Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1. Introduction
We consider the following biharmonic critical growth problem
(1)
2 u = u + |u|2 2 u
in
u = u = 0
on
u = u = 0
on .
2n
is the
Here Rn (n > 5) is an open bounded smooth domain, > 0 and 2 = n4
2
n
2
n
critical Sobolev exponent for the embedding H (R ) , L (R ). We are interested in
existence and nonexistence of nontrivial solutions of (1) with one of the above boundary
conditions.
We consider first the case where = 0, namely the equation
(4)
2 u = |u|8/(n4) u
in .
It is well known that (4)(2) and (4)(3) admit no positive solutions if is star shaped (see
[24, Theorem 3.3] and [26, Corollary 1]). Clearly, these are not exhaustive nonexistence
results as they only deal with positive solutions, see also Section 3 below for further
comments. On the other hand, by combining the Pohozaev identity [28] with the unique
continuation property [19, Section 3], it is known that one indeed has nonexistence results
Date: April 23, 2002.
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. 31B30; 35J40; 58E05.
Key words and phrases. Semilinear biharmonic elliptic problems, Navier boundary conditions, critical
exponent, best Sobolev constant.
The first author was supported by MURST project Metodi Variazionali ed Equazioni Differenziali non
Lineari.
1
of any nontrivial solution for the correponding second order equation u = |u|4/(n2) u
in star shaped domains. This suggests that, in order to obtain existence results for (4), one
should either add subcritical perturbations or modify the topology or the geometry of the
domain . For general subcritical perturbations we refer to [4, 11] and references therein.
Domains with nontrivial topology are studied in [3] for Dirichlet and in [9] for Navier
boundary conditions. Here we are interested in topologically simple but geometrically
complicated domains. As far as we are aware, the case of strange contractible domains
has not been tackled before and this is precisely the first scope of the present paper. We
show that (4)(2) admits a positive solution in a suitable contractible domain . This
result is the exact counterpart of [24, Theorem 3.3] where it is shown that (4)(2) admits
no positive solution if is star shaped. For the Dirichlet boundary condition we obtain
a weaker result: we show that (4)(3) admits a nontrivial solution in the same kind
of contractible domain. Clearly, this still leaves open some problems concerning Dirichlet
boundary conditions, see Section 3. On one hand our proof is inspired by strong arguments
developed by Passaseo [27], on the other hand we have to face several hard difficulties,
especially (and somehow unexpectedly) under Navier boundary conditions. One of the
crucial steps in the approach by Passaseo is to prove that sign changing solutions of (4)
double the energy of the associated functional. For the second order problem this may
be shown by the usual technique of testing the equation with the positive and negative
parts of the solution. Of course, this technique fails for (4) where higher order derivatives
are involved and we overcome this difficulty thanks to the decomposition method in dual
cones developed in [12]. This method enables us to bypass the lack of nonexistence results
for nodal solutions of (4) in star shaped domains. Moreover, when dealing with Navier
boundary conditions, the required generalization of the Struwe compactness lemma [33]
turns out to be very delicate because of the second boundary datum and the lack of a
uniform extension operator for H 2 H01 functions in families of domains. See Lemma
5.4 and its proof in Section 8. The same problem arises in Lemma 6.1 where a uniform
lower bound for an enlarged optimal Sobolev constant has to be found in a suitable class
of domains.
Next, we restrict our attention to the case where > 0 and = B, the unit ball
in Rn . We are interested in positive radially symmetric solutions. Let 1 > 0 be the
first eigenvalue of 2 with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions. A celebrated
result by PucciSerrin [30] shows that (1)(3) admits a nontrivial radially symmetric
solution for all (0, 1 ) if and only if n > 8 (n is the space dimension). If n = 5, 6, 7
the range 0 < < 1 is no longer correct since there exists (0, 1 ) such that
(1)(3) admits no nontrivial radial solution whenever (0, ]; moreover, there exists
[ , 1 ) (presumably = ) such that (1)(3) admits even a positive radially
symmetric solution for all ( , 1 ). In other words, the well known [6] nonexistence
result for radially symmetric solutions of the second order problem for small in dimension
n = 3 bifurcates for (1)(3) to the dimensions n = 5, 6, 7: PucciSerrin call these
dimensions critical. Furthermore, the space dimensions n for which one has nonexistence
of positive radially symmetric solutions of (1)(3) for in some (right) neighborhood of
0 are called weakly critical. This latter notion was introduced in [15] in order to study
higher order polyharmonic equations for which critical dimensions seem more difficult to
handle; clearly, critical dimensions are also weakly critical. In Theorem 3.1 below we prove
that the dimensions n = 5, 6, 7 are weakly critical also for Navier boundary conditions.
Therefore, critical dimensions seem not to depend on the boundary conditions. This result
is perhaps related to the fact that critical dimensions may have an explanation in terms
n
By D2,2
R (R ) we2 denote the completion of the space Cc (R ) with respect to the norm
2
kf k2,2 = Rn |f | ; this is a Hilbert space when endowed with the scalar product
Z
(f, g)2,2 =
f g dx.
Rn
By solution of (1) we mean here a function u H 2 H01 () (when dealing with (2)) or a
function u H02 () (when dealing with (3)) which satisfies
Z
Z
u dx =
u + |u|8/(n4) u dx
H 2 H01 ()
H02 ()).
for all
(resp.
For Dirichlet boundary conditions this variational
formulation is standard, while for Navier boundary data we refer to [4, p.221]. By well
known regularity results (see [22, Theorem 1] and [38, Lemma B3]), if C 4, , then
the solutions u of (1) satisfy u C 4, () and solve (1) in the classical sense.
Definition 2.1. Let K Rn bounded. We say that u D2,2 (Rn ) satisfies u > 1 on K in
the sense of D2,2 (Rn ) if there exists a sequence (uh ) in Cc2 (Rn ) such that uh > 1 on K for
each h N and uh u in D2,2 (Rn ). Analogously, u 6 1 and u = 1 on K are defined.
Definition 2.2. We define the (2, 2)capacity of K (cap K) as
Z
2
2,2
n
|u| dx : u = 1 on K in the D (R ) sense .
cap K = inf
Rn
We set cap := 0.
Since the nonempty set
u D2,2 (Rn ) : u = 1 on K in the D2,2 (Rn ) sense
is closed and convex, there exists a unique function zK D2,2 (Rn ) such that zK = 1 on
K and
Z
|zK |2 dx = cap K.
Rn
e \ is contained in a cylinder
To be more precise: we assume that for small enough,
n1
withbasis B R
and fixed height. Then by simple scaling arguments one finds that
n5
e
cap \ = O(
) 0 as 0, provided that the dimension satisfies n > 5.
e which can certainly not be deformed into
As H, we take a spherical hypersurface in ,
a subset of . This can e.g. be seen by looking at the degree of mapping d(H ( . , t), H, 0)
for t [0, 1], where H is assumed to exist according to Definition 2.3.
Instead of the above mentioned segment of fixed length, one may consider any bounded
piece of a fixed generalized plane, provided that its codimension is at least 5.
3. Nonexistence results
We collect here a number of known as well as of new nonexistence results for the equation
(7)
2 u = u + |u|8/(n4) u in
under either Navier or Dirichlet boundary conditions. Here, we include the linear term u.
In the borderline case = 0, where the purely critical equation has to be considered, the
behaviour of boundary value problems for (7) switches and, in contrast with the second
order case where the principal part is the Laplacian, it is indeed difficult to decide to which
of the two cases < 0 or > 0 it is more similar.
3.1. Under Navier boundary conditions. It turns out that nonexistence questions in
this case are relatively hard and that only restricted results are available.
The case = 0
In this case, no positive solution to (5) may exist, provided is star shaped. See [37,
Theorem 3.10] and also [24, Theorem 3.3].
The key ingredient is a Pohozaev type identity [29], which reads in this case:
Z
u (u)
(8)
x dS = 0.
Here / denotes the directional derivative with respect to the exterior unit normal
= (x). From the assumption u > 0, by applying twice the maximum principle for ,
one gets
(u) < 0 as well as u
< 0 on the boundary and hence a contradiction with
(8). By means of techniques developed by Pucci and Serrin in [30], such a nonexistence
result may be also shown for nontrivial radial solutions in the ball.
More difficult seems this nonexistence result for any nontrivial solution of (5). For the
second order equation u = |u|4/(n2) u (with u = 0 on ), the Pohozaev identity
yields u/ = 0 on ; moreover, from the equation itself we infer 2 u/ 2 = 0. Then,
by applying in a suitable fashion the unique continuation property (see [19, Section 3]) one
obtains that u 0. Returning to (5), in order to apply the unique continuation property
[31] one should have
3u
u
=
=0
on
3
but, to this end, (8) is not powerful enough.
The case > 0
In Section 7 we prove the following result.
Theorem 3.1. Let n {5, 6, 7} and assume that = B Rn is the unit ball. Then
there exists a number > 0 such that a necessary condition for a positive solution to
(
2 u = u + u(n+4)/(n4) in
(9)
u = u = 0
on
with > 0 to exist is > .
By [36], positive solutions to (9) are radially symmetric.
Theorem 3.1 answers a question which was left open by van der Vorst in [39, Theorem
3]. Moreover, in [39, Theorem 1] complementary existence results were shown implying
that such a nonexistence result can hold at most in the dimensions 5, 6, 7.
These are the critical dimensions for problem (9), at least, when restricting to positive
solutions in the ball. Theorem 3.1 can also be shown just for nontrivial radial solutions:
here one has to combine methods of [30] with some techniques, which appear in the proof
of Theorem 3.2 below.
Again one observes an unsymmetry between existence and nonexistence results: all
nonexistence results are restricted to the class of positive or at least radial functions.
Nevertheless, one would expect nonexistence of any nontrivial solution. A proof, however,
seems to be out of reach.
The case < 0
In the preceding nonexistence result, the positivity of a solution, the nonexistence of which
had to be shown, is intensively exploited. For this we use in the proof of Theorem 3.1 that
the right hand side of (9) maps R+ R+ (when > 0) and that the solution operator
for the biharmonic operator under Navier conditions is positivity preserving.
For negative, we can only argue as before, when is close enough to 0, see [18]. Then
we can still conclude that u > 0 in . But when << 0, the solution operator for
2 is no longer positivity preserving, see [32, pp. 99/100] and also [7]. Hence, the
framework of positive solutions is no longer adequate for (7), and the argument in [37, pp.
390/391] and [39, Theorem 3] breaks down. Instead, one has to look for nonexistence of
any nontrivial solution. But such a result seems to be still unknown, even for nontrivial
radial solutions in the ball.
3.2. Under Dirichlet boundary conditions. In this situation, existence results for
positive solutions are more involved than under Navier boundary conditions (see [13]) and
cannot even be expected in general domains. On the other hand, we know much more
about nonexistence for relatively large classes of solutions.
The case < 0
Nonexistence of any nontrivial solution is shown in [29], provided the domain is star
shaped. This proof is based on a generalized Pohozaev identity and covers also the general
polyharmonic problem with ()K as linear principal part.
The case > 0
In [30] we already find the following result, which gives a stronger statement than the
analogous Theorem 3.1 above for Navier boundary conditions:
Let n {5, 6, 7} and assume that is the unit ball B. Then there exists
a number > 0 such that a necessary condition for a nontrivial radial
solution to (6) to exist is > .
As this special behaviour of the critical growth Dirichlet problem (6) may be observed only
in space dimensions 5, 6 and 7, Pucci and Serrin call these dimensions critical. For the critical dimension phenomenon for general polyharmonic problems with Dirichlet boundary
conditions we refer to [15].
The case = 0
Also in this case, the nonexistence of any nontrivial solution to (6) has to be left open,
only more restricted results are available. Oswald [26] proved the nonexistence of positive
solutions in strictly star shaped domains. His proof is based on a Pohozaev type identity
(see e.g. [24, (2.6)]) and gives, after integration by parts
Z
(10)
(u)2 (x )dS = 0.
2u
=0
2
on .
3u
=0
3
on .
Therefore, if one could prove that any solution u of (6) satisfies (12), then we would have
the desired nonexistence result in star shaped domains.
Moreover, we can also exclude nontrivial radial solutions:
Theorem 3.2. Let B Rn (n > 5) be the unit ball. Then problem
( 2
u = |u|8/(n4) u in B,
(13)
u = u = 0
on B
admits no nontrivial radial solution.
This result can be found in [14, Theorem 3.11]. The proof there is based on a refined
integral identity of Pucci and Serrin [30] and some Hardy type embedding inequalities. In
Section 7 we will give a more elementary and geometric proof.
Unfortunately neither this proof nor the one given in [14, Theorem 3.11] carry over to the
general polyharmonic problem, where the discussion of nonexistence of nontrivial radial
solutions in the borderline case = 0 remains essentially open.
S=
inf
kuk22
.
kuk22
When working in the whole Rn , this optimal Sobolev constant is attained and concerning
the minimizers the following result is known.
Lemma 4.1. The constant S in (14) is a minimum and (up to nontrivial real multiples)
it is attained only on the functions
(15)
u,x0 (x) =
for any x0 Rn and each > 0. Moreover, the functions u,x0 are the only positive
solutions of the equation
(16)
2 u = u(n+4)/(n4)
in Rn .
Proof. See [10, Theorem 2.1], [34, Theorem 4] and [20, Theorem 1.3].
Similarly one can define S() for any Rn . It is well known that S() is not attained
if is bounded [10] and that it does not depend neither on the boundary conditions [38]
nor on the domain. The following extension of the embedding inequality corresponding to
(14) with optimal constant S gives a quantitative formulation for its nonattainment.
n
Theorem 4.2. Let Rn be open and of finite measure and p [1, n4
). Then there
2
1
exists a constant C = C(n, p, ||) > 0, such that for every u H H0 (), one has
Z
1
(17)
|u|2 dx > S kuk22 + kuk2p .
C
Lemma 5.1. Let = Rn and u D2,2 (Rn ) be a nodal solution of the equation
2 u = |u|8/(n4) u
(18)
in Rn .
(u, v)2,2 6 0 v K
Let us show that K 0 K . For each h Cc (Rn ) K consider the solution uh of the
problem
2 uh = h in Rn .
Then by the positivity of the fundamental solution of 2 in Rn , there results uh K and
thus if v K 0 ,
Z
Z
n
h Cc (R ) K :
hv dx =
2 uh v dx = (uh , v)2,2 6 0.
Rn
Rn
u = u1 + u2 ,
(u1 , u2 )2,2 = 0.
i = 1, 2,
for a.e. x Rn . Indeed, if i = 1 and u(x) 6 0 then (20) is trivial, while if u(x) > 0, since
u2 K one has u(x) = u1 (x) + u2 (x) 6 u1 (x) and again (20) holds. The case i = 2 is
similar. By combining the Sobolev inequality with (19) and (20), we get for i = 1, 2
Z
Z
2
2
Skui k2 6 kui k2,2 =
uui dx =
2 uui dx =
Rn
Rn
Z
Z
=
|u|2 2 uui dx 6
|ui |2 dx = kui k22 ,
Rn
Rn
which implies kui k22 > S (n4)/4 for i = 1, 2. Hence, again by (19), one obtains
Z
Z
2/2 Z
4/n
kuk22
2
2
2
=
|u| dx
|u| dx
=
|u| dx
=
kuk22
Rn
Rn
Rn
4/n
Z
Z
2
2
=
|u1 | dx +
|u2 | dx
>
Rn
Rn
4/n
> Sku1 k22 + Sku1 k22
> 24/n S ,
which concludes the proof.
In the case of the half space we have a similar result.
10
Lemma 5.2. Let = {xn > 0} be the half space and assume that u D2,2 () solves the
equation
2 u = |u|8/(n4) u
(21)
in {xn > 0}
with boundary data either (2) or (3). Then kuk22 > 24/n Skuk22 .
Proof. Notice first that by [24, Theorem 3.3], equation (21) with (2) does not admit
positive solutions. A similar nonexistence result holds for boundary conditions (3), see
[26, Corollary 1] which may be easily extended to unbounded domains.
Therefore, any nontrivial solution of (21) (with (2) or (3)) necessarily changes sign.
We obtain the result if we repeat the argument of the proof of Lemma 5.1. With Navier
boundary conditions this is straightforward, while with Dirichlet boundary data one may
invoke Boggios principle [5] in the half space.
In a completely similar fashion, one may extend the previous result to any domain in
case of Navier boundary conditions. For Dirichlet boundary conditions this seems not
possible due to the lack of information about the positivity of the corresponding Green
function.
Lemma 5.3. Let be a bounded domain of Rn and assume that u solves (5) and changes
sign. Then kuk22 > 24/n Skuk22 .
As pointed out in the introduction, the H 2 H01 framework is more involved than the
H02 case. Therefore, from now on we restrict our attention to the first situation.
Consider the functional f : V () R
Z
(22)
f (u) =
|u|2 dx
(23)
uH
H01 ()
Z
:
|u| dx = 1 .
2
V ())
1/2
k Z
X
uh * u
b0
(24)
|b
uj |2 dx
in H 2 H01 ()
j=0
and
(25)
2/2
k Z
k Z
X
X
lim f (uh ) =
|b
uj |2 dx
|b
uj |2 dx
.
h
j=0
j=0
11
which implies
Rn
Rn
Rn
|b
uj |2 dx = S n/4 for j = 1, ..., k. In particular, one obtains
4/n
Z
.
|b
u0 |2 dx + kS n/4
lim f (uh ) =
h
If u
b0 0, it results f (uh )
Z
k 4/n S,
while if u
b0 6 0 for each k > 1 one has
4/n
2
n/4
|b
u0 | dx + kS
> (k + 1)4/n S.
In any case we have a contradiction with S < lim f (uh ) < 24/n S.
h
Rn
Rn
|b
uj |2 dx > 2S n/4 , while for the remaining u
bj , (26) holds true. In any case,
4/n
n/4
4/n
we have lim f (uh ) > 2 S
= 2 S, again a contradiction.
and hence
Rn
12
First we show that the energy or, equivalently, the optimal Sobolev constants will remain
relatively large if we prevent the functions from concentrating too close to their domain
of definition.
Lemma 6.1.
= inf
n n
o
o
e+ , smooth subset of
e > S.
inf f (u) : u V (), (u) 6
e and
Proof. Assume by contradiction that for each > 0 there exists a smooth
2
1
u H H0 C ( ) such that
Z
(28)
|u |2 dx = 1
Z
(29)
|u |2 dx 6 S +
e+ .
(u ) 6
(30)
(31)
1
kuk21 .
C
Putting together (28), (29) and (31), for each > 0 it results
Z
1
1
S+>
|u |2 dx > Sku k22 + ku k21 = S + k1 U k21
C
C
Rn
L1 (Rn )
Now, by the
boundedness of the sequences (1 |U |2 ) and (1 |U |2 ) there exist
two bounded non negative measures , on Rn such that
(33)
1 |U |2 * ,
1 |U |2 *
Rn
||2 d.
d.
Rn
13
Rn
2/2
d
Z
=
Rn
Rn
B1 (0)
Rn
where is set to zero outside B1 (0) . It is readily seen that there exists > 0 such that
e and hence ,y C ()
e for each y H . For all (
e let z D2,2 (Rn ) be
B (y)
c
e
such that z = 1 in \
and
Z
e
|z |2 dx = cap(\),
Rn
,y
k,y k2 .
yH
e
whenever cap(\)
< . Then one gets
k(1 z )Ty ()kL2 () 6= 0 y H,
if is sufficiently small. So, if we define the map : H V () by
(y) =
(1 z ) Ty ()
.
k(1 z ) Ty ()k2
e
provided that cap(\)
< . From now on is fixed subject to the previous restrictions.
e
e
Let be such that cap(\)
< and r (0, re) be such that is a deformation
retract of
+ = x Rn : d(x, ) < r .
14
(36)
Notice that
(37)
e given by
otherwise the map R : H [0, 1]
R(y, t) = (1 t)y + t( (y)) y H, t [0, 1]
e into a subset of + and then into a subset of ( is a deformation
would deforme H in
e we used
retract of + ) contradicting the assumption. Here, in order to see R(y, t) ,
e
that supp (y) B (y) and, as > 0, that ( (y)) B (y) .
Therefore, by combining (35), (36) and (37) one gets
(38)
In what follows we need to find two appropriate levels, such that the corresponding sublevel
sets
f c = {u V () : f (u) 6 c}
cannot be deformed into each other. For this purpose let c1 , c2 > S be such that
c1 < inf{f (u) : u V (), (u) 6 + } ,
c2 = sup{f ( (y)) : y H}.
Assume by contradiction that there exists a deformation of f c2 into f c1 , i.e.
: f c2 [0, 1] f c2 ,
( . , 0) = Idf c2 and (f c2 , 1) f c1 .
if t [0, 1/3]
if t [1/3, 2/3]
if t [2/3, 1]
e+
e is a retraction and % : + [0, 1] + is a continuous map with
where %e :
e one should
%(x, 0) = x and %(x, 1) for all x + . In order to see that H (x, t) ,
e+ .
observe that c2 < and ( (x), 3t 1) f c2 , hence (( (x), 3t 1))
c
1
As ( (x), 1) f for each x H and
c1 < inf {f (u) : u V (), (u) 6 + } ,
then for each x H
(( (x), 1)) +
e into a subset of , in contradiction with our assumption.
and H is a deformation of H in
Then the sublevel set
f c2 = {u V () : f (u) 6 c2 }
cannot be deformed into
f c1 = {u V () : f (u) 6 c1 } .
Hence, by combining Lemma 5.5 with the standard deformation lemma one obtains a
constrained critical point u such that
S < f (u ) 6 sup{f ( (y)) : y H} < < 24/n S.
15
u
2
(u) dS.
(39)
2
u dx =
r
r
B
B
As u is radially symmetric we may proceed as follows with the term on the right hand
side; here, en denotes the n-dimensional volume of the unit ball B and c(n) denotes a
generic positive constant which may vary from line to line:
Z
u
(u) dS = n en (1)
(u)(1)
r
r
r
r
B
Z
Z
1
u
dS
(u) dS
n en
r
B r
ZB
Z
1
(40)
=
(u) dx
2 u dx .
n en
B
B
The first integral needs some further consideration. First of all, by making use of homogeneous Navier boundary conditions, we find:
Z
Z
n Z
X
2
2
(2xj )(u)xj dx = 2 n
(u) dx.
1 |x| u dx =
B
j=1
Furthermore, as we have already mentioned, u and by (9) also 2 u are positive and strictly
radially decreasing. This fact can be used to get rid of the degenerate weight factor 1|x|2
in the previous term:
Z
Z
Z
2 u dx 6
2 u dx +
2 u dx
|x|61/2
1/26|x|61
1
6
u dx + c(n) u
2
|x|61/2
Z
Z
6
2 u dx + c(n)
2 u dx
|x|61/2
|x|61/2
Z
6 c(n)
1 |x|2 2 u dx.
Z
Combining this estimate with the previous identity, we obtain from (39) and (40):
Z
2
Z
2
2
(41)
u dx > c(n)
u dx = c(n)k2 uk21 .
B
16
Observe that L2 estimates for the biharmonic operator under homogeneous Navier boundary conditions follow immediately from the L2 estimates for the Laplacian.
Combining (41) and (42), we see that for any positive radial solution u of (9), we have
Z
Z
2
u dx > c(n)
u2 dx;
B
moreover, by (11),
u(x) = u(x) = 2 u(x) = 0 for |x| = 1.
(43)
Clearly
d
dr u(a)
> 0. We define
f (x) := |u(x)|2 2 u(x)
(44)
d
Next, as u and v satisfy the same differential equation, if dr
u(a) = 0 it follows that u v
d
d
while if dr u(a) > 0 = dr v(a) we find u > v in a < |x| < 1. In both cases (44) gives
d2
u(1) > 0
dr2
and hence a contradiction with (43).
n
Proof of Theorem 4.2. We keep p [1, n4
) fixed as in the theorem. Let B = B1 (0)
denote the unit ball, centered at the origin. By scaling and Talentis comparison principle
[35, Theorem 1] it suffices to prove that there exists CB > 0 with
(45)
1
kuk2p
CB
17
for each u H 2 H01 (B), which is radially symmetric and radially decreasing with respect
to the origin (and hence positive). Let us set
S,p =
inf
1 (B)
uH 2 H0
u radially decreasing
kuk22 kuk2p
.
kuk22
(46)
Let us fix some (0, 1,p ), where
(47)
1,p :=
kuk22
2
uH 2 H01 (B)\{0} kukp
inf
in B
on B.
Arguing along the lines of [6] and [13], one finds a smooth positive radial strictly decreasing
solution of
(
p2 u in B
2 u = u(n+4)/(n4) + kuk2p
p |u|
(48)
u = u = 0
on B.
On the other hand, for any positive radially decreasing solution of (48) one has the following variant of Pohozaevs identity:
Z
n(p 2)
u
(49)
2
kuk2p =
(u) dS.
2p
r
r
B
As above in the proof of Theorem 3.1, we conclude that
(50)
as we have assumed that p < n/(n 4). For > 0 sufficiently close to 0, we obtain a
contradiction.
8. Appendix: Proof of Lemma 5.4
We prove the corresponding statement for the free functional
Z
Z
1
1
E (u) =
|u|2 dx
|u|2 dx
2
2
which is defined on the whole space H 2 H01 (). More precisely, we have
Lemma 8.1. Let (uh ) H 2 H01 () be a PalaisSmale sequence for E at level c R.
Then either (uh ) is relatively compact in H 2 H01 () or there exist k > 0 nonzero functions
u
bj D2,2 (0,j ), j = 1, . . . , k, with 0,j either the whole Rn or a half space, solving either
(18) or (21) and a solution u
b0 H 2 H01 () of (5) such that, as h :
uh * u
b0 in H 2 H01 (),
kuh k22 kb
u0 k22 +
k
X
j=1
kb
uj k22 ,
E (uh ) E (b
u0 ) +
k
X
j=1
E0,j (b
uj ).
18
uh * 0,
E(uh ) c >
2 n/4
S .
n
Indeed, if c < n2 S n/4 , then we are in the compactness range of E and by arguing as in [6],
uh 0 up to a subsequence. In this case the statement follows with k = 0.
Assuming (51) and arguing as for the proof of [33, (3.2), p.187] we deduce
Z
(52)
|uh |2 dx > S n/4 + o(1).
Let L N be such that B2 (0) is covered by L balls of radius 1. By continuity of the maps
Z
Z
2
R 7 sup
|uh | dx,
y
7
|uh |2 dx
y
BR1 (y)
BR1 (y)
and (52), for h large enough one finds Rh > 2/diam() and xh such that
Z
Z
1 n/4
2
(53)
|uh | dx = sup
|uh |2 dx =
S .
2L
y B 1 (y)
B 1 (xh )
R
|h (x0 )| 6 C|x0 |2 ,
|h (x0 )| 6 C|x0 |,
|D2 h (x0 )| 6 C
x0 B (0).
19
so that xh is mapped into the origin 0 while the origin is mapped into (0, %h ) and (54)
becomes
h BRh (0) [Rh %h , Rh %h ] =
0
x
0
0
%h : x BRh (0) .
x , R h h
Rh
Let us set
(
h =
Rh h
x0
Rh
%h < xn < Rh h
x0
Rh
%h + R h
where > 0 and sufficiently small to have h h . Consider the injective map
n
h : BRh (0) [Rh , Rh ] R
0
(x0 , xn ) 7
x0 , Rh h Rxh + xn %h
and its inverse 1
.
We
observe
that
B
(0)
[0,
R
]
= h and that h is bijective
R
h
h
h
h
on these sets. Thanks to (55), after some computations, one sees that (h ) converges in
2 ({x > 0}) to the translation by the vector (0, %). Therefore,
Cloc
n
0 = (x0 , xn ) Rn : xn > %
is the local uniform limit of (h ). In particular, for every Cc (0 ) we also have that
Cc (h ) for sufficiently large h. This will be used below. Let us now set
4n
x
(56)
vh (x) = Rh 2 uh xh +
,
Rh
so that vh H 2 H01 (h ). By boundedness of (uh ) we infer that there exists C > 0 such
that kvh kH 2 (h ) 6 C. Let 1h denote the characteristic function of h , then the sequence
(1h vh ) is bounded in D1,2n/(n2) (Rn ) (and in L2 (Rn )) so that, up to a subsequence, we
have
(57)
1h vh * v0
in D1,2n/(n2) L2 (Rn )
20
Therefore, (D2 h ) being bounded in L2 () and taking into account (56), one obtains
Z
n
0
2
uh Rh (x xh ) dx
o(1) =E (uh )(h ) = Rh
Z
n4
Rh 2
|uh |2 2 uh Rh (x xh ) dx
Z
Z
=
vh dx
|vh |2 2 vh dx
n
n
ZR
ZR
=
v0 dx
|v0 |2 2 v0 dx + o(1).
Rn
Rn
Then v0 H01 H 2 (0 ) solves (5) in distributional sense. The delicate point is to see that
v0 = 0 on 0 . To this end, let Cc2 (Rn ) with = 0 on 0 and define
h (x) = 1
h (x) (0, %) .
Notice that for h large enough, also h Cc2 (Rn ) with h = 0 on h . Taking into
2
n
account that (1
h ) tends to the translation by (0, %), it results h in C (R ) and
Z
Z
(v0 |v0 |2 2 v0 ) dx = lim
(vh h |vh |2 2 vh h ) dx
h
0
h
n4
Z
n4
h
2 2
h
2
2
= lim
uh Rh h (Rh (x x )) dx
uh Rh h (Rh (x x )) |uh |
h
n4
0
h
2
= lim E (uh ) Rh h (Rh (x x )) = 0.
h
which, as pointed out in [4, p. 221] implies that v0 is also a strong solution of (5) in 0 .
Step IV. The limiting function v0 in (57) is nontrivial.
Let Cc (Rn ) such that 0 supp 6= ; then for h large enough, we may define
(58)
ve0,h (x) = v0 1
(x)
(0,
%)
.
ve0,h : h supp() R,
h
Since v0 C 2 (0 ), v0 = v0 = 0 on 0 and (h ) converges to the translation by the
vector (0, %), we get as h +
(59)
k10 v0 1h e
v0,h kL2 (supp()) = o(1).
h supp()
!2/2
2
|(e
v0,h v0 )| dx
>S
h supp()
Z
+ o(1) > S
|(v0 vh )| dx
Rn
2/2
+ o(1).
21
By compact embedding one has vh v0 in L2loc (Rn ) and thanks to an integration by parts
one gets
k((vh v0 ))k2 6 k(vh v0 )k2 k((vh v0 ))k2
and therefore vh v0 in L2loc (Rn ). Hence the previous inequality yields
2/2
Z
Z
+ o(1),
2 |(v0 vh )|2 dx > S
||2 |v0 vh |2 dx
Rn
Rn
which implies
Z
Z
d > S
Rn
2/2
|| d
Rn
where d and d denote respectively the weak limits of |(v0 vh )|2 and |v0 vh |2 in
the sense of measures. By Lions principle, there exists an at most countable set J, points
2/2
(xj )jJ 0 , nonnegative real numbers (j ) and (j ) with j > Sj such that
Z
Z
X
2
(60)
|vh | dx
|v0 |2 dx +
j (xj )
h
|vh |2 dx
(61)
for every
obtain
Cc (Rn ).
|v0 |2 dx +
Let
0
E
(vh )(vh )
h
jJ
Cc (Rn )
Z
=
j (xj )
jJ
+2
uh (x)uh (x) ((Rh (x xh ))) dx
Z
+
uh (x)uh (x)((Rh (x xh ))) dx.
0 (v )(v ) = E 0 (u )(
In particular, putting
eh = (Rh (x xh )), it results E
h
h
h eh uh ).
h
Then, taking into accont that kuh
eh kH 2 H01 = o(1), by (60) and (61) we get as h +
Z
Z
Z
0
2
2
o(1) = Eh (uh )(
eh uh ) =
|v0 | dx
|v0 | dx + 2
v0 v0 dx
0
0
0
Z
X
X
+
v0 v0 dx +
j (xj )
j (xj ) + o(1).
0
jJ
jJ
By arguing as in the proof of [4, Lemma 3.3] one then infers that the set J is finite.
Assume by contradiction that v0 0. Choose 0 < 6 12 such that
xj 6 B1+ (0) \ B1 (0),
j J.
Let
Cc (Rn ),
0 6 6 1 with
(
1 on B1+/3 (0)
=
0 on Rn \ B1+2/3 (0)
22
|h |2 dx = o(1).
With the same computations as in the proof of [1, Lemma 2], it follows
Z
4 !Z
n4
n
|h |2 dx
|h |2 dx 6 o(1).
(63)
1 S n4
h
h B1+2/3 (0)
|vh |2 dx + o(1) =
6
B3/2 (0)
|uh |2 dx + o(1)
3/2 R1
h
2R1
h
(xh )
(xh )
6
B
h B1+/3 (0)
|h |2 dx + o(1)
|uh | dx + o(1) 6 L
B
1
|uh |2 dx + o(1) = S n/4 + o(1).
2
h
1 (x )
h
|uh |2 dx
(1+/3)R1
h
|uh |2 dx =
>
B
R1
h
(xh )
(xh )
1 n/4
S ,
2L
Rh R0 > 0.
vh = R0
uh
H2
x
x0 +
R0
Z
.
|vh |2 dx =
0
H01 (0 ).
|uh |2 dx
so that, up to a subsequence, vh * v0
23
at the same level c. By weak continuity of E00 we get E00 (v0 ) = 0, namely v0 solves (5) in
0 . Arguing as in Step IV, we infer that v0 6= 0 which is absurd since uh * 0.
Step VII. Conclusion.
If (uh ) is a PalaisSmale sequence for E , then by Step I its weak limit u
b0 solves (5).
By Steps III, IV and V the remaining part (uh u
b0 ) suitably rescaled gives rise to a
nontrivial solution v0 of (18) (if Case II occurs) or (21) (if Case I occurs). With help of
this solution, we construct from (uh u
b0 ) a new PalaisSmale sequence (wh ) for E in
H 2 H01 () at a strictly lower energy level. In the case where we find the solution v0 in
the whole space, one proceeds precisely as in [33], cf. also [1]. In the case that v0 is a
solution of (21) in a half space 0 we again have to use the locally deformed versions ve0,h
in h of v0 . These have been defined in (58). Let Cc (Rn ) be any cutoff function
with 0 6 6 1, = 1 in B1 (0) and = 0 outside B2 (0). We put
p
(n4)/2
wh (x) := (uh u
b0 )(x) Rh
ve0,h Rh (x xh )
Rh (x xh ) .
First we remark that wh is indeed well defined as = 0 for Rh |x xh | > 2 Rh and as the
domain of definition of ve0,h grows at rate Rh . Further we notice that h and 1
h converge
uniformly to translations even on BRh (0). For this reason we have
ve0,h ()
v0 in D2,2 (0 )
Rh
and, of course, also in D1,2n/(n2) (0 ) and in L2 (0 ). Hence, we have
E (wh ) = E (uh ) E (b
u0 ) E0 (v0 ) + o(1)
Acknowledgement. The authors are grateful to Nicola Garofalo for raising their attention
on the paper [19].
References
` Positive solutions of a fourth-order semilinear problem involving critical
[1] C.O. Alves, J.M. do O,
growth, Preprint, 2001.
[2] A. Bahri, J.M. Coron, On a nonlinear elliptic equation involving the critical Sobolev exponent: the
effect of the topology of the domain, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 41 (1988), 253294.
[3] T. Bartsch, T. Weth, M. Willem, A Sobolev inequality with remainder term and critical equations
on domains with nontrivial topology for the polyharmonic operator, Preprint, 2002.
[4] F. Bernis, J. Garca Azorero, I. Peral, Existence and multiplicity of nontrivial solutions in
semilinear critical problems of fourth order, Adv. Differential Equations 1 (1996), 219240.
[5] T. Boggio, Sulle funzioni di Green dordine m, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 20 (1905), 97135.
[6] H. Brezis, L. Nirenberg, Positive solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations involving critical Sobolev
exponents, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 36 (1983), 437477.
[7] C.V. Coffman, C.L. Grover, Obtuse cones in Hilbert spaces and applications to partial differential
equations, J. Funct. Anal. 35 (1980), 369396.
[8] R. Dalmasso, Elliptic equations of order 2m in annular domains, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 347
(1995), 35753585.
[9] F. Ebobisse, M.O. Ahmedou, On a nonlinear fourth order elliptic equation involving the critical
Sobolev exponent, Preprint, 2001.
24
[10] D.E. Edmunds, D. Fortunato, E. Jannelli, Critical exponents, critical dimensions and the biharmonic operator, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 112 (1990), 269289.
[11] F. Gazzola, Critical growth problems for polyharmonic operators, Proc. Royal Soc. Edinburgh Sect.
A 128 (1998), 251263.
[12] F. Gazzola, H.Ch. Grunau, Critical dimensions and higher order Sobolev inequalities with remainder terms, NoDEA Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl. 8 (2001), 3544.
[13] H.Ch. Grunau, Positive solutions to semilinear polyharmonic Dirichlet problems involving critical
Sobolev exponents, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 3 (1995), 243252.
[14] H.Ch. Grunau, Polyharmonische Dirichletprobleme: Positivit
at, kritische Exponenten und kritische
Dimensionen, Habilitationsschrift, Universit
at Bayreuth, (1996).
[15] H.Ch. Grunau, On a conjecture of P. Pucci and J. Serrin, Analysis 16 (1996), 399403.
[16] H.Ch. Grunau, G. Sweers, Positivity for perturbations of polyharmonic operators with Dirichlet
boundary conditions in two dimensions, Math. Nachr. 179 (1996), 89-102.
[17] E. Jannelli, The role played by space dimension in elliptic critical problems, J. Differential Equations
156 (1999), 407426.
[18] B. Kawohl, G. Sweers, On a conjecture of McKenna and Walter and related anti-eigenvalues,
preprint 2001.
[19] C. Kenig, Restriction theorems, Carleman estimates, uniform Sobolev inequalities and unique continuation, Harmonic analysis and partial differential equations, (El Escorial, 1987), 6990, Lect. Notes
Math. 1384, Springer, (1989).
[20] C.S. Lin, A classification of solutions of a conformally invariant fourth order equation in Rn , Comment.
Math. Helv. 73 (1998), 206231.
[21] P.L. Lions, The concentrationcompactness principle in the calculus of variations. The limit case. I,
Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana 1 (1985), 145201.
[22] S. Luckhaus, Existence and regularity of weak solutions to the Dirichlet problem for semilinear
elliptic systems of higher order J. Reine Angew. Math. 306 (1979), 192207.
[23] E. Mitidieri, On the definition of critical dimension, unpublished manuscript, (1993).
[24] E. Mitidieri, A Rellich type identity and applications, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 18
(1993), 125151.
[25] J.J. Moreau, Decomposition orthogonale dun espace hilbertien selon deux c
ones mutuellement polaires, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 255 (1962), 238240.
[26] P. Oswald, On a priori estimates for positive solutions of a semilinear biharmonic equation in a ball,
Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae 26 (1985), 565577.
[27] D. Passaseo, The effect of the domain shape on the existence of positive solutions of the equation
25