Very Singular Problems with Critical Nonlinearities in two

dimensions

S. Prashanth∗ and Sweta Tiwari†

TIFR-CAM, Post Bag 6503, GKVK Post Office, Sharada Nagar
Chikkabommasandra, Bangalore 560065, India
K. Sreenadh‡
Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
Hauz Khaz, New Delhi-16, India

Abstract

In this article we consider the following singular elliptic problem involving an exponential
nonlinearity in two dimensions:
β
−∆u = u−δ + λup+1 eu , u > 0 in Ω,
u = 0 on ∂Ω,

where Ω ⊂ R2 is a bounded domain with smooth boundary, p, δ, λ > 0 and β ∈ (0, 2].
We show the existence and multiplicity of positive solutions globally with respect to the
bifurcation parameter λ.

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:

Keywords: Singular elliptic problem, critical growth

∗
e-mail: pras@math.tifrbng.res.in
†
email: sweta@math.tifrbng.res.in
‡
e-mail: sreenadh@gmail.com

1
1 Introduction

Let Ω ⊂ R2 be a bounded domain with smooth boundary. We consider the following singular
problem
( β
−∆u = u−δ + λup+1 eu , u > 0 in Ω,
(Pλ )
u = 0 on ∂Ω.

The exponents p, δ are positive and β ∈ (0, 2]. The bifurcation parameter λ is assumed to be
positive.
Such singular problems have been extensively studied since many decades starting with the
pioneering work of Crandall, Rabinowitz and Tartar [4]. In this work, using the monotonicity
of the operator −∆u − u−δ and some ideas from bifurcation theory it was shown that the
problem (P0 ) (i.e. the purely singular problem) admits a solution for all δ.
In [2], another direction of study was initiated where the combined effects of concave and
convex nonlinearities with regard to existence of multiple solutions for regular problems were
studied. In [7] Hirano et al. have explored this aspect of multiplicity for singular problems of
the type (Pλ ) but in higher dimensions and for δ < 3. The restriction δ < 3 is necessitated
partially by the fact that the corresponding energy functional
Z Z Z Z u
1 1 β
J(u) = 2
|∇u| − |u|1−δ
−λ sp+1 e|s| ds.
2 Ω 1−δ Ω Ω 0

is neither defined on the whole space H01 (Ω) nor it is continuous on D(J) = {u ∈ H01 (Ω) :
I(u) < ∞} if δ ≥ 3. Infact, if δ ≥ 3 it may happen that D(J) = ∅.
Thus, if δ is unrestricted, it is difficult to approach the problem (Pλ ) using the usual
variational techniques. In [8], the critical point theory available for non-smooth functionals
is used to study the problem (Pλ ) in dimensions greater than or equal to three for any δ > 0
n+2
with critical sobolev nonlinearity u−δ + λu n−2 .
2
In R2 , the critical nonlinearity is a perturbation of eu . This growth is motivated by the
Moser-Trudinger embedding given in [10] and [12]:
Z
1 2
sup e4πu < ∞.
kuk 1 ≤1 |Ω| Ω
H0 (Ω)

β
It follows from this imbedding that the map H01 (Ω) 3 u 7→ e|u| ∈ L1 (Ω) is compact for β < 2,
is continuous but not compact for β = 2. The non compactness is shown by using a sequence
of functions called Moser functions constructed from the fundamental solution of −∆ in IR2 .
Furthermore, it can be shown that
2
u ∈ H01 (Ω) implies eu ∈ Lp (Ω) ∀p ≥ 1. (1.1) star

2
 In two dimensions when δ < 3, we recall that existence and multiplicity of positive solutions
of (Pλ ) were first studied in [1] and the bifurcation analysis was developed in [5]. In this
work, we study the existence and multiplicity of solutions to (Pλ ) for β ∈ (0, 2] and for
every δ > 0. As we remarked above we cannot expect to solve the problem directly in the
space H01 (Ω). The main idea originating from [8] is to subtract the unique positive solution
u0 ∈ C ∞ (Ω) ∩ C0 (Ω) (assured by results in [3, 4]) of (P0 ) from a supposed solution u of (Pλ ).
The resulting function u−u0 will solve a translated version of (Pλ ) but will be more amenable
to a variational analysis since the troublesome behaviour of u near ∂Ω has been removed by
this subtraction.
At this point, we remark that the analysis of Palais-Smale sequences is done in [8] with
the aid of Brezis-Lieb lemma since the power nonlinearity is involved. But in our case, we
need to use different techniques to analyse the Palais-Smale sequences since a non-additive
exponential type nonlinearity is involved. Such an analysis for the translated problem is
discussed in sections 3 and 4.
For the reasons discussed above, we need to make clear what is the definition of a solution
to (Pλ ).

Definition 1.1. A function u ∈ L1loc (Ω) is said to be a solution of (Pλ ) if

(i) inf x∈K u(x) > 0 for every compact subset K ⊂ Ω,
(ii) u solves the PDE in (Pλ ) in the sense of distributions, and
(iii) (u − )+ ∈ H01 (Ω) for every  > 0.

With this introduction we state our main theorem.

ht0i
Theorem 1.2. Let β ∈ (0, 2]. There exists Λ > 0 such that :

(i) (Pλ ) admits at least two positive solutions in C ∞ (Ω) ∩ L∞ (Ω) for λ ∈ (0, Λ).

(ii) (Pλ ) admits no solution for λ > Λ.

(iii) (PΛ ) admits at least one positive solution uΛ ∈ C ∞ (Ω) ∩ L∞ (Ω).

2 Preliminaries
2.1 Some notations
We recall some notations and preliminaries which are used throughout this paper.
For real valued functions u and v, we define u+ (x) = max{u(x), 0}, u− (x) = max{−u(x), 0},
u ∨ v = max{u, v} and u ∧ v = min{u, v}.
We say u > v in Ω if
ess inf u − v > 0
K

3
 for any compact subset K of Ω.
We denote by | · |p the standard norm in Lp (Ω), 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞.
We denote the inner product and the norm in H01 (Ω) by h·, ·i and k · k respectively.
∂f
For a Carathéodory function f : Ω × R → R, we denote the partial derivative (x, u) by
0
∂u
f (x, u).
Set d(x) := dist(x, ∂Ω), x ∈ Ω.

2.2 Some definitions and results from non smooth analysis

We recall the following definitions for the critical point for a non-smooth function.

Definition 2.1. Let H be a Hilbert space and I : H → (−∞, ∞] be a proper (i.e., I 6≡ ∞)

lower semicontinuous functional.

1. Let D(I) = {u ∈ H : I(u) < ∞} be the domain of I. For every u ∈ D(I), we define the
Fréchet sub-differential of I at u as the set
 
− I(v) − I(u) − hα, v − ui
∂ I(u) = α ∈ H : lim ≥0 .
v→u kv − ukH

2. For every u ∈ H, |||∂ − I(u)||| is defined by


min{kαk : α ∈ ∂ − I(u)} if ∂ − I(u) 6= ∅,
H
|||∂ − I(u)||| =
∞ if ∂ − I(u) = ∅.

We know that ∂ − I(u) is a closed convex set which may be empty. If u ∈ D(I) is a local
minimizer for I then it can be seen that 0 ∈ ∂ − I(u).
criticalforconvexi
Remark 2.2. We remark that if I0 : H → (−∞, ∞] is a proper, lower semi-continuous,
convex functional, I1 : H → R is a C 1 − functional and I = I1 + I0 , then ∂ − I(u) = ∇I1 (u) +
∂I0 (u) for every u ∈ D(I) = D(I0 ), where ∂I0 denotes the usual sub differential of the convex
functional I0 . Thus u is said to be a critical point of I if u ∈ D(I0 ) and for every v ∈ H we
have
h∇I1 (u), v − ui + I0 (v) − I0 (u) ≥ 0.
hPS conditioni
Definition 2.3. For a proper, lower semi continuous functional I : H → (−∞, ∞], we say
that I satisfies Cerami’s variant of Palais-Smale condition at level c (in short, I satisfies
(CP S)c ), if any sequence {un } ⊂ D(I) such that I(un ) → c and (1 + kun k)|||∂ − I(un )||| → 0
has a strongly convergent subsequence in H.

Analogous to the Mountain pass theorem, we have the following Linking theorem for non
smooth functionals.

4
hlinki
Theorem 2.4. (see Theorem 2 in [8]) Let H be a Hilbert space. Assume I = I0 + I1 where
I0 : H → (−∞, ∞] is a proper, lower semi continuous, convex functional and I1 : H → R is
a C 1 − functional. Let Dn , S n−1 denote respectively the closed unit ball and its boundary in
Rn and let ψ : S n−1 → D(I) be a continuous function such that

Φ := {ϕ ∈ C(Dn , D(I)) : ϕ|S n−1 = ψ} =

6 ∅.

Let A be a relatively closed subset of D(I) such that

A ∩ ψ(S n−1 ) = ∅, A ∩ ϕ(Dn ) 6= ∅ for all ϕ ∈ Φ and inf I(A) ≥ sup I(ψ(S n−1 )).

Define
c := inf sup I(ϕ(x)).
ϕ∈Φ x∈Dn

Assume c is finite and that I satisfies (CP S)c . Then there is u ∈ D(I) such that I(u) = c
and 0 ∈ ∂ − I(u). Furthermore, if inf I(A) = c then there is u ∈ A ∩ D(I) such that I(u) = c
and 0 ∈ ∂ − I(u).

3 Existence of local minimum solution for (Pλ )

In this section, we show the existence of a solution of the problem (Pλ ). Let u0 ∈ C ∞ (Ω) ∩
C0 (Ω̄) denote the unique solution of the purely singular problem (P0 ). We consider the
following translated problem:
( β
−∆u + u−δ
0 − (u + u0 )
−δ = λ(u + u )p+1 e(u+u0 ) , u > 0 in
0 Ω,
(P̄λ )
u = 0 on ∂Ω.

hcofi Remark 3.1. Let u ∈ H01 (Ω) be a nonnegative function solving (P̄λ ). Then from (1.1) it
follows that −∆u ≤ f for some f ∈ Lp (Ω), ∀p ≥ 1. Thus, by standard elliptic regularity,
u ∈ L∞ (Ω).
Note that u + u0 is a solution of (Pλ ) if u ∈ H01 (Ω) is a nonnegative distributional solution
of (P̄λ ). Hence it is enough to show existence and multiplicity results for (P̄λ ). It is possible
to give a variational framework for the problem (P¯λ ) in the space H01 (Ω).
Define g, f : Ω × R → R by

(s + u (x))p+1 e(s+u0 (x))β , if s + u0 (x) > 0,
0
f (x, s) =
0 otherwise,

(u (x))−δ − (s + u (x))−δ if s > 0,
0 0
g(x, s) =
0 otherwise.

5
 It is easy to see that both g and f are nonnegative and non-decreasing in s. The required
measurability of g(·, s) and f (·, s) follow from Lemmas 1 and 2 of [8].
Define the primitives F : Ω × R → R and G : Ω × R → (−∞, ∞] as
Z s
F (x, s) = f (x, τ )dτ, (x, s) ∈ Ω × R,
0

and Z s
G(x, s) = g(x, τ )dτ, (x, s) ∈ Ω × R.
0

Then we note that there exist M > 0, θ > 2 such that

F (x, s) ≤ M (f (x, s) + 1), ∀ s > 0, x ∈ Ω, (3.1) hersh

θF (x, s) ≤ f (x, s)s, ∀ s > 0, x ∈ Ω. (3.2) sey

We now define the notions of sub-solution and super-solution for the problem (P̄λ ).

Definition 3.2. A function φ ∈ H 1 (Ω) is called a sub-solution (respectively a super-solution)

of (P̄λ ) if

(i) φ ≤ 0 (respectively φ ≥ 0) on ∂Ω and

(ii) −∆φ + g(x, φ) − λf (x, φ) ≤ 0 (respectively ≥ 0) in the sense of distributions.

Definition 3.3. A function φ is a weak solution of (P̄λ ) if it is both a sub-solution and a

super-solution of (P̄λ ). That is, φ ∈ H01 (Ω) and
Z
(∇φ · ∇ψ + g(x, φ)ψ − λf (x, φ)ψ)dx = 0 for all ψ ∈ C0∞ (Ω).
Ω

The following lemma shows that the above notion of weak solution is identical to the usual
notion of H 1 -weak solution.
hreg1i
Lemma 3.4. For every weak solution φ of (P̄λ ), we have
Z
1
g(x, φ)w ∈ L (Ω) and (∇φ · ∇w + g(x, φ)w − λf (x, φ)w)dx = 0 ∀w ∈ H01 (Ω).
Ω

Proof. Let us take w ∈ H01 (Ω) with w ≥ 0. Then by Lemma A.1 of [7] there exists a
nondecreasing sequence {wn } ⊂ H01 (Ω) ∩ L∞ (Ω) such that wn is compactly supported in Ω
and kwn − wk → 0 as n → ∞. As φ is a solution of (P̄λ ), we have
Z Z
g(x, φ)wn = (−∇φ · ∇wn + λf (x, φ)wn )dx.
Ω Ω

Now by the nonnegativity of g, wn and monotone convergence theorem, both the right and

6
 left hand sides of the above equation converge as n → ∞ and hence
Z Z
g(x, φ)w = (−∇φ · ∇w + λf (x, φ)w).
Ω Ω

By (1.1) the R.H.S. above is finite and hence we have g(x, φ)w ∈ L1 (Ω). Now the lemma
follows by taking w = w+ − w− for any w ∈ H01 (Ω) and redoing the above calculation for w+
and w− .

Definition 3.5. We say φ is a strict sub-solution (respectively strict super-solution) of (P̄λ )

if φ is a sub-solution (respectively a super-solution) and
Z
(∇φ·∇v+g(x, φ)v−λf (x, φ)v)dx < 0 (respectively > 0) for all v ∈ H01 (Ω)\{0} with v ≥ 0.
Ω

Proposition 3.6. Let u ∈ L1loc (Ω). Then, g(x, u(x)), G(x, u(x)) ∈ L1loc (Ω).

Proof. : Recall that inf K u0 > 0 for any K ⊂⊂ Ω. We have 0 ≤ g(x, u(x)) ≤ u−δ
0 and
−δ
0 ≤ G(·, u) ≤ u0 u in Ω. Hence
Z Z Z Z
−δ −δ
g(x, u(x)) ≤ |u0 (x)| < ∞; |G(x, u(x))| ≤ (infK u0 ) |u| < ∞.
K K K K

2δ
Proposition 3.7. Let u ∈ L1 (Ω; d− δ+1 dx). Then G(x, u(x)) ∈ L1 (Ω).

2 2δ
Proof. : From [4], we know that u0 ∼ d δ+1 near ∂Ω. Let u ≥ 0 and u ∈ L1 (Ω; d− δ+1 dx).
From the inequality
 
0 ≤ G(x, s) ≤ max g(x, τ ) |s| ≤ u−δ
0 |s|, s ∈ R,
τ ∈[0,s]

and the asymptotic behavior of u0 near ∂Ω, we obtain that G(x, u(x)) ∈ L1 (Ω).

hpropertyG-1i
Proposition 3.8.

1
G(x, s) − g(x, s)s ≥ 0 for all s ≥ 0, µ ≥ 2 and x ∈ Ω.
µ

Proof. : Fix x ∈ Ω. Define the function ρ(s) = G(x, s) − µ1 g(x, s)s for s ≥ 0. Clearly
ρ(0) = 0, ρ(∞) = ∞ and ρ is a convex function on [0, ∞) since µ ≥ 2. Furthermore, it can
be checked that lims→0+ ρ0 (s) = 0. This means that ρ0 (s) ≥ 0 for all s ≥ 0 and hence ρ is
non-negative on [0, ∞).

hpropertyG-2i
Proposition 3.9. G(x, rs) ≤ r2 G(x, s), for each r ≥ 1, s ∈ R and x ∈ Ω.

7
 Proof. : Let x ∈ Ω and r ≥ 1. Noting that the map τ 7→ g(x, τ ) is concave, we have

∂ 2
(r G(x, s) − G(x, rs)) = r2 g(x, s) − rg(x, rs)
∂s  
1 r − 1
2
= r g(x, s) − g(x, rs) − g(x, 0) ≥ 0
r r

for every s ∈ R. As G(x, 0) = 0, the proposition follows.

Define a functional I : H01 (Ω) → (−∞, ∞] corresponding to (P̄λ ) by
 Z Z Z
1
 2
|∇u| + G(x, u) − λ F (x, u) if G(·, u) ∈ L1 (Ω),
I(u) = 2 Ω Ω Ω
∞

otherwise.

For a subset K ⊂ H01 (Ω), we can also define the restricted functional IK : H01 (Ω) → (−∞, ∞]
by 
I(u) if u ∈ K and G(·, u) ∈ L1 (Ω),
IK (u) =
∞ otherwise.

We note that u ∈ D(IK ) if and only if u ∈ K and G(·, u) ∈ L1 (Ω). We now state a lemma
from [8] (see Lemma 3 there) which characterizes the set ∂ − IK (u).
hl3i
Lemma 3.10. Let K be a convex subset of H01 (Ω). Let α ∈ H01 (Ω) and let u ∈ K with
G(·, u) ∈ L1 (Ω). Then the following two statements are equivalent:

(i) α ∈ ∂ − IK (u).

(ii) for every v ∈ K with G(·, v) ∈ L1 (Ω), we have g(·, u)(v − u) ∈ L1 (Ω) and
Z Z Z
∇u · ∇(v − u) + g(x, u)(v − u) − λ f (x, u)(v − u) ≥ hα, v − ui.
Ω Ω Ω

Moreover, as G(·, u) is convex, the last statement implies

Z Z Z Z
∇u · ∇(v − u) + G(x, v) − G(x, u) − λ f (x, u)(v − u) ≥ hα, v − ui.
Ω Ω Ω Ω

We recall the following theorem from [8] which can be thought of as the Perron’s method
for non-smooth functionals.
hperroni
Proposition 3.11. Assume φ1 and φ2 are respectively a sub-solution and a super-solution of
(P̄λ ) such that
φ1 ≤ φ2 and G(x, φ1 ), G(x, φ2 ) ∈ L1loc (Ω).

Let
K = {u ∈ H01 (Ω) : φ1 ≤ u ≤ φ2 a.e. in Ω}.

8
 If u ∈ D(IK ) has the property 0 ∈ ∂ − IK (u), then u is a weak solution of (P̄λ ).

Let ē ∈ H01 (Ω) be the unique solution of −∆ē = 1 in Ω. We prove the following lemmas.
hsubsupi
Lemma 3.12. The following hold:

(i) 0 is a strict sub-solution of (P¯λ ) for all λ > 0.

(ii) ē is a strict super-solution of (P̄λ ) for all sufficiently small λ > 0.

(iii) Any positive weak solution z of (P¯µ ) is a strict super-solution of (P¯λ ) for µ > λ > 0.

Proof. (i) Let w ∈ H01 (Ω) \ {0} be such that w ≥ 0. As g(x, 0) = 0 and
Z 
uβ

∇0 · ∇w + g(x, 0)w − λup+1
0 e 0 w dx < 0,
Ω

0 is a strict sub-solution of (P¯λ ) for all λ > 0.

β
(ii) Let λ > 0 be sufficiently small such that 1 − λ(ē + u0 )p+1 e(ē+u0 ) > 0 in Ω̄. Then (ii)
follows by noting that g(x, ē) ∈ L1loc (Ω) and g(x, ē) ≥ 0.
(iii) Let µ > λ > 0 and z ∈ L∞ (Ω) be a positive weak solution of (P¯µ ). Then, for
w ∈ C0∞ (Ω), w ≥ 0,
Z Z
(∇z · ∇w + g(x, z)w − λf (x, z)w) dx = (µ − λ) f (x, z)wdx > 0. (3.3) nus
Ω Ω

Definition 3.13. Let

Λ := sup{λ > 0 : (P̄λ ) admits a weak solution }.

notation4subsuperi
Remark 3.14. From the Lemma 3.12, if Λ > 0, then for any λ ∈ (0, Λ) the trivial function
0 is a sub-solution of (P̄λ ) and there exists a positive strict super-solution for (P̄λ ), say z.
hexistenceofsoli
Theorem 3.15. Assume Λ > 0. Let λ ∈ (0, Λ) and 0, z be the sub and super solutions of
(P̄λ ) respectively as in Remark 3.14. Let K = {φ ∈ H01 (Ω) : 0 ≤ φ ≤ z}. Then there exists a
weak solution uλ of (P̄λ ) with uλ ∈ K and IK (uλ ) = inf K IK < 0.

Proof. As IK (0) = 0, we have inf K IK < ∞. Let {un } ⊂ K be a minimizing sequence for
IK . Then 0 ≤ un ≤ z for all n and hence one can check that {un } is bounded in H01 (Ω). Let
R
un * uλ ∈Z K weakly. Then
Z as v 7→ Ω G(x, v)dx is weakly sequentially lower semi-continuous
and lim F (x, un ) = F (x, uλ ), we get IK (uλ ) ≤ lim IK (un ). Thus uλ is a minimizer
n→∞ Ω Ω n→∞
ofIK over K. Hence IK (uλ ) < 0 and 0 ∈ ∂ − IK (uλ ). Thus by Proposition 3.11, uλ is a weak
solution of (P̄λ ).
hnonexistencei
Lemma 3.16. 0 < Λ < ∞.

9
Proof. Step 1: Λ > 0. From (i)-(ii) of Lemma 3.12 we obtain a strict sub and super solution
viz., 0 and ē for all small λ > 0. Consider now the convex set

K := {φ ∈ H01 (Ω) : 0 ≤ φ ≤ ē}.

Then it is easy to see that there exists u ∈ D(IK ) such that

IK (u) = inf IK (φ).

φ∈K

In particular, 0 ∈ ∂ − IK (u). From Proposition 3.11, we obtain that u is a weak solution of

(P̄λ ) for all small λ > 0.
Step 2 : Λ < +∞.
On the contrary, assume that Λ = +∞. Then there exists a sequence λn → ∞ such that
(P̄λn ) admits a solution, say uλn as given in Theorem 3.15 . That is, uλn satisfy the following:
Z Z Z
1 2
|∇uλn | + G(x, uλn ) − λn F (x, uλn ) < 0. (3.4) nonexistence1
2 Ω Ω Ω

Also from Lemma 3.4 we have

Z  
|∇uλn |2 + g(x, uλn )uλn − λf (x, uλn )uλn dx = 0. (3.5) nonexistence2
Ω

From (3.4) and (3.5) we get

Z Z
1
(G(x, uλn ) − g(x, uλn )uλn ) + λ (f (x, uλn )uλn − F (x, uλn )) < 0.
Ω 2 Ω

By Proposition 3.8, this implies

Z Z
f (x, uλn )uλn < F (x, uλn ). (3.6) nonexistence4
Ω Ω

Now note that, by L’Hospital’s rule, uniformly for x ∈ Ω,

F (x, t) 1
lim = lim 0 = 0.
t→∞ f (x, t)t t→∞ 1 + (x,t)t
f
f (x,t)

Thus given  > 0, there exists M > 0 such that

Z Z
F (x, uλn ) <  f (x, uλn )uλn + M ∀n. (3.7) nonexistence5
Ω Ω

Now from (3.6) and (3.7) we get

Z
sup f (x, uλn )uλn < ∞.
n Ω

10
 −1
Using this in (3.5), we infer that the sequence {λn 2 uλn } is bounded in H01 (Ω). Set vλn =
−1
λn 2 uλn and let vλn * v in H01 (Ω) as n → ∞. Let ψ ∈ C0∞ (Ω) be non-trivial and non-negative
function. Choose m > 0 such that u0 ≥ m on support of ψ. Then,
Z Z
1 g(x, uλ )
(∇vλn · ∇ψ + √ ψ) ≥ (∇vλn · ∇ψ + √ n ψ)
Ω mδ λn Ω λn
p Z
= λn f (x, uλn )ψ
ZΩ
p
≥ λn f (x, m)ψ.
Ω
R
Letting n → ∞, we get Ω ∇v · ∇ψ = ∞ which is a contradiction. Hence Λ < ∞.

Theorem 3.17. Let 0 < λ < µ < Λ. Let uλ , uµ ∈ H01 (Ω) ∩ L∞ (Ω) be positive weak solutions
of (P̄λ ), (P̄µ ) respectively as given in Theorem 3.15. Then uµ > uλ in Ω.

Proof. Set w = (uλ − uµ )+ and K = {u ∈ H01 (Ω) : 0 ≤ u ≤ uλ + w}. Then from Lemma 3.4,
we have g(·, uλ )w and g(·, uµ )w ∈ L1 (Ω) and
Z
(∇uλ · ∇w + g(x, uλ )w − λf (x, uλ )w)dx = 0, (3.8) min1
Ω
Z
(∇uµ · ∇w + g(x, uµ )w − λf (x, uµ )w)dx ≥ 0.
Ω

We note also that

Z Z Z
−δ−1 2 −δ−1 2
δ(uλ + u0 ) w ≤ δ(uλ + u0 ) uλ ≤ g(x, uλ )uλ < ∞.
Ω Ω Ω

Therefore, we get g 0 (·, uλ )w2 ∈ L1 (Ω). Now set

θ() = IK (uλ + w) for  ∈ [0, 1].

Differentiating twice with respect to  we get

Z Z Z
θ00 () = |∇w|2 + g 0 (x, uλ + w)w2 − λ f 0 (x, uλ + w)w2 .
Ω Ω Ω

As 0 is a point of local minimum for θ, this implies

Z Z Z
2
|∇w| + g (x, uλ )w − λ f 0 (x, uλ )w2 ≥ 0.
0 2
(3.9) min3
Ω Ω Ω

By the concavity of g(x, t) and convexity of f (x, t) with respect to t we note that for t, s > 0,

g(x, t) − g(x, s) − g 0 (x, s)(t − s) ≤ 0 and f (x, t) − f (x, s) − f 0 (x, s)(t − s) ≥ 0.

11
 Thus from (3.8)-(3.9) we get
Z Z
0≤ (|∇w|2 + g 0 (x, uλ )w2 − λf 0 (x, uλ )w2 ) − (∇uλ · ∇w + g(x, uλ )w − λf (x, uλ )w)
Ω Z Ω

+ (∇uµ · ∇w + g(x, uµ )w − λf (x, uµ )w)

Z Ω

g(x, uµ ) − g(x, uλ ) − g 0 (x, uλ )(uµ − uλ ) w

≤
Ω Z
f (x, uµ ) − f (x, uλ ) − f 0 (x, uλ )(uµ − uλ ) w


−λ
Ω
≤ 0.

Therefore w ≡ 0 and hence uµ ≥ uλ in Ω. Now as

−∆(uµ − uλ ) + g(x, uµ ) − g(x, uλ ) = µf (x, uµ ) − λf (x, uλ ) ≥ 0,

by strong maximum principle we have uµ > uλ in Ω.

hsol4Lambdai
Theorem 3.18. There exists a positive weak solution of (P̄Λ ).

Proof. Let λn ↑ Λ and {uλn } be a sequence of positive weak solutions to (P̄λn ), such that
uλn ≤ uλn+1 for all n ∈ N. Then, as in step 2 of Lemma 3.16, we have {uλn } is uniformly
bounded in H01 (Ω). Let uλn * uΛ . Now for any φ ∈ C0∞ (Ω) with φ ≥ 0, using monotone
convergence theorem, we have
Z Z Z Z
g(x, uλn )φ → g(x, uΛ )φ and f (x, uλn )φ → f (x, uΛ )φ.
Ω Ω Ω Ω

Thus Z
∇uΛ · ∇φ + g(x, uΛ )φ − Λf (x, uΛ )φ = 0.
Ω

Now for any φ ∈ C0∞ (Ω), taking φ = φ+ − φ− and arguing as above, it is easy to check that
uΛ is a positive weak solution of (PΛ ).
Finally we prove the following theorem which asserts that the solution uλ obtained in
Theorem 3.15 is a local minimizer for IH + . In this section, we follow the method used in [8].

Theorem 3.19. Take λ ∈ (0, Λ). Let 0, z be as in Remark 3.14 such that z is a strict super-
solution of (P̄λ ). Let uλ ∈ D(IK ) be a minimizer for IK where K = {u ∈ H01 (Ω) : 0 ≤ u ≤ z}.
Then uλ is a local minimizer for IH + . Also for β < 2, there exists ρ0 > 0 such that

IH + (uλ ) < inf{IH + (v) : v ∈ H + , k(v − z)+ k = ρ}, for all ρ ∈ (0, ρ0 ].

12
Proof. Given v ∈ H + , set π(v) = v ∧ z and

0
s∈[z(x),v(x)] |f (x, s)|,
max if v(x) > z(x),
x∈Ω: mv (x) =
0 otherwise.

Also for w ∈ H + we define

Z
L(w) := (∇z · ∇w + g(x, z)w − λf (x, z)w) dx.
Ω

Then, using Fatou’s lemma one can check that L is weakly lower semi-continuous on H + . As
uλ is minimizer of IK and π(v) ∈ K we have IK (π(v)) ≥ IK (uλ ). Also for w ∈ K, IK (w) =
IH + (w). Assume now that G(x, v(x)) ∈ L1 (Ω), as otherwise IH + (uλ ) < IH + (v) = +∞. Now
by the convexity of G(x, ·), we have

IH + (v) − IH + (uλ ) ≥ IH + (v) − IH + (π(v))

Z Z Z
1 2
= |∇(v − π(v))| dx + ∇(π(v)) · ∇(v − π(v))dx + (G(x, v) − G(x, π(v))) dx
2 Ω Ω Ω
Z
− λ (F (x, v) − F (x, π(v))) dx
Ω Z
1 2
≥ kv − π(v)k + ∇(π(v)) · ∇(v − π(v))dx
2 Ω
Z Z
+ g(x, π(v))(v − π(v))dx − λ f (x, π(v))(v − π(v))dx
Ω
Z Ω

− λ (F (x, v) − F (x, π(v)) − f (x, π(v))(v − π(v))) dx.

Ω

Noting that v − π(v) = (v − z)+ , we get,

Z Z
1
IH + (v) − IH + (uλ ) ≥ kv − π(v)k2 + ∇z · ∇(v − π(v)) + g(x, z)(v − π(v))dx
2 Ω Ω
Z Z Z v
−λ f (x, z)(v − π(v))dx − λ (f (x, t) − f (x, π(v))) dtdx
Ω Ω π(v)
Z
1 λ
≥ kv − π(v)k2 + L(v − π(v)) − mv (x)(v − π(v))2 dx
2 2 Ω
Z
1 + 2 + λ
= k(v − z) k + L((v − z) ) − mv (x)((v − z)+ )2 dx.
2 2 Ω
(3.10) ded

1 1
Choosing q, q 0 > 1 such that + 0 = 1, we get
q q

1 1
IH + (v) ≥ IH + (uλ ) + k(v − z)+ k2 + L((v − z)+ ) − |mv |q0 |(v − z)+ |22q . (3.11) 1p
2 2

13
First, we handle the subcritical case, namely, β ∈ (0, 2). Recall from the results of Trudinger-
Moser, that the imbedding
β
H01 (Ω) 3 u → e|u| ∈ L1 (Ω)

is compact. It is then easy to see that there exists M > 0 such that

|mv |q0 ≤ M for all v ∈ H + with k(v − z)+ k ≤ 1.

Hence from (3.11) we get, for v ∈ H + , k(v − z)+ k ≤ 1, the following inequality:

1 M
IH + (v) ≥ IH + (uλ ) + k(v − z)+ k2 + L((v − z)+ ) − |(v − z)+ |22q . (3.12) red
2 2
Now set
√
B = {w ∈ H + : |w|2q = 1, kwk ≤ 2M },

and
ν = inf{Lw : w ∈ B}.

Recall that B is weakly compact in H01 (Ω) and L is weakly lower semicontinuous. Since z is
a strict super solution, and in particular (3.3) holds, we have ν > 0. Now choose ρ0 ∈ (0, 1]
ν
such that for all v ∈ H + with k(v − z)+ k ≤ ρ0 we have |(v − z)+ |2q ≤ . Now fix ρ ∈ (0, ρ0 ]
M
+ + + 2 + 2
and v ∈ H with k(v − z) k = ρ. If k(v − z) k ≥ 2M |(v − z) |2q , then from (3.12),

1 M 1 1 ρ2
IH + (v) − IH + (uλ ) ≥ k(v − z)+ k2 − |(v − z)+ |22q ≥ ( − )k(v − z)+ k2 ≥ .
2 2 2 4 4

(v − z)+
If k(v − z)+ k2 ≤ 2M |(v − z)+ |22q , then as ∈ B, we get
|(v − z)+ |2q

(v − z)+
 
M
IH + (v) − IH + (uλ ) ≥ L |(v − z)+ |2q − |(v − z)+ |22q
|(v − z)+ |2q 2
 
M
≥ ν− |(v − z) |2q |(v − z)+ |2q
+
2
ν ν νρ
≥ |(v − z)+ |2q ≥ √ k(v − z)+ k = √ .
2 2 2M 2 2M

Thus in both the cases we get, IH + (v) − IH + (uλ ) > 0 for all v ∈ H + , k(v − z)+ k < ρ0 , as
required.
Now we prove the theorem for β = 2. Here we argue by contradiction. Let us suppose that
there exists a sequence {vn } ⊂ H + such that

1
kvn − uλ k ≤ and IH + (vn ) < IH + (uλ ) ∀n.
2n
That is, we can write vn = uλ + hn where khn k → 0 as n → ∞. It then follows from the

14
Trudinger-Moser imbedding that
2
evn is bounded in Lp (Ω) for any p ≥ 1.

(3.13) spock

Using the same argument to get (3.10), we have

0 > IH + (vn ) − IH + (uλ ) ≥ IH + (vn ) − IH + (π(vn ))

Z
1 + 2 + 1
≥ k(vn − z) k + L((vn − z) ) − mv (x)((vn − z)+ )2 dx
2 2 Ω n
Z
1 1
= k(vn − z)+ k2 + L((vn − z)+ ) − mv (x)((vn − z)+ )2 dx
2 2 {mvn ≤M̃ } n
Z
1
− mv (x)((vn − z)+ )2 dx
2 {mvn >M̃ } n

for any M̃ > 0.

Using Sobolev imbedding, we obtain from the above inequality,

Z
1 + 2 + M̃ + 2 1
0 > k(vn − z) k + L((vn − z) ) − |(vn − z) |2 − mv (x)((vn − z)+ )2 dx
2 2 2 {mvn >M̃ } n
Z
1 + 2 + M̃
≥ k(vn − z) k + L((vn − z) ) − |(vn − z)+ |2 dx
2 2 Ω
Z !1/q0
0
−C |mvn |q dx k(vn − z)+ k2 (C > 0). (3.14) trek
{mvn >M̃ }

0
Using (3.13), it follows that {|mvn |q } is an equi-integrable sequence. Therefore we can choose
M̃ > 0 sufficiently large such that

Z !1/q0
q0 1
sup |mvn | dx < .
n {mvn >M̃ } 4C

Thus we get from (3.14),

Z
1 M̃
0 > k(vn − z)+ k2 + L((vn − z)+ ) − |(vn − z)+ |2 dx. (3.15) 5
4 2 Ω

The above inequality is similar to that in (3.12). Again, as in the previous case, we can show
that
ν̃ = inf{Lw : w ∈ B̄} > 0

where p
B̄ = {w ∈ H01 (Ω) : w ≥ 0, |w|2 = 1, kwk ≤ 2 M̃ }.

15
 Now, if k(vn − z)+ k2 ≥ 4M̃ |(vn − z)+ |22 , then by recalling L((vn − z)+ ) ≥ 0 and (3.15) we
have
Z
1 M̃
0 > k(vn − z)+ k2 + L((vn − z)+ ) − |(vn − z)+ |2 dx
4 2 Ω
1 1
≥ k(vn − z)+ k2 − k(vn − z)+ k2 > 0
4 8
a contradiction.
On the other hand if k(vn − z)+ k2 ≤ 4M̃ |(vn − z)+ |22 , we note that

(vn − z)+
∈ B̃.
|(vn − z)+ |2

Since uλ ≤ z, we note that

|(vn − z)+ | ≤ |(uλ − z)+ | + |h+ +

n | ≤ |hn | ∀n.

As khn k → 0, from the above inequality we get that |(vn − z)+ |2 → 0. Hence, from (3.15) we
obtain

(vn − z)+
  Z
1 + 2 + M̃
0 > k(vn − z) k + L |(vn − z) |2 − |(vn − z)+ |2 dx
4 |(vn − z)+ |2 2 Ω
!
M̃
≥ ν̃ − |(vn − z) |2 |(vn − z)+ |2
+
2
> 0 ∀ large n.

Thus in both the cases we get a contradiction. This completes the theorem.

4 Linking-type solution for (P̄λ )

In this section, we will take λ ∈ (0, Λ) and show the existence of second positive solution for
(P̄λ ) for all such λ. We define

H + = {u ∈ H01 (Ω) : u ≥ 0}.

To prove the existence of another solution to problem (P̄λ ), we translate this problem about
the first solution uλ as follows:
(
−∆u + g(x, u + uλ ) − g(x, uλ ) = λ (f (x, u + uλ ) − f (x, uλ )) , u > 0 in Ω,
(T Pλ )
u = 0 on ∂Ω.

Clearly, u is a solution of (T Pλ ) iff (u + uλ ) solves (P̄λ ).

16
 Define 
g(x, s + u ) − g(x, u ) s > 0,
λ λ
g̃(x, s) =
0 s≤0

and 
f (x, s + u ) − f (x, u ) s > 0,
λ λ
f˜(x, s) =
0 s ≤ 0.

Define the respective primitives:

Z u Z u
G̃(x, u) = g̃(x, s)ds , F̃ (x, u) = f˜(x, s)ds.
0 0

hritui Remark 4.1. Thanks to the non-decreasing nature of g and hence g̃, we obtain the following
inequality:
G̃(x, s) ≤ g̃(x, s)s ∀s ≥ 0.

Let us define the following energy functional E : H01 (Ω) → (−∞, +∞] associated with
(T Pλ ):
 R
1 |∇u|2 dx +
R
G̃(x, u)dx − λ
R
if G̃(·, u) ∈ L1 (Ω),
Ω F̃ (x, u)dx
E(u) = 2 Ω Ω
∞ otherwise.

Recalling the definition of I, we note that

1
E(u) = I(u+ + uλ ) − I(uλ ) + ku− k2 ∀u ∈ H01 (Ω). (4.1) vas
2
It follows that
D(E) ∩ H + = D(I) ∩ H + . (4.2) vash

Since uλ is a local minimum of IH + , it follows that 0 is a local minimum of E(u) in H + .

Thus there exists ρ0 > 0 such that E(u) ≥ E(0) = 0 for all u ∈ H + with kuk ≤ ρ0 . First we
consider the subcritical case. We begin with the following result.
hPSi
Proposition 4.2. Let β ∈ (0, 2). Then E(u) restricted to H + satisfies (CP S)c (refer defini-
tion 2.3) for all c ∈ R.

Proof. Let {vn } ⊂ H + be a Palais-Smale sequence for E at energy level c ∈ R. This implies
(refer Lemma 3.10)
Z Z Z
1 2
E(vn ) = |∇vn | + G̃(x, vn ) − λ F̃ (x, vn ) → c, (4.3) critical70
2
Z Ω Ω Z Ω Z
hαn , w − vn i ≤ ∇vn · ∇(w − vn ) + g̃(x, vn )(w − vn ) − λ f˜(x, vn )(w − vn ), (4.4) critical80
Ω Ω Ω

17
for all w ∈ H + and where kαn k → 0.

Taking w = 2vn + uλ in (4.4), we have

Z Z Z
hαn , vn + uλ i ≤ |∇vn |2 + ∇vn · ∇uλ + g̃(x, vn )(vn + uλ )
Ω Z Ω Ω

− λ f˜(x, vn )(vn + uλ )
Z Ω Z Z
2
= |∇vn | + ∇vn · ∇uλ + (g(x, vn + uλ ) − g(x, uλ ))(vn + uλ )
Ω Z Ω Ω

− λ (f (x, vn + uλ ) − f (x, uλ ))(vn + uλ ). (4.5) critical90

Ω

Using successively (4.1), (3.2), (4.5) and Proposition 3.8 with µ = θ in (4.3), we get

IH + (uλ ) + c + on (1) = E(vn ) + IH + (uλ )

= IH + (vn + uλ )
Z Z
1 2
= kvn + uλ k + G(x, vn + uλ ) − λ F (x, vn + uλ )
2
ZΩ ZΩ
1 λ
≥ kvn + uλ k2 + G(x, vn + uλ ) − f (x, vn + uλ )(vn + uλ )
2 ΩZ θ Ω
Z
1 1 1
≥ kvn + uλ k2 − |∇vn |2 − ∇vn · ∇uλ
2 θ Ω θ Ω
Z  
1
+ G(x, vn + uλ ) − g(x, vn + uλ )(vn + uλ )
Ω θ
Z Z
1 λ 1
+ g(x, uλ )(vn + uλ ) − f (x, uλ )(vn + uλ ) + hαn , vn + uλ i
θ Ω θ Ω θ
Z Z
1 1 1
≥ kvn + uλ k2 − |∇vn |2 − ∇vn · ∇uλ
2 θ Ω θ Ω
Z
λ 1
− f (x, uλ )(vn + uλ ) + hαn , vn + uλ i.
θ Ω θ

Recalling that θ > 2, one can check from the above inequality that {vn } is bounded in H01 (Ω).
Therefore there exists a subsequence (which we again denote by {vn }) such that vn * v weakly
in H01 (Ω) and strongly in L2 (Ω). Note that for β ∈ (0, 2), we have indeed that the sequence
2
{evn } is relatively compact in Lp (Ω) for any p ≥ 1. In particular
Z
lim f˜(x, vn )(vn − v) → 0.
n→∞ Ω

Since G̃ is a convex function, using (4.4) we obtain,

Z Z Z
G̃(x, v) ≥ G̃(x, vn ) + g̃(x, vn )(v − vn )
Ω Ω Ω

18
 Z Z Z
≥ G̃(x, vn ) + ∇vn · ∇(vn − v) − hαn , vn − vi − λ f˜(x, vn )(vn − v)
ZΩ ZΩ Z Ω
2
= G̃(x, vn ) + |∇(vn − v)| + ∇v · ∇(vn − v) − hαn , vn − vi
Ω Ω Ω
Z
− λ f˜(x, vn )(vn − v)
Z Ω Z
≥ G̃(x, v) + |∇(vn − v)|2 + o(1). (4.6) akb
Ω Ω

This implies vn → v strongly in H01 (Ω) and thus E(u) satisfies (CP S)c on H + for all c ∈ R.

hsecondsolutioni
Theorem 4.3. For β ∈ (0, 2), (P̄λ ) has a second positive weak solution.

Proof. We have 0 = E(0) ≤ E(v) for all v ∈ H + , kvk ≤ ρ0 . Also thanks to Proposition 3.9,
we have IK (tuλ ) → −∞ for t → ∞. Therefore, E(tuλ ) → −∞ as t → ∞. Hence we can
choose t > 0 such that ktuλ k > ρ0 and E(tuλ ) < 0. Set

Φ = {ϕ ∈ C([−1, 1], D(IH + )) : ϕ(−1) = 0, ϕ(1) = tuλ },

A = {v ∈ D(IH + ) : kvk = ρ0 } and
c = inf sup E(ϕ(s)).
ϕ∈Φ −1≤s≤1

Then taking n = 1 in Theorem 2.4 and recalling (4.2), we obtain that there exists vλ ∈ H +
such that E(vλ ) = c and 0 ∈ ∂ − E(vλ ). That vλ 6≡ 0 is easy to see if c > 0. If c = 0, then it fol-
lows that inf E = 0 for any ρ ∈ (0, ρ0 ). By compactness of the functional, it follows that this
kuk=ρ
infimum is achieved. Thus from proposition 3.11, uλ +vλ is a second weak solution of (P̄λ ).

Now we prove the multiplicity of solutions of (P̄λ ) in critical case β = 2. Let {φn } be the
sequence of Moser functions defined as following:

1


 (log n) 2 |x| ≤ n1 ,
1 
1
φn (x) = √ −(log n)− 2 log |x| n1 ≤ |x| ≤ 1,
2π 

0 |x| ≥ 1.


We have the following lemma.

henergy leveli
Lemma 4.4. (i) For any fixed n, E(tφn ) → −∞ as t → ∞.
(ii) sup E(tφn ) < 2π for all large n.
t>0

19
 Proof. Note that kφn k = 1 for all n. Therefore,

t2
Z Z
IH + (uλ + tφn ) = IH + (uλ ) + + (G(x, uλ + tφn ) − G(x, uλ )) − t g(x, uλ )φn
2 Ω Ω
Z
− λ (F (x, uλ + tφn ) − F (x, uλ ) − tf (x, uλ )φn )
Ω Z
2 1−δ 2 2
≤ O(t + t + t ) − C et φn → −∞ as t → ∞.
Ω

This proves (i).

(ii) Can be shown by similar arguments as in [1] or [6].

We recall the following result of P.L. Lions ([9]):

Theorem 4.5. (P.L Lions) Let {uk : kuk k = 1} be a sequence of H01 (Ω) functions converging
hlions resulti
weakly to a non zero function u. Then for all p < (1 − kuk)−1 ,
Z
2
sup e4πp|uk | dx < ∞.
k Ω

We consider separately the following two cases:

(ZA) (Zero Altitude): inf{E(u) : u ∈ H + , kuk = ρ} = E(0) = 0 for all ρ ∈ (0, ρ0 ).

(MP) (Mountain Pass): There exists ρ1 ∈ (0, ρ0 ) such that inf{E(u) : u ∈ H + , kuk = ρ1 } >
E(0).

First we will prove the existence of second solution in zero altitude case. We recall the
following result (Lemma 1.3 in [11]).
hhyperplanei
Lemma 4.6. Let X be a real Banach space and χ : X → (−∞, ∞] a lower semi-continuous
convex function with χ(0) = 0. If χ(x) ≥ −kxk for all x ∈ X, there exists a z ∈ X ∗ such that
kzk ≤ 1 and
χ(x) ≥ hz, xi ∀x ∈ X.

Theorem 4.7. Assume (ZA) holds. There exists a nontrivial critical point vλ ∈ H + of E (
which gives the second solution uλ + vλ solving (P̄λ )).

Proof. Fix ρ ∈ (0, ρ0 ). We obtain a sequence {zn } ⊂ H + with kzn k = ρ and E(zn ) < n1 . Fix
0 < r < 21 min{ρ0 − ρ, ρ} and define A = {u ∈ H + : ρ − r ≤ kuk ≤ ρ + r}. Then clearly
A is closed and E is a lower semi-continuous function on A. Thus by applying Ekeland’s
variational principle there exists sequence {vn } ∈ A such that

(i) E(vn ) ≤ E(zn ) < n1 ,

(ii) kvn − zn k ≤ n1 ,

20
(iii) E(vn ) ≤ E(v) + n1 kv − vn k for all v ∈ A.

As {vn } ⊂ H01 (Ω) is bounded, we can choose a subsequence vn such that vn * vλ weakly in
H01 (Ω). Now given v ∈ H01 (Ω), choose  > 0 small such that vn + (v − vn ) ∈ A for all n.
Then from (iii) we get

E(vn + (v − vn )) − E(vn ) 1

≥ − kv − vn k. (4.7) ZA1
 n

Define a convex lower semi continuous map χ : H01 (Ω) → (−∞, ∞] by


n(E(x + v ) − E(v )) if x ∈  A − v
,
n n n
χ(x) =
∞ otherwise.

From (4.7) we have χ(x) ≥ −kxk. Hence from Lemma 4.6, there exists ζn ∈ H01 (Ω) with
kζn k ≤ 1 and χ(x) ≥ hζn , xi. Setting αn = n1 ζn , we get kαn k → 0 and

E(vn + (v − vn )) − E(vn ) ≥ hαn , (v − vn )i, ∀v ∈ A.

This implies
E(vn + (v − vn )) − E(vn ) − hαn , (v − vn )i
lim inf ≥ 0.
→0 kv − vn k
Thus αn ∈ ∂ − E(vn ) and therefore by Lemma 3.10,
Z Z Z
hαn , vλ − vn i ≤ ∇vn · ∇(vλ − vn )dx + g̃(x, vn )(vλ − vn )dx − λ f˜(x, vn )(vλ − vn ).
Ω Ω Ω

Also note that by choosing ρ0 small enough, we will have kvn k to be uniformly small. Hence
by the Trudinger-Moser imbedding,
Z the sequence {f˜(x, vn )vn } is bounded in Lp (Ω) for some
p > 1. Therefore, we have lim f˜(x, vn )(vλ − vn ) = 0.
n→∞ Ω
Now as in the subcritical case (see (4.6)), we obtain vn → vλ strongly in H01 (Ω). From
(4.7) we note that for any v ∈ H01 (Ω),
Z  Z
1 2 2
|∇(vn + (v − vn )| − |∇vn | + (G̃(x, vn + (v − vn )) − G̃(x, vn ))
2 Ω Ω
Z

− λ (F̃ (x, vn + (v − vn )) − F̃ (x, vn )) ≥ − kv − vn k.
Ω n

As G̃(u) is convex, this gives

Z  Z
1
|∇(vn + (v − vn )|2 − |∇vn |2 +  (G̃(x, v) − G̃(x, vn ))
2 Ω Ω
Z

− λ (F̃ (x, vn + (v − vn )) − F̃ (x, vn ) ≥ − kv − vn k.
Ω n

21
 Now dividing both sides by  and taking  → 0+ we get
Z Z Z
1
∇vn ∇(v − vn ) + (G̃(x, v) − G̃(x, vn )) − λ f˜(x, vn )(v − vn ) ≥ − kv − vn k.
Ω Ω Ω n

Now taking limit as n → ∞ on both sides of the above equation and using the weak lower
R
semi-continuity of v 7→ Ω G̃(x, v), we get
Z Z Z
∇vλ · ∇(v − vλ ) + (G̃(x, v) − G̃(x, vλ )) − λ f˜(x, vλ )(v − vλ ) ≥ 0.
Ω Ω Ω

Thus from Remark 2.2, vλ is a critical point of E. Also, as vn → vλ in H01 (Ω), vλ ∈ A and
thus vλ 6≡ 0.
Now we prove the multiplicity result in Mountain Pass case. Define Φ and c as in Theorem
4.3. Thanks to (ii) of Lemma 4.4, we know that 0 < c < 2π. Let {vn } ⊂ H + be a Palais-Smale
sequence for E at the energy level c.
This implies
Z Z Z
1 2
E(vn ) = |∇vn | + G̃(x, vn ) − λ F̃ (x, vn ) → c (4.8) critical7
2 Ω Ω Ω

and
Z Z Z
hαn , w − vn i ≤ ∇vn · ∇(w − vn )dx + g̃(x, vn )(w − vn )dx − λ f˜(x, vn )(w − vn ), (4.9) critical8
Ω Ω Ω

where kαn k → 0 and w ∈ H + .

Now as in subcritical case (Proposition 4.2), taking w = 2vn + uλ in (4.9), we can show
that {vn } is bounded in H01 (Ω). Let vn * vλ weakly(up to subsequence) in H01 (Ω).

hpeti
Lemma 4.8. E(vλ ) ≤ c.

Proof. First we take w = 2vn in (4.9) to get

Z Z Z
hαn , vn i ≤ |∇vn |2 + g̃(x, vn )vn dx − λ f˜(x, vn )vn . (4.10) newcritical3
Ω Ω Ω

Subtracting (4.8) from 12 (4.10) and using Proposition 3.8 we get

Z Z Z
1
f˜(x, vn )vn ≤ c + F̃ (x, vn ) − hαn , vn i ≤ c + F̃ (x, vn ).
Ω Ω 2 Ω

Now using the fact that

F̃ (x, t)
sup lim =0
Ω t→∞ f˜(x, t)t

22
 and noting that αn and vn are bounded in H01 (Ω), we obtain from the last inequality that
Z
sup f˜(x, vn )vn < ∞. (4.11) man
n Ω
Z Z
Then using Vitali’s convergence theorem we get f˜(x, vn ) → f˜(x, vλ ). Also by the
Ω Ω
inequality (3.1) on F and using generalised Lebesgue dominated theorem we infer that
Z Z
F̃ (x, vn ) → F̃ (x, vλ ). (4.12) critical10
Ω Ω

From positivity of G̃ and Fatou’s lemma, we get

Z Z
G̃(x, vλ ) ≤ lim inf G̃(x, vn ). (4.13) new0
Ω n→∞ Ω

Since vk * vλ , from lower semicontinuity of norm, (4.12) and (4.13), we get

I(uλ + vλ ) ≤ lim inf I(vn + uλ ) ≤ c + I(uλ ). (4.14) new1

n→∞

htisi
Lemma 4.9. If E(vλ ) ≥ 0, then (upto a subsequence), vn → vλ in H01 (Ω) and vλ is a weak
solution of (T Pλ ).

Proof. From the second inequality in (4.14),

Z Z Z
1 2
lim inf |∇(vn + uλ )| ≤ c + I(uλ ) + λ F (x, uλ + vλ ) − G(x, uλ + vλ ). (4.15) new2
n→∞ 2 Ω Ω Ω

Since 0 ≤ E(vλ ) ≤ c, we can choose  > 0 such that

0 ≤ (c + I(uλ ) − I(uλ + vλ ))(1 + ) ≤ c(1 + ) < 2π. (4.16) new3

Define Z Z
µ0 = λ F (x, uλ + vλ )dx − G(x, uλ + vλ )dx.
Ω Ω

Then, Z
1
I(uλ ) ≤ I(uλ + vλ ) = |∇(uλ + vλ )|2 − µ0 . (4.17) bhat
2 Ω

From (4.15) we get Z

0< |∇(uλ + vλ )|2 ≤ 2(c + µ0 + I(uλ )). (4.18) new4
Ω

From (4.15) and (4.16), we obtain for a subsequence of {vn } (still denoted by {vn }),

(1 + )(c + I(uλ ) − I(uλ + vλ ))||uλ + vn ||2 ≤ (1 + )c||uλ + vn ||2 < 4π(c + µ0 + I(uλ )).

23
Using (4.17) in the last inequality, we obtain for all n,

4π(c + µ0 + I(uλ ))
(1 + )||uλ + vn ||2 <
(c + I(uλ ) − I(uλ + vλ ))
4π(c + µ0 + I(uλ ))
=
(c + µ0 + I(uλ ) − 12 ||uλ + vλ ||2 )
 ||uλ + vλ ||2 −1
= 4π 1 − .
2(c + µ0 + I(uλ ))

Choose p > 1 such that

(1 + )  ||uλ + vλ ||2 −1

||vn + uλ ||2 ≤ p < 1 − . (4.19) aru
4π 2(c + µ0 + I(uλ ))

Choose a subsequence of {vn } (still denoted by {vn }), such that

lim kuλ + vn k ≥ kuλ + vλ k. (4.20) kar

n→∞

From (4.15) and (4.18) we note that (upto a subsequence)

 
lim kuλ + vn k kuλ + vλ k ≤ 2(c + µ0 + I(uλ ))
n→∞

Define
uλ + vn
fn := .
kuλ + vn k
Then kfn k = 1 for all n and denote by f the weak (subsequential) limit of fn in H01 (Ω). It
then follows that (using (4.20))

uλ + vλ
f= where θ = lim kuλ + vn k > 0. (4.21) tha
θ n→∞

Using (4.20) - (4.21) we can check that

 ||uλ + vλ ||2 −1  −1
1− ≤ 1 − kf k .
2(c + µ0 + I(uλ ))

Then choosing p as in (4.19) and by Theorem 4.5, we obtain,

Z Z (uλ +vn )2
(1+)(uλ +vn )2 4πp
||uλ +vn ||2
lim sup e ≤ lim sup e < ∞.
n→∞ Ω n→∞ Ω

Therefore, by applying Vitali’s convergence theorem,

Z
lim f˜(x, vn )(vn − vλ ) = 0.
n→∞ Ω

Using the convexity of G̃ and proceeding as in (4.6), we get vn → vλ strongly in H01 (Ω).

24
 Using Fatou’s lemma, Trudinger-Moser imbedding and (1.1) we get (upto a subsequence)
Z Z Z Z
lim g̃(x, vn )vn ≥ g̃(x, vλ )vλ and lim f˜(x, vn )vn = f˜(x, vλ )vλ .
n→∞ Ω Ω n→∞ Ω Ω

Thus we can pass to the limit in (4.9) for any w ∈ H + to conclude that vλ is a solution to
(T Pλ ).
hharei
Proposition 4.10. There exists a second nontrivial solution to (P̄λ ) for all λ ∈ (0, Λ).

Proof. From (3.2) and (4.11), we obtain that {F̃ (x, vn )} is a bounded sequence in L1 (Ω) and
hence (since E(vn ) → c) also is the sequence {G̃(x, vn )}. From the pointwise convergence of
vn to vλ and dominated convergence theorem, we get

g̃(x, vn ) → g̃(x, vλ ) in L1loc (Ω).

From the arguments in Lemma 4.8, we also have f˜(x, vn ) → f˜(x, vλ ) in L1 (Ω).
Using these convergence facts, taking w := vn + h, h ∈ Cc∞ (Ω), h ≥ 0 in (4.9) and then
passing to the limit n → ∞, we obtain that vλ is a distributional super-solution of (T Pλ ). We
can show that vλ is a H 1 −supersolution of the same problem in the same way as in Lemma
3.4.
We first assume E(vλ ) < 0. Then considering the closed convex set

K := {u ∈ H01 (Ω) : 0 ≤ u ≤ vλ }

and proceeding as in Theorem 3.15 we obtain a weak solution ṽλ of (T Pλ ) with E(ṽλ ) < 0.
In particular ṽλ 6≡ 0 and we are done. If E(vλ ) ≥ 0, then we proceed as in Lemma 4.9 above
and obtain that vn → vλ in H01 (Ω) and that vλ is a weak solution (by Lemma 4.9). It only
remains to show that vλ is nontrivial. Suppose vλ ≡ 0, i.e., vn → 0 in H01 (Ω). Then we fix a
w ∈ Cc∞ (Ω) and let n → ∞ in (4.9) to get
Z
lim sup g̃(x, vn )vn ≤ 0
n→∞ Ω

which contradicts the fact that (from Remark 4.1)

Z Z
0 < c + on (1) = G̃(x, vn ) ≤ g̃(x, vn )vn .
Ω Ω

5 Proof of Theorem 1.2

The proof of Theorem 1.2 follows from Theorem 3.15, Remark 3.1, Theorem 3.18 and Propo-
sition 4.10.

25
 Acknowledgement: The second and third authors acknowledge the support of National
Board of Higher Mathematics, DAE , Govt. of India for providing financial support.

References
AJ [1] Adimurthi and J. Giacomoni, Multiplicity of positive solutions for a singular and critical
elliptic problem in R2 , Communications in Contemporary Mathematics, Vol. 8 no. 5,
(2006), 621-656.

ABC [2] A. Ambrosetti, H. Brezis, and G. Cerami, Combined effects of concave and convex non-
linearities in some elliptic problems, Journal of Functional Analysis, Vol. 122, no. 2,
(1994), 519-543.

CD [3] A. Canino and M. Degiovanni, A variational approach to a class of singular semilinear

elliptic equations, Journal of Convex Analysis, Vol.11, (2004), 147-162.

CRT [4] M. G. Crandall, P. H. Rabinowitz and L. Tartar, On a Dirichlet problem with a singular
nonlinearity, Communications in Partial Differential Equations, Vol. 2, (1977), 193-222.

DPJ [5] R. Dhanya, J. Giacomoni, S. Prashanth and K. Saoudi, Global bifurcation and local
multiplicity results for elliptic equations with singular nonlinearity of super exponential
growth in R2 , Advances in Differential Equations, Vol. 17 no. 3-4, (2012), 369-400.

DPSS [6] R. Dhanya, S. Prashanth, K. Sreenadh and Sweta Tiwari, Critical growth elliptic problem
in R2 with singular discontinuous nonlinearities, Advances in Differential Equations, Vol.
19 no.5-6, (2014), 409-440.

HSS1 [7] N. Hirano, C. Saccon and N. Shioji, Existence of multiple positive solutions for singu-
lar elliptic problems with concave and convex nonlinearities, Advances in Differential
Equations, Vol. 9, no. 1-2, (2004), 197-220.

HSS2 [8] N. Hirano, C. Saccon and N. Shioji, Brezis-Nirenberg type theorems and multiplicity
of positive solutions for a singular elliptic problem, Journal of Differential Equations,
Vol.245, (2008), 1997-2037.

L [9] P.L. Lions, Concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variation, The limit
case, Part I-II, Revista Matematica Iberoamericana, Vol.1, (1985), 145-201.

M [10] J. Moser, A sharp form of an inequality by N. Trudinger, Indiana University Mathematics

Journal, Vol. 20, (1970), 1077-1092.

Szu [11] A. Szulkin, Minimax principles for lower semicontinuous functions and applications to
nonlinear boundary value problems, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincare, Vol. 3, no. 2, (1986),
77-109.

26
T [12] N. Trudinger, On imbeddings into Orlicz spaces and some applications, Journal of Math-
ematics and Mechanics, Vol. 17, (1967), 473-483.

27