposition 2.2 yield

+
c ≥ a1θξ ℓ − b1λξ + k (θ ) ≕ g2 (ξ ) with ξ = ∥∣u ∣s ∥ Lℓ(⋅ )(b,Ω) ∈ [0, 1) .

Thus,
1
⎛ b ∣λ∣ ℓ+−1 ⎞
c ≥ min g2 (ξ ) = g2 ⎜⎛ +1 ⎞ ⎟ ,
⎜ ⎟

ξ ≥0 ℓ aθ
⎝⎝ 1 ⎠ ⎠
i.e.,
+ − +1 ℓ+
ℓ+
− +ℓ + 1
c ≥ k (θ ) − (ℓ+ − +
1)(ℓ ) ℓ −1 a1 ℓ − 1 b1 − 1 θ − ℓ+−1 ∣λ ∣ℓ+−1
ℓ .

Therefore, in any case, we obtain

{ 1 1
}
c ≥ k (θ ) − K max θ − ℓ+−1 , θ − ℓ−−1 max ∣λ ∣ℓ+−1 , ∣λ ∣ℓ−−1 , { ℓ+ ℓ−
}
ℓ∗
− ∗ℓ
∗ − ∗1 ∗− 1
where K ≔ max (ℓ∗ − ∗
1)(ℓ ) ℓ −1 a1 b1
ℓ −1 ℓ > 0. This contradicts to (4.3) and hence,  = ∅. It follows that
*∈ {+, −}

∫Ω b(x )∣un ∣t (x ) dx → ∫Ω b(x )∣u∣t (x ) dx as n → ∞. We then argue as in the proof of Lemma 3.3 to conclude that
un → u in E as n → ∞. The proof is complete. □

4.1 Multiplicity of solutions

In this subsection, we borrow the idea from [1] to prove Theorem 1.3, which asserts the existence of k pairs
of solutions to problem (1.10) for an arbitrarily given number k . To seek such a k pairs of solutions, we
determine the critical points of the functional Ψ defined in (4.2). Throughout this subsection, in addition to
(S), (W), and (L1) we always assume that m(x ) > 0 a.e. in B . We will frequently make use of the following
estimates that can be easily obtained by using (3.28), (4.10), and Proposition 2.3: there exists a constant
C1 > 1 such that for all u ∈ E with ‖u‖ > 1,
+ + + +
∫∣m(x )∣∣u∣s(x) dx ≤ C1s ‖u‖s and ∫b(x )∣u∣t(x) dx ≤ C1t ‖u‖t . (4.12)
Ω Ω

Let λ , θ > 0 to be specified later. By (A3), we have

Ψ(u) ≥ ∫ p(1x ) ∣∇u∣p(x) dx − λ ∫ ∣ms((xx))∣ ∣u∣s(x) dx − θ ∫ bt ((xx)) ∣u∣t(x) dx

Ω Ω Ω
1 λ θ
≥ +
p
∫ ∣∇u ∣p(x ) dx − −
s
∫ ∣m(x )∣∣u ∣s(x ) dx − −
t
∫b(x )∣u∣t(x) dx, ∀u ∈ E .
Ω Ω Ω

By invoking Proposition 2.2 then using (4.12) we deduce from the last inequality that
+ +
s t
Ψ(u) ≥
1
‖ u‖ p− − C1 λ ‖u‖s+ − C1 θ ‖u‖t + for all u ∈ E with ‖u‖ ≥ 1.
p+ s− t−

Thus,
Ψ(u) ≥ gλ (‖u‖) for all u ∈ E with ‖u‖ ≥ 1, (4.13)
202  Ky Ho and Inbo Sim

where gλ ∈ C[0, ∞) is given by

+ +
1 p− C1s λ s+ C1t θ t +
gλ (τ ) ≔ τ − − τ − − τ .
p+ s t
+ +
C1s τ s
Rewrite gλ (τ ) = s−
(h(τ ) − λ ) with
−
h (τ ) ≔ a 0 τ p − s+ − b0θτ t
+
− s+ ,

where
+ +
− s+
a0 ≔ p+C1s ( )−1 s− > 0, b0 ≔ (t −)−1s−C1t > 0. (4.14)

It is clear that
1
⎛ ( p− − s+)a0 ⎤t+−p− ⎞ s+ − p−
max h(τ ) = h ⎡ + = c0θ t +− p− > 0,
τ≥0 ⎜⎢ (t − s+)b0θ ⎥ ⎟
+ − ⎝⎣ ⎦ ⎠
t +− s+ s − p p− − s+
+ − + −
( p− − s+
)
+ −
t +− p− t − p
where c0 ≔ a0t − p b0t − p t + − s+ t + − s+
> 0. Thus, for λ ∈ (0, λ 0(θ )) with
s+ − p−
λ 0(θ ) ≔ c0θ t+−p− , (4.15)

gλ (τ ) has only positive roots T0 and T1 with

1
( p− − s+)a0 ⎤t+−p− − 1
0 < T0 < T∗ ≔ ⎡ + = d0θ t+−p− < T1, (4.16)
⎢ ( t − s + )b θ ⎥
⎣ 0 ⎦
1
( p− − s+)a +− p−
where d0 ≔ ⎡ (t + − s+)b 0 ⎤t > 0. Obviously, on [0, ∞) the function gλ (τ ) is negative only on (0, T0) ∪ (T1, ∞).
⎣ 0 ⎦
It is clear that
1
λ p− −s+ (4.17)
T0 > ⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟

⎝ a0 ⎠
and for θ ∈ (0, θ∗) with
t +− p− t +− p−
p− − s+ s+ − p− (4.18)
θ∗ ≔ c0 a0 ,

we have that λ 0(θ ) > a0. From the above analysis, we infer that for θ ∈ (0, θ∗) and λ ∈ (a0 , λ 0(θ )), gλ (τ ) has
only positive roots T0 and T1 with 1 < T0 < T∗ < T1.
Let θ ∈ (0, θ∗). For each λ ∈ (a0 , λ 0(θ )), we define the truncated functional Tλ : E →  as

Tλ (u) ≔ ∫A(x, ∇u)dx − λ∫ ms((xx)) ∣u∣s(x) dx − ϕ(‖u‖)θ∫ bt ((xx)) ∣u∣t(x) dx, u ∈ E,

Ω Ω Ω

where ϕ ∈ Cc∞(),0 ≤ ϕ(τ ) ≤ 1 for all τ ∈  , ϕ(τ ) = 1 for τ ≤ T0, and ϕ(τ ) = 0 for τ ≥ T1. Note that
u ↦ ϕ(‖u‖) is of class C 1(E, ) due to [22, Corollary 3.3] and therefore, Tλ ∈ C 1(E, ). Moreover, it holds that
Tλ (u) ≥ Ψ(u) for all u ∈ E , (4.19)
Tλ (u) = Ψ(u) for all u ∈ E with ‖u‖ < T0, (4.20)

and

Tλ (u) = ∫A(x, ∇u)dx − λ∫ ms((xx)) ∣u∣s(x) dx for all u ∈ E with ‖u‖ > T1. (4.21)
Ω Ω

We have the following.

 On sufficient “local” conditions for existence results  203

Lemma 4.2. Let θ ∈ (0, θ∗) and let λ ∈ (a0 , λ 0(θ )). Then, Tλ (u) < 0 implies that ‖u‖ < T0 and hence,
Tλ (u) = Ψ(u).

Proof. Suppose that Tλ (u) < 0. Then, we have Ψ(u) < 0 due to (4.19). Suppose on the contrary that ‖u‖ ≥ T0 .
Note that T0 > 1, and hence, (4.13) gives gλ (‖u‖) < 0. Thus, ‖u‖ > T1 and hence; Tλ (u) = ∫Ω A(x , ∇u)dx −
m(x )
λ∫ ∣u ∣s(x ) dx < 0 due to (4.21). On the other hand, the last inequality combining with (A3) and (4.12)
Ω s(x )
gives
1 − 1 + +
‖u‖p ≤ − C1s λ‖u‖s .
p+ s

This yields
1
+ − − s+
p+ C1s λ ⎞ p
T0 ≤ ‖u‖ ≤ ⎛⎜ − ⎟ ,
⎝ s ⎠
which contradicts to (4.17). Thus, ‖u‖ < T0 and hence, Tλ (u) = Ψ(u) due to (4.20). The proof is complete. □

Next, by employing genus theory we will show that for any given number k ∈  , Tλ admits at least k
pairs of critical points { ±un}nk = 1 with Tλ ( ±un) < 0 provided θ is sufficiently small. Let Σ denote the family of
sets A ⊂ E⧹{0} such that A is closed in E and symmetric with respect to the origin. For A ∈ Σ , define the
genus of A to be n (denoted by γ (A) = n ) if there is a map φ ∈ C (A, n⧹{0}) and n is the smallest integer with
this property. When there does not exist a finite such n , set γ (A) = ∞. Finally, set γ (∅) = 0. For each k ∈ ,
define
Σk ≔ {A ∈ Σ : γ (A) ≥ k } .

Clearly, ∂(H ∩ Bρ) ∈ Σk for any k -dimensional subspace H of E and for any ρ > 0 (see [26, Proposition 7.7]).
Thus, we can define
ck (λ , θ ) ≔ inf sup Tλ (u) . (4.22)
A ∈ Σk u ∈ A

Clearly, ck (λ , θ ) ≤ ck + 1(λ , θ ) for all k ∈ . We will show that with λ , θ specified later, ck (λ , θ ) are negative
critical values of Tλ and hence, of Ψ . To this end, let Ek be a k -dimensional subspace of E given by (3.21) with
B in (L1). Since all norms on Ek are mutually equivalent, we find δk > 1 such that

δk−1 max{‖∇u‖L pB+(B) , ‖∇u‖LqB(B) } ≤ ‖u‖ ≤ δk‖u‖Ls(⋅ )(m, B) , ∀u ∈ Ek . (4.23)

k = 1 such that δk < δk + 1 for all k ∈  . Recalling a0 given by (4.14), we have the
It is clear that we can choose {δk }∞
following.

k = 1 with max{1, a0} < λ k < λ k + 1 for all k ∈  such that for each k ∈  , it holds that
Lemma 4.3. There exists {λk }∞
−∞ < ck (λ , θ ) < 0

for any λ > λk and θ > 0.

Proof. Let k ∈  be arbitrary and fixed and let λ , θ be positive real numbers. By the definition of Tλ and the
fact that s+ < p−, we easily see that Tλ is bounded from below and hence,
ck (λ , θ ) > −∞ .

Let u ∈ Ek with ‖u‖ = τ > δk (hence, ‖u‖Ls(⋅ )(m, B) > 1 due to (4.23)). We have
+ λ −
Tλ (u) ≤ Cp‖∇u‖pBpB+ + CB‖∇u‖qLBqB(B) − +
‖u‖sLBs(⋅ )(m, B)
L (B) s
204  Ky Ho and Inbo Sim

in view of (1.11) and Proposition 2.2. From this and (4.23) we obtain
+ λ −1 sB−
Tλ (u) ≤ Cp(δkτ ) pB + CB(δkτ )qB − (δk τ ) = τ qBh¯ λ (τ ) , (4.24)
s+
where
+ −
h¯ λ (τ ) ≔ αk τ pB − qB + βk − γkλτ sB − qB
+ −
with αk ≔ CpδkpB , βk ≔ CBδkqB and γk ≔ (s+)−1δk−sB . Denote
1
−
(s − qB )γkλ ⎤ B p+ − sB
−
T ∗ ≔ ⎡ B+ . (4.25)
⎢
⎣ ( pB − qB )αk ⎥
⎦
Then, for
−
λ > C1(B)δk2sB
+ − s−
pB −−q
sB
B B

with C1(B) ≔ ( CB( pB+ − qB )

pB+ − sB− ) (
+ −q
pB B
Cp( pB+ − qB )
sB− − qB ) +−q
pB B
s+, it holds that
−−q
sB B sB− − qB pB+ − qB +
p + − sB− ⎛ sB− − qB ⎞ pB+−sB− − pB+ − sB− pB+ − sB− ppB+−−qs−B (4.26)
h¯ λ (T ∗) = βk − B+ ⎜ ⎟ αk γk λ B B < 0.
pB − qB ⎝ pB+ − qB ⎠

From (4.25) we have

+
T ∗ > δk ⇔ λ > C2 (B)δk2pB (4.27)
( pB+ − qB )Cps+
with C2 (B) ≔ sB− − qB
. Set
+
λk ≔ C3(B)δk2pB , (4.28)

where C3(B) ≔ max{1, a0 , C1(B) , C2 (B)} with a0 given by (4.18). Then, we have that λk > max{1, a0} since
δk > 1. Moreover, for λ > λk it holds that T ∗ > δk due to (4.27) and therefore,

Tλ (u) ≤ (T ∗)qB h¯ λ (T ∗) ≕ − εk < 0, ∀u ∈ ∂BT ∗ ∩ Ek

in view of (4.24) and (4.26). Thus, ∂BT ∗ ∩ Ek ⊂ {u ∈ E : Tλ (u) ≤ −εk } ≕ Tλ−εk . Note that Tλ−εk ∈ Σ due to (A0)
and the definition of Tλ . Hence, we arrive at

( )
γ Tλ−εk ≥ γ ∂BT ∗ ∩ Ek = k ( )
(see [26, Proposition 7.7]). In other words, Tλ−εk ∈ Σk and thus,
ck (λ , θ ) = inf sup Tλ (u) ≤ sup Tλ (u) ≤ −εk < 0.
A ∈ Σk u ∈ A −εk
u ∈ Tλ

k = 1 satisfies λ k < λ k + 1 for all k ∈  . The proof is complete.

Finally, it is obvious that this sequence {λk }∞ □

k = 1 be defined as in (4.28). Note that with λ 0(θ ) defined by (4.15) we have

Let {λk }∞
2pB+ (t +− p− )
s+ − p− t +− p− −
p− − s+
λk = λ 0(θ ) = c0θ t +− p− ⇔ θ= [c0−1C3(B)] s+−p− δk .

Moreover, for θ ∈ (0, 1) and λ > 1, the inequality

1 1
⎝p
⎜

t ⎠
1
{ 1 ℓ+
} ℓ−
0 < ⎛ + − − ⎞SbN min θ − h+−1 , θ − h−−1 − K max θ − ℓ+−1 , θ − ℓ−−1 max ∣λ ∣ℓ+−1 , ∣λ ∣ℓ−−1
⎟
1 1
{ } { } (4.29)

is equivalent to
ℓ− − 1
ℓ − + − + −
1 1 − ℓ −h − ℓ −h
λ < ⎡K−1⎛ + − − ⎞SbN ⎤ θ (h+−1)ℓ− = e0θ (h+−1)ℓ− ≕ λ¯ 0(θ )
⎜ ⎟ (4.30)
⎢ t ⎠ ⎥
⎣ ⎝p ⎦
 On sufficient “local” conditions for existence results  205

ℓ− − 1
ℓ−
with e0 ≔ ⎡K−1
⎣ ( 1
p+
−
1
t− )
SbN ⎤
⎦
. We also note that
2pB+ (h+ − 1)ℓ−
(h+ − 1)ℓ− −
λk = λ¯ 0(θ ) ⇔ θ = [e0−1C3(B)] h+ −ℓ− δk ℓ− − h+ .

Thus, by taking
+ −
⎧ t −p (h+ − 1)ℓ− ⎫
θk ≔ min 1, θ∗, [c0−1C3(B)] s+−p− , [e0−1C3(B)] h+−ℓ− δk−κ (4.31)
⎨ ⎬
⎩ ⎭
with κ ≔ max { 2pB+ (t + − p− ) 2pB+ (h+ − 1)ℓ−
p− − s+
, ℓ− − h+ } and setting
λ∗(θ ) ≔ min{λ 0(θ ) , λ¯ 0(θ )} , (4.32)

we deduce from the definitions of λ 0(θ ) and λ¯ 0(θ ) in (4.15) and (4.30) that θk > 0 is independent of λ and for
any θ ∈ (0, θk ),
θ < min{1, θ∗} and λk < λ∗(θ ) .

We are now ready to prove Theorem 1.3.

Proof of Theorem 1.3. Let k ∈  be given and define λk and θk as in (4.28) and (4.31), respectively. Let
θ ∈ (0, θk ) be given and let λ ∈ (λk , λ∗(θ )) with λ∗(θ ) given by (4.32). Let {cn(λ , θ )}∞
n = 1 be defined as in (4.22);
for simplicity of notation, we write cn in place of cn(λ , θ ). By the definitions of {θn}∞ ∞
n = 1 and {λ n }n = 1 , for any
∗
n ∈ {1, … , k } we have that 0 < θ < θn < 1 and λn < λ < λ (θ ) as well. By Lemma 4.3, it follows that
−∞ < cn < 0. From this and (4.29)–(4.30) we infer that Tλ satisfies the (PS)cn condition in view of Lemmas
4.1 and 4.2. Suppose that cn = ⋯= ck = c for some n ∈ {1, … , k } . Then, it follows from the fact that Tλ satisfies
the (PS)cn condition that Kc ≔ {u ∈ E \ {0} : Tλ′ (u) = 0 and Tλ (u) = c } is a compact set. By a standard argument
using the deformation lemma and properties of genus (see, e.g., [1, Proof of Theorem 1]) we obtain
γ (Kc ) ≥ k − n + 1.

This implies that either {cn}nk = 1 are k distinct critical values of Tλ or Kck admits infinitely many points. From
this and the fact that c1 ≤ c2 ≤⋯≤ ck < 0, Ψ admits at least k pairs of critical points { ±un}nk = 1 with Ψ( ±un) < 0
for n = 1, … , k in view of Lemma 4.2. Consequently, problem (1.10) admits at least k pair of solutions
{ ±un}nk = 1 with negative energy. The proof is complete. □

Remark 4.4. As we saw in the proof of Theorem 1.3, the range of θ to obtain at least k pair of solutions is
(0, θk ). Since θk → 0 as k → ∞, we cannot conclude that problem (1.10) admits a sequence of solution with
a certain range of θ . This similarly happens with the proof of [1, Theorem 1]. Indeed, [1, equation (70)] gives
the range of ‖K‖∞ of the form ‖K‖∞ < Cdjα for some positive constants C , α independent of dj , where dj is
given by [1, equation (67)] and possibly satisfies that dj → 0 as j → ∞.

4.2 Nontrivial nonnegative solutions

In this subsection, we will prove Theorem 1.4. We will apply the Ekeland variational principle to determine
critical points of the functional J given by (4.1), which are in turn nonnegative solutions to problem (1.10).
Throughout this subsection, in addition to (S), (W), and (L1), we always assume that (L2) holds.
We start with the following geometry of J .

∼ ∼ ∼
Lemma 4.5. For each given λ > λ⋆, there exists θ∗ > 0 such that for any θ ∈ ( −θ∗, θ∗), there exist r , ρ > 0
such that
206  Ky Ho and Inbo Sim

inf J (u) ≥ ρ > 0 > inf J (u) .

u ∈∂Br u ∈ Br

Proof. Fix λ > λ⋆ with λ⋆ given by (1.12) and let θ ∈  . Since λ > λ⋆ we can find ϕ ∈  such that
pB+ −η
η − qB
pB+−q pB+ −q
B B
C∗(η) ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
pB+ dx
max
η ∈ [sB−, sB+] ∫ m (x ) ∫⎜
ϕ s(x )dx ⎜
∣∇ϕ ∣ ⎟⎟ ∫ qB
⎜⎜ ∣∇ϕ ∣ dx ⎟⎟ < λ. (4.33)
s(x ) + ⎝B ⎠ ⎝B ⎠
B

Fix such ϕ. By (1.11) and (L2), we have

⎛ + ⎞ + ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ m(x ) s(x ) ⎞
⎜
∫ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
∫
J (τϕ) ≤ Cp⎜ ∣∇ϕ ∣ pB dx ⎟τ pB + CB⎜ ∣∇ϕ ∣qB dx ⎟τ qB − λ⎜ ϕ dx ⎟τ sB(τ)
⎜ s (x ) + ⎟
∫
⎝B ⎠ ⎝B ⎠ ⎝B ⎠
⎛ b (x ) ⎞
− θ⎜ ∫
⎜ t (x )
(τϕ+)t (x )dx ⎟,
⎟
∀τ > 0,
⎝B ⎠
where sB(τ ) is determined by ϕ and τ as in (L2). Thus,

⎛ b (x ) ⎞
J (τϕ) ≤ yλ (τ ) − ⎜ ∫
⎜ t (x )
(τϕ+)t (x )dx ⎟θ ,
⎟
∀τ ≥ 0, (4.34)
⎝B ⎠
where
+
yλ (τ ) ≔ α1τ pB − β1λτ sB(τ) + γ1τ qB
+
with α1 ≔ Cp∫ ∣∇ϕ ∣ pB dx > 0, β1 ≔
B
∫B ms((xx)) ϕ+s(x )dx > 0, and γ1 ≔ CB∫B ∣∇ϕ∣qB dx > 0. We claim that there exists
τ0 = τ0(λ ) ∈ (0, ∞) such that
yλ (τ0) < 0. (4.35)

Indeed, we write
yλ (τ ) = τ qByλ (τ ) for τ > 0, (4.36)
pB+ − qB
− β1λτ sB(τ) − qB + γ1 for τ > 0. It is clear that sB(⋅ ) : (0, ∞) → [sB−, sB+] is a continuous
where yλ (τ ) ≔ α1τ
function, and hence, there exist τ0 > 0 such that
1
s (τ ) − qB −1 ⎞ pB+ −sB(τ0)
τ0 = ⎜⎛ B +0 α1 β1λ ⎟ . (4.37)
⎝ pB − qB ⎠
We have
sB(τ0) − qB qB − sB(τ0) pB+ − qB +
p + − s (τ ) s (τ ) − qB ⎞ pB+−sB(τ0) pB+ − sB(τ0) pB+ − sB(τ0) p+p−Bs−q(Bτ )
yλ (τ0) = γ1 − B + B 0 ⎛⎜ B +0 ⎟ α1 β1 λB B 0.
pB − qB ⎝ pB − qB ⎠

Thus, yλ (τ0) < 0 due to (4.33); hence,

yλ (τ0) < 0, (4.38)

due to (4.36). Then, from (4.38) and (4.34) we have

⎛ b (x ) ⎞
J (τ0ϕ) ≤ yλ (τ0) − ⎜ ∫
⎜ t (x )
(τ0ϕ+)t (x )dx ⎟θ < 0,
⎟
(4.39)
⎝B ⎠
provided
 On sufficient “local” conditions for existence results  207

θ > −θ̄∗, (4.40)

yλ (τ0)
where θ̄∗ ≔ − b( x )
> 0. Set
∫B (τ ϕ )t (x )dx
t (x ) 0 +

{ }
+ 1
rλ ≔ max 1 + τ0‖ϕ‖ , (2p+ C1s (s−)−1λ ) p− −s+ (4.41)

and
− p− − t +
∼ ⎧ t r ⎫
θ∗ ≔ min θ¯∗, λ + , (4.42)
⎨ 2 p+C t ⎬
⎩ 1 ⎭
+ +
∼ ∼ C1t rλt ∼
where C1 is given in (4.12). Then, for any θ ∈ ( −θ∗, θ∗), by choosing r = rλ and ρ = t−
(θ∗ − ∣θ∣) and utilizing
(4.12) and (4.41)–(4.42) we have
+ + + + +
t t
1 − Ct λ + C t ∣θ∣ + 1 t
p− − C1 ∣θ∣ ‖u‖t + = C1 rλ (θ
∼
J (u) ≥ + ‖u‖p − 1 − ‖u‖s − 1 − ‖u‖t ≥ +
‖ u‖ − − ∗ − ∣θ∣) , ∀u ∈ ∂Br ,
p s t 2p t t

i.e.,
J (u ) ≥ ρ , ∀u ∈ ∂Br . (4.43)

Finally, note that τ0ϕ ∈ Br by the choice of r and (4.41); hence, (4.39) yields
inf J (u) ≤ J (τ0ϕ) < 0.
u ∈ Br

This and (4.43) complete the proof. □

We are now in a position to give a proof of Theorem 1.4.

Proof of Theorem 1.4. Let λ > λ⋆ be arbitrary and fixed. Note that for θ ∈ (0, 1), the right-hand side of (4.3)
can be rewritten as
1 1 1 1 1
C2θ − h+−1 − C3(λ )θ − ℓ−−1 = θ − h+−1 ⎡C2 − C3(λ )θ h+−1 − ℓ−−1 ⎤ ,
⎣ ⎦
1 1
where C2, C3(λ ) > 0 are positive constants independent of θ. Note that h+ − 1 − ℓ− − 1
> 0 due to the assumption

( ) < ( ) . Hence, we can choose θ ∈ (0, min{1, θ∼ }), where θ∼ is as in Lemma 4.5, such that
t +
p
t −
s ⋆ ∗ ∗

1 1 1
{ 1
} ℓ+ ℓ−
0 < ⎛ + − − ⎞SbN min θ − h+−1 , θ − h−−1 − K max{θ − ℓ+−1 , θ − ℓ−−1 } max ∣λ ∣ℓ+−1 , ∣λ ∣ℓ−−1 ,
⎜

⎝p t ⎠
⎟
1 1
{ } ∀θ ∈ (0, θ⋆) . (4.44)

Let θ ∈ [0, θ⋆). By Lemma 4.5, there exist r , ρ > 0 such that
inf J (u) ≥ ρ > 0 > inf J (u) ≕ c. (4.45)
u ∈∂Br u ∈ Br

Then, arguing as in [13, Proof of Theorem 3.1] in which the Ekeland variational principle was applied, we
find a (PS)c -sequence {un}∞
n = 1. On the other hand, from (4.44) and (4.45), J satisfies the (PS)c condition in
view of Lemma 4.1, and hence un → u in E as n → ∞ . Thus,
J ′(u) = 0 and J (u) = c < 0.

That is, u is a nontrivial nonnegative solution to problem (1.10). □

Let us conclude this section by pointing out that Theorem 1.4 remains valid for subcritical problem.
More precisely, consider the following problem:

⎧− div a(x , ∇u) = λm(x )∣u ∣s(x ) − 2 u + μω(x )∣u ∣r (x ) − 2 u in Ω,

(4.46)
⎨u = 0 on ∂Ω,
⎩
208  Ky Ho and Inbo Sim

where (A0)–(A5) hold; p , q , s, r ∈ C+(Ω) such that s+ < p− ≤ p+ < r − and r (x ) < p∗ (x ) for all x ∈ Ω; and the
weights m and ω satisfy the following assumption.
p∗(⋅ )
p∗(⋅ )
p∗(⋅ ) − r (⋅ )
(A) m ∈ L ( Ω) , ω ∈
p∗(⋅ ) − s(⋅ ) L+ ( Ω) and there exists a ball B ⊂ Ω satisfying
(i) qB < sB ;
−

(ii) ∣{x ∈ B : m(x ) > 0}∣ > 0;

m(x ) s(x )
(iii) there exists ϕ ∈ Cc∞(B) such that ∫ ϕ dx > 0 and for each τ > 0, there exists sB(τ ) ∈ [sB−, sB+]
B s(x ) +
such that

∫ ms((xx)) ϕ+s(x)τ s(x)dx = τ s (τ)∫ ms((xx)) ϕ+s(x)dx.

B

B B

Theorem 4.6. Let (A0)–(A5) and (A) hold with s+ < p− ≤ p+ < r − and r (x ) < p∗ (x ) for all x ∈ Ω. Then, for each
given λ > λ⋆ with λ⋆ given by (1.12), there exists μ∗ > 0 such that for any μ ∈ ( −μ∗, μ∗), problem (4.46)
has a nontrivial nonnegative solution and has two nontrivial nonnegative solutions for any μ ∈ (0, μ∗). More-
p∗(⋅ )
over, if r (⋅ ) is constant in Ω, it suffices to assume ω ∈ L p∗(⋅ ) −r (⋅ ) (Ω) and ∣{x ∈ Ω : ω(x ) > 0}∣ > 0 instead
p∗(⋅ )
∗
of ω ∈ L+p (⋅ ) − r (⋅ ) (Ω).

This result can be proved using the same method as in [15, Theorem 1.2] so we omit it.

5 Comment on the regularity of solutions

Let functions d in (F1), aj in (F4) or m in (W) or m , ω in (A) be in the class L∞(Ω). Then by [16], all
aforementioned solutions are of class L∞(Ω). Moreover, we have that:
(i) when p ∈ C 1(Ω) and A(x , u , ∇u) ≔ a(x , ∇u) additionally satisfies assumption (Ak ) in [8], for instance,
the p(⋅ )-Laplacian or the generalized mean curvature operator, any aforementioned solution is also of
class C 1, β (Ω) and the convergence in Theorem 1.1 is in the C 1(Ω)-topology (see [8, Theorem 1.2]);
(ii) when p(⋅ ) is constant and A(x , u , ∇u) ≔ a(x , ∇u) additionally satisfies conditions (1.10a)–(1.10c) in
[24], for instance, the case of the multiple p-Laplacian, any aforementioned solution is also of class
C 1, β (Ω) and the convergence in Theorem 1.1 is in the C 1(Ω)-topology (see [24, Theorem 1.7 and the
comments below Theorem 1.7]).

Funding information: Ky Ho was supported by University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Inbo Sim
was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korea Government
(MEST) (NRF-2021R1I1A3A0403627011).

Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.

References
[1] L. Baldelli, Y. Brizi, and R. Filippucci, Multiplicity results for ( p, q)-Laplacian equations with critical exponent in N and
negative energy, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 60 (2021), no. 8, 30.
[2] J. F. Bonder and A. Silva, Concentration-compactness principle for variable exponent spaces and applications, Electron.
J. Differ. Equ. 141 (2010), 1–18.
 On sufficient “local” conditions for existence results  209

[3] H. Brezis, Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations, Universitext, Springer, New York, 2011.
[4] D. G. de Figueiredo, J.-P. Gossez, and P. Ubilla, Local superlinearity and sublinearity for indefinite semilinear elliptic
problems, J. Funct. Anal. 199 (2003), no. 2, 452–467.
[5] D. G. de Figueiredo, J.-P. Gossez, and P. Ubilla, Multiplicity results for a family of semilinear elliptic problems under local
superlinearity and sublinearity, J. Eur. Math. Soc. 8 (2006), no. 2, 269–286.
[6] D. G. de Figueiredo, J.-P. Gossez, and P. Ubilla, Local “superlinearity” and “sublinearity” for the p-Laplacian, J. Funct. Anal.
257 (2009), 721–752.
[7] L. Diening, P. Harjulehto, P. Hästö, and M. Růžička, Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces with variable exponents, Lecture Notes
in Mathematics. 2017, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 2011.
[8] X. Fan, Global C 1, α regularity for variable exponent elliptic equations in divergence form, J. Differ. Equ. 235 (2007),
397–417.
[9] X. Fan and D. Zhao, On the spaces L p(x )(Ω) and W m, p(x )(Ω), J. Math. Anal. Appl. 263 (2001), no. 2, 424–446.
[10] X. Fan, Q. Zhang, and D. Zhao, Eigenvalues of p(x )-Laplacian Dirichlet problem, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 302 (2005), 306–317.
[11] G. M. Figueiredo, Existence and multiplicity of solutions for a class of p & q elliptic problems with critical exponent, Math.
Nachr. 286 (2013), no. 11–12, 1129–1141.
[12] H. H. Ha, K. Ho, and I. Sim, Infinitely many solutions for a generalized p(⋅ ) Laplace equation involving Leray-Lions-type
operators, Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 45 (2022), no. 14, 8450–8473.
[13] K. Ho and I. Sim, Existence and multiplicity of solutions for degenerate p(x )-Laplace equations involving concave-convex
type nonlinearities with two parameters, Taiwanese J. Math. 19 (2015), no. 5, 1469–1493.
[14] K. Ho and I. Sim, On degenerate p(x )-Laplace equations involving critical growth with two parameters, Nonlinear Anal. 132
(2016), 95–114.
[15] K. Ho and I. Sim, An existence result for ( p, q)-Laplace equations involving sandwich-type and critical growth, Appl. Math.
Lett. 111 (2021), 106646.
[16] K. Ho, Y.-H. Kim, P. Winkert, and C. Zhang, The boundedness and Hölder continuity of weak solutions to elliptic equations
involving variable exponents and critical growth, J. Differ. Equ. 313 (2022), 503–532.
[17] R. Kajikiya, A critical point theorem related to the symmetric mountain pass lemma and its applications to elliptic
equations, J. Funct. Anal. 225 (2005), 352–370.
[18] B. Kawohl, M. Lucia, and S. Prashanth, Simplicity of the principal eigenvalue for indefinite quasilinear problems, Adv.
Differ. Equ. 12 (2007), no. 4, 407–434.
[19] Y.-H. Kim and I. Sim, Existence of solutions and positivity of the infimum eigenvalue for degenerate elliptic equations with
variable exponents, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Supplement (2013), 695–707.
[20] Y. Komiya and R. Kajikiya, Existence of infinitely many solutions for the ( p, q)-Laplace equation, NoDEA Nonlinear
Differential Equations Appl. 23 (2016), no. 49, 1–23.
[21] O. Kováčik and J. Rákosník, On spaces L p(x ) and W k, p(x ) , Czechoslovak Math. J. 41 (1991), 592–618.
[22] J. Lang, O. Méndez, Stability of the Norm-Eigenfunctions of the p(⋅ )-Laplacian, Integr. Equ. Oper. Theory 85 (2016),
245–257.
[23] V. K. Le, On a sub-supersolution method for variational inequalities with Leray-Lions operators in variable exponent
spaces, Nonlinear Anal. 71 (2009), 3305–3321.
[24] G. M. Lieberman, The natural generalization of the natural conditions of Ladyzhenskaya and Uralatseva for elliptic
equations, Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 16 (1991), 311–361.
[25] M. Mihailescu and V. Rǎdulescu, Continuous spectrum for a class of nonhomogeneous differential operators, Manuscripta
Math. 125 (2008), 157–167.
[26] P. H. Rabinowitz, Minimax methods in critical point theory with applications to differential equations, CBMS Regional
Conference Series in Mathematics, vol. 65, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1986.
[27] V. Rǎdulescu, Nonlinear elliptic equations with variable exponent: old and new, Nonlinear Anal. 121 (2015), 336–369.
[28] E. A. B. Silva and M. S. Xavier, Multiplicity of solutions for quasilinear elliptic problems involving critical Sobolev expo-
nents, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 20 (2003), 341–358.
[29] C. Yu and D. Ri, Global L∞ -estimates and Hölder continuity of weak solutions to elliptic equations with the general
nonstandard growth conditions, Nonlinear Anal. 156 (2017), 144–166.