Citation: Mohammad Hashemi, Fatemeh Bizhani, Hiva Danesh, Behzad Narouie, Mehdi Sotoudeh, Mohammad Hadi Radfar, Mehdi Honarkar Ramezani, Gholamreza Bahari, Mohsen Taheri, Saeid Ghavami. MiR-608 rs4919510 C>G polymorphism increased the risk of bladder cancer in an Iranian population[J]. AIMS Genetics, 2016, 3(4): 212-218. doi: 10.3934/genet.2016.4.212
[1] | Shengfang Yang, Huanhe Dong, Mingshuo Liu . New wave behaviors and stability analysis for magnetohydrodynamic flows. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2024, 19(2): 887-922. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2024040 |
[2] | Caihong Gu, Yanbin Tang . Global solution to the Cauchy problem of fractional drift diffusion system with power-law nonlinearity. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2023, 18(1): 109-139. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2023005 |
[3] | Hyeong-Ohk Bae, Hyoungsuk So, Yeonghun Youn . Interior regularity to the steady incompressible shear thinning fluids with non-Standard growth. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2018, 13(3): 479-491. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2018021 |
[4] | Maksym Berezhnyi, Evgen Khruslov . Non-standard dynamics of elastic composites. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2011, 6(1): 89-109. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2011.6.89 |
[5] | Fermín S. V. Bazán, Luciano Bedin, Mansur I. Ismailov, Leonardo S. Borges . Inverse time-dependent source problem for the heat equation with a nonlocal Wentzell-Neumann boundary condition. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2023, 18(4): 1747-1771. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2023076 |
[6] | Hantaek Bae, Rafael Granero-Belinchón, Omar Lazar . On the local and global existence of solutions to 1d transport equations with nonlocal velocity. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2019, 14(3): 471-487. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2019019 |
[7] | M. Berezhnyi, L. Berlyand, Evgen Khruslov . The homogenized model of small oscillations of complex fluids. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2008, 3(4): 831-862. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2008.3.831 |
[8] | Michiel Bertsch, Carlo Nitsch . Groundwater flow in a fissurised porous stratum. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2010, 5(4): 765-782. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2010.5.765 |
[9] | Steinar Evje, Kenneth H. Karlsen . Hyperbolic-elliptic models for well-reservoir flow. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2006, 1(4): 639-673. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2006.1.639 |
[10] | Hantaek Bae . On the local and global existence of the Hall equations with fractional Laplacian and related equations. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2022, 17(4): 645-663. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2022021 |
In this paper, we investigate the existence of a least energy sign-changing solution for the following fractional p-Laplacian problem:
(−Δ)sN/su+V(x)|u|Ns−2u=f(u) in RN, | (1.1) |
where s∈(0,1), 2<Ns:=p, (−Δ)sp is the fractional p-Laplacian operator which, up to a normalizing constant, may be defined by setting
(−Δ)spu(x)=2limε→0+∫RN∖Bε(x)|u(x)−u(y)|p−2(u(x)−u(y))|x−y|N+psdy, x∈RN |
along functions u∈C∞0(RN), where Bε(x) denotes the ball of RN centered at x∈RN and radius ε>0. In addition, the potential V∈C(RN,R), the nonlinear f has exponential critical growth, and such nonlinear behavior is motivated by the Trudinger-Moser inequality (Lemma 2.2).
Recently, the study of nonlocal problems driven by fractional operators has piqued the mathematical community's interest, both because of their intriguing theoretical structure and due to concrete applications such as obstacle problems, optimization, finance, phase transition, and so on. We refer to [18] for more details. In fact, when p=2, problem (1.1) appears in the study of standing wave solutions, i.e., solutions of the form ψ(x,t)=u(x)e−iωt, to the following fractional Schrödinger equation:
iℏ∂ψ∂t=ℏ2(−Δ)sψ+W(x)ψ−f(|ψ|) in RN×R, | (1.2) |
where ℏ is the Planck constant, W:RN→R is an external potential, and f is a suitable nonlinearity. Laskin [25,26] first introduced the fractional Schrödinger equation due to its fundamental importance in the study of particles on stochastic fields modeled by Lévy processes.
After that, remarkable attention has been devoted to the study of fractional Schrödinger equations, and a lot of interesting results were obtained. For the existence, multiplicity and behavior of standing wave solutions to problem (1.2), we refer to [1,9,10,14,19,33] and the references therein.
For general p with 2<p<Ns, problem (1.1) becomes the following fractional Laplacian problem:
(−Δ)spu+V(x)|u|p−2u=f(u) in RN. | (1.3) |
We emphasize that the fractional p-Laplacian is appealing because it contains two phenomena: the operator's nonlinearity and its nonlocal character. In fact, for the fractional p-Laplacian operator (−Δ)sp with p≠2, one cannot obtain a similar equivalent definition of (−Δ)sp by the harmonic extension method in [10]. For those reasons, the study of (1.3) becomes attractive. In [13], the authors obtained infinitely many sign-changing solutions of (1.3) by using the invariant sets of descent flow. Moreover, they also proved (1.3) possesses a least energy sign-changing solution via deformation Lemma and Brouwer degree. We stress that, by using a similar method, Wang and Zhou [35], Ambrosio and Isernia [3] obtained the least energy sign-changing solutions of (1.3) with p=2. For more results involving the fractional p-Laplacian, we refer to [2,17,20,21,32] and the references therein.
Another motivation to investigate problem (1.1) comes from the fractional Schrödinger equations involving exponential critical growth. Indeed, we shall study the case where the nonlinearity f(t) has the maximum growth that allows us to treat problem (1.1) variationally in Ws,Ns(RN) (see the definition in (1.5)). If p<Ns, Sobolev embedding (Theorem 6.9 in [18]) states Ws,p(RN)↪Lp∗s(RN), where p∗s=NpN−sp, and p∗s is called the critical Sobolev exponent. Moreover, the same result ensures that Ws,Ns(RN)↪Lλ(RN) for any λ∈[Ns,+∞). However, Ws,Ns(RN) is not continuously embedded in L∞(RN) (for more details, we refer to [18]). On the other hand, in the case p=Ns, the maximum growth that allows us to treat problem (1.1) variationally in Sobolev space Ws,Ns(RN), which is motivated by the fractional Trudinger-Moser inequality proved by Ozawa [30] and improved by Kozono et al. [23] (see Lemma 2.2). More precisely, inspired by [23], we say that f(t) has exponential critical growth if there exists α0>0 such that
lim|t|→∞f(t)exp(α|t|NN−s)={0, for α>α0,+∞, for α<α0. |
On the basis of this notation of critical, many authors pay their attention to investigating elliptic problems involving the fractional Laplacian operator and nonlinearities with exponential growth. When N=1,s=12, p=2 and replacing R by (a,b), problem (1.1) becomes the following fractional Laplacian equation:
{(−Δ)12u=f(u) in (a,b),u=0 in R∖(a,b). | (1.4) |
When f is o(|t|) at the origin and behaves like exp(αt2) as |t|→∞, by virtue of the Mountain Pass theorem, Iannizzotto and Squassina [22] proved the existence and multiplicity of solutions for (1.4). Utilizing the constrained variational methods and quantitative deformation lemma, Souza et al. [16] considered the least energy sign-changing solution of problem (1.4) involving exponential critical growth.
For problem (1.1) with exponential critical growth nonlinearity f, we would like to mention references [8,27,34]. In [27], by applying variational methods together with a suitable Trudinger-Moser inequality for fractional space, the authors obtained at least two positive solutions of (1.1). In [8], the authors considered problem (1.1) with a Choquard logarithmic term and exponential critical growth nonlinearity f. They proved the existence of infinite many solutions via genus theory. In [34], by using Ljusternik-Schnirelmann theory, Thin obtained the existence, multiplicity and concentration of nontrivial nonnegative solutions for problem (1.1). For more recent results on fractional equations involving exponential critical growth, see [8,15,16,22,27,31,34] and the references therein. We also refer the interested readers to [11,29] for general problems with Trudinger-Moser-type behavior.
Inspired by the works mentioned above, it is natural to ask whether problem (1.1) has sign-changing solutions when the nonlinearity f has exponential critical growth. To our knowledge, there are few works on it except [16]. Souza et al. [16] considered the case when N=1,p=2 and s=12. However, compared with [16], the situation when p>2 is quite different. In particular, the decomposition of functional I (see the definition in (1.8)) is more difficult than that in [16]. Therefore, some difficulties arise in studying the existence of a least energy sign-changing solution for problem (1.1), and this makes the study interesting.
In order to study problem (1.1), from now on, we fix p=Ns, p′=pp−1=NN−s and consider the following assumptions on V and f :
(V) V(x)∈C(RN) and there exists V0>0 such that V(x)≥V0 in RN. Moreover, lim|x|→∞V(x)=+∞;
(f1) The function f∈C1(R) with exponential critical growth at infinity, that is, there exists a constant α0>0 such that
lim|t|→∞|f(t)|exp(α|t|p′)=0 for α>α0andlim|t|→∞|f(t)|exp(α|t|p′)=∞ for α<α0; |
(f2) limt→0|f(t)||t|p−1=0;
(f3) There exists θ>p such that
0<θF(t)≤tf(t) for t∈R∖{0}, |
where F(t)=∫t0f(s)ds; (f4)
There are two constants q>p and γ>1 such that
sgn(t)f(t)≥γ|t|q−1 for t∈R; |
(f5) f(t)|t|p−1 is an increasing function of t∈R∖{0}.
Before stating our results, we recall some useful notations. The fractional Sobolev space Ws,p(RN), where p=Ns, is defined by
Ws,p(RN):={u∈Lp(RN):[u]s,p<∞}, | (1.5) |
where [u]s,p denotes Gagliardo seminorm, that is,
[u]s,p:=( ∫R2N|u(x)−u(y)|p|x−y|N+psdxdy)1p. |
Ws,p(RN) is a uniformly convex Banach space (see [18]) with norm
‖u‖Ws,p=(‖u‖pLp(RN)+[u]ps,p)1p. |
Let us consider the work space
X:={u∈Ws,p(RN):∫RNV(x)|u|pdx<+∞}, | (1.6) |
with the norm
‖u‖X:=([u]ps,p+∫RNV(x)|u|pdx)1p. |
X is a uniformly convex Banach space, and thus X is a reflexive space. By the condition (V), we have that the embedding from X into Ws,p(RN) is continuous.
Definition 1.1. We say that u∈X is a weak solution of problem (1.1) if
∫R2N|u(x)−u(y)|p−2(u(x)−u(y))(φ(x)−φ(y))|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫RNV(x)|u(x)|p−2u(x)φ(x)dx=∫RNf(u(x))φ(x)dx | (1.7) |
for all φ∈X.
Define the energy functional I:X→R associated with problem (1.1) by
I(u)=1p∫R2N|u(x)−u(y)|p|x−y|N+psdxdy+1p∫RNV(x)|u|pdx−∫RNF(u)dx. | (1.8) |
By the Trudinger-Moser type inequality in [23] (see Lemma 2.2), we prove that I(u)∈C1(X,R), and the critical point of functional I is a weak solution of problem (1.1) (see Remark 2.2 in Section 2).
For convenience, we consider the operator A:X→X∗ given by
⟨A(u),v⟩X∗,X=∫R2N|u(x)−u(y)|p−2(u(x)−u(y))(v(x)−v(y))|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫RNV(x)|u|p−2uvdx, ∀u,v∈X, | (1.9) |
where X∗ is the dual space of X. In the sequel, for simplicity, we denote ⟨⋅,⋅⟩X∗,X by ⟨⋅,⋅⟩. Moreover, we denote the Nehari set N associated with I by
N={u∈X∖{0}:⟨I′(u),u⟩=0}. | (1.10) |
Clearly, N contains all the nontrivial solutions of (1.1). Define u+(x):=max{u(x),0} and u−(x):=min{u(x),0}, and then the sign-changing solution of (1.1) stays on the following set:
M={u∈X∖{0}:u±≠0, ⟨I′(u),u+⟩=0, ⟨I′(u),u−⟩=0}. | (1.11) |
Set
c:=infu∈NI(u), | (1.12) |
and
m:=infu∈MI(u). | (1.13) |
Now, we can state our main results.
Theorem 1.1. Assume that (V) and (f1) to (f5) hold, and then problem (1.1) possesses a least energy sign-changing solution u∗∈X, provided that
γ>γ∗:=[θpmqθ−p(α0α∗)p−1]q−pp>0, |
where α∗ is a constant defined in Lemma 2.2,
mq=infu∈MqIq(u), Mq={u∈X:u±≠0,⟨I′q(u),u±⟩=0}, |
and
Iq(u)=1p‖u‖pX−1q∫RN|u|qdx. |
The proof of Theorem 1.1 is based on the arguments presented in [7]. We first check that the minimum of functional I restricted on set M can be achieved. Then, by using a suitable variant of the quantitative deformation Lemma, we show that it is a critical point of I. However, due to the nonlocal term
1p∫R2N|u(x)−u(y)|p|x−y|N+psdxdy, |
the functional I no longer satisfies the decompositions
I(u)=I(u+)+I(u−)and⟨I′(u),u±⟩=⟨I′(u±),u±⟩, | (1.14) |
which are very useful to get sign-changing solutions of problem (1.1) (see for instance [4,5,6,7,12]). In fact, due to the fractional p-Laplacian operator (−Δ)sp with s∈(0,1) and p≠2, one cannot obtain a similar equivalent definition of (−Δ)sp by the harmonic extension method (see [10]). In addition, compared with [16], problem (1.1) contains nonlocal operator (−Δ)sp with p>2, which brings some difficulties while studying problem (1.1). In particular, for problem (1.4), one has the following decomposition:
J(u)=J(u+)+J(u−)+∫R2N−u+(x)u−(y)−u−(x)u+(y)|x−y|N+2sdxdy,⟨J′(u),u+⟩=⟨J′(u+),u+⟩+∫R2N−u+(x)u−(y)−u−(x)u+(y)|x−y|N+2sdxdy, | (1.15) |
where J is the energy functional of (1.4). However, for the energy functional I, it is impossible to obtain a similar decomposition like (1.15) due to the nonlinearity of the operator (−Δ)sp. In order to overcome this difficulty, we divide R2N into several regions (see Lemma 2.6) and decompose functional I on each region carefully. Furthermore, another difficulty arises in verifying the compactness of the minimizing sequence in X since problem (1.1) involves the exponential critical nonlinearity term. Fortunately, thanks to the Trudinger-Moser inequality in [23], we overcome this difficulty by choosing γ in assumption (f4) appropriately large to ensure the compactness of the minimizing sequence. To achieve this, a more meticulous calculation is needed in estimating m.
On the other hand, by a similar argument in [13], we also consider the energy behavior of I(u∗) in the following theorem, where u∗ is the least energy sign-changing solution obtained in Theorem 1.1.
Theorem 1.2. Assume that (V) and (f1) to (f4) are satisfied. Then, c>0 is achieved, and
I(u∗)>2c, |
where u∗ is the least energy sign-changing solution obtained in Theorem 1.1.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 contains the variational setting of problem (1.1), and it establishes a version of the Trudinger-Moser inequality for (1.1). In Section 3, we give some technical lemmas which will be crucial in proving the main result. Finally, in Section 4, we combine the minimizing arguments with a variant of the Deformation Lemma and Brouwer degree theory to prove the main result.
Throughout this paper, we will use the following notations: Lλ(RN) denotes the usual Lebesgue space with norm |⋅|λ; C,C1,C2,⋯ will denote different positive constants whose exact values are not essential to the exposition of arguments.
In this section, we outline the variational framework for problem (1.1) and give some preliminary Lemmas. For convenience, we assume that V0=1 throughout this paper. Recalling the definition of fractional Sobolev space X in (1.6), we have the following compactness results.
Lemma 2.1. Suppose that (V) holds. Then, for all λ∈[p,∞), the embedding X↪Lλ(RN) is compact.
Proof. Define Y=Lλ(RN) and BR={x∈RN:|x|<R},BcR=RN∖¯BR. Let X(Ω) and Y(Ω) be the spaces of functions u∈X,u∈Y restricted onto Ω⊂RN respectively. Then, it follows from Theorems 6.9, 6.10 and 7.1 in [18] that X(BR)↪Y(BR) is compact for any R>0. Define VR=infx∈BcRV(x). By (V), we deduce that VR→∞ as R→∞. Therefore, when λ=Ns=p, we have
∫BcR|u|pdx≤1VR∫BcRV(x)|u|pdx≤1VR‖u‖pX, |
which implies
limR→+∞supu∈X∖{0}‖u‖Lp(BcR)‖u‖X=0. |
By virtue of Theorem 7.9 in [24], we can see that X↪Lp(RN) is compact.
When λ>p, by the interpolation inequality, one can also obtain that X↪Lλ(RN) is compact. This completes the proof.
To study problems involving exponential critical growth in the fractional Sobolev space, the main tool is the following fractional Trudinger-Moser inequality, and its proof can be found in Zhang [37]. First, to make the notation concise, we set, for α>0 and t∈R,
Φ(α,t)=exp(α|t|p′)−Skp−2(α,t), | (2.1) |
where Skp−2(α,t)=∑kp−2k=0αkk!|t|p′k with kp=min{k∈N;k≥p}.
Lemma 2.2. Let s∈(0,1) and sp = N. Then, there exists a positive constant α∗>0 such that
∫RNΦ(α,u)dx<+∞, ∀α∈(0,α∗), | (2.2) |
for all u∈Ws,p(RN) with ‖u‖Ws,p(RN)≤1.
For Φ(α,u), we also have the following properties, which have been proved in [8,27]. For the reader's convenience, we sketch the proof here.
Lemma 2.3. [27] Let α>0 and r>1. Then, for every β>r, there exists a constant C= C(β)>0 such that
(exp(α|t|p′)−Skp−2(α,t))r≤C(β)(exp(βα|t|p′)−Skp−2(βα,t)). |
Proof. Noticing that
(exp(α|t|p′)−Skp−2(α,t))rexp(βα|t|p′)−Skp−2(βα,t)=(∞∑j=kp−1αj|t|jp′j!)r∞∑j=kp−1(βα)j|t|jp′j!=|t|r(p−1)p′(∞∑j=kp−1αj|t|(j−p+1)p′j!)r|t|(p−1)p′∞∑j=kp−1(βα)j|t|(j−p+1)p′j!, |
we deduce
limt→0(exp(α|t|p′)−Skp−2(α,t))rexp(βα|t|p′)−Skp−2(βα,t)=0. |
On the other hand, it holds that
lim|t|→∞(exp(α|t|p′)−Sp−2(α,t))rexp(βα|t|p′)−Sp−2(βα,t)=lim|t|→∞exp(αr|t|p′)(1−Sp−2(α,t)(exp(α|t|))p′)rexp(βα|t|p′)(1−Sp−2(βα,t)exp(βα|t|p′))=0, | (2.3) |
and the lemma follows.
Lemma 2.4. [8] Let α>0. Then, Φ(α,u)∈L1(RN) for all u∈X.
Proof. Let u∈X∖{0} and ε>0. Since C∞0(RN) is dense in X, there exists ϕ∈C∞0(RN) such that 0<‖u−ϕ‖X<ε. Observe that for each k≥kp−1,
|u|p′k≤2p′kεp′k|u−ϕ‖u−ϕ‖X|p′k+2p′k|ϕ|p′k. |
Consequently,
Φ(α,u)≤Φ(α2p′εp′,|u−ϕ‖u−ϕ‖X|p′)+Φ(α2p′,|ϕ|p′). |
From Lemma 2.2, choosing ε>0 sufficiently small such that α2p′εp′<α∗, we have
∫RNΦ(α2p′εp′,|u−ϕ‖u−ϕ‖X|p′)dx<+∞. |
On the other side, since exp(α2p′|ϕ|p′)=∑+∞k=0αkk!2p′k|ϕ|p′k, there exists k0∈N such that ∑+∞k=k0αkk!2p′k|ϕ|p′k<ε. This fact, combined with the fact that p′k>0 for all kp−1≤k≤k0, gives us
∫RNΦ(α2p′,|ϕ|p′)dx=∫suppϕΦ(α2p′,|ϕ|p′)dx<+∞. |
Therefore, Φ(α,u)∈L1(RN) for all u∈X.
Remark 2.1. From Lemmas 2.2–2.4, we deduce that Φ(α,u)l∈L1(RN) for all u∈X, α>0 and l≥1.
The next lemma shows the growth behavior of the nonlinearity f.
Lemma 2.5. Given ε>0, α>α0 and ζ>p, for all u∈X, it holds that
|f(u)|≤ε|u|p−1+C1(ε)|u|ζ−1Φ(α,u), |
and
|F(u)|≤εp|u|p+C2(ε)|u|ζΦ(α,u). |
Proof. We will only prove the first result. Since the second inequality is a direct consequence of the first one due to assumption (f3), we omit it here.
In fact, by (f2), for given ε>0, there exists δ>0 such that |f(u)|≤ε|u|p−1 for all |u|<δ. Now, as ζ>p, there exists r>0 such that ζ=p+r. Hence, once zζ−1,zq′k for all k≥kp−1 and zr are increasing functions, if |u|>δ, it follows from (f1) that
|f(u)|≤ε|u|p−1+CεΦ(α,u)≤ε|u|p−1|u|rΦ(α,u)δrΦ(α,δ)+Cε|u|ζ−1δζ−1Φ(α,u)=C1(ε)|u|ζ−1Φ(α,u). |
This completes the proof.
Remark 2.2. It follows from Lemmas 2.1–2.3 that I is well-defined on X. Moreover, I∈C1(X,RN), and
⟨I′(u),v⟩=∫R2N|u(x)−u(y)|p−2(u(x)−u(y))(v(x)−v(y))|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫RNV(x)|u|p−2uvdx−∫RNf(u)vdx |
for all v∈X. Consequently, the critical point of I is the weak solution of problem (1.1).
We seek the sign-changing solution of problem (1.1). As we saw in Section 1, one of the difficulties is the fact that the functional I does not possess a decomposition like (1.14). Inspired by [13,35], we have the following:
Lemma 2.6. Let u∈X with u±≠0. Then,
(i) I(u)>I(u+)+I(u−),
(ii) ⟨I′(u),u±⟩>⟨I′(u±),u±⟩.
Proof. Observe that
I(u)=1p‖u‖pX−∫RNF(u)dx=1p⟨A(u),u⟩−∫RNF(u)dx=1p⟨A(u),u+⟩−∫RNF(u+)dx+1p⟨A(u),u−⟩−∫RNF(u−)dx. | (2.4) |
By density (see Di Nezza et al. Theorem 2.4 [18]), we can assume that u is continuous. Define
(RN)+={x∈RN;u+(x)≥0} and (RN)−={x∈RN;u−(x)≤0}. |
Then, for u∈X with u±≠0, by a straightforward computation, one can see that
⟨A(u),u+⟩=∫R2N|u(x)−u(y)|p−2(u(x)−u(y))(u+(x)−u+(y))|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫RNV(x)|u+|pdx =∫(RN)+×(RN)+|u+(x)−u+(y)|p|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫(RN)+×(RN)−|u+(x)−u−(y)|p−1u+(x)|x−y|N+psdxdy +∫(RN)−×(RN)+|u−(x)−u+(y)|p−1u+(y)|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫RNV(x)|u+|pdx =⟨A(u+),u+⟩+∫(RN)+×(RN)−|u+(x)−u−(y)|p−1u+(x)−|u+(x)|p|x−y|N+psdxdy +∫(RN)−×(RN)+|u−(x)−u+(y)|p−1u+(y)−|u+(y)|p|x−y|N+psdxdy>⟨A(u+),u+⟩. | (2.5) |
Similarly, we also have
⟨A(u),u−⟩>⟨A(u−),u−⟩. | (2.6) |
Taking into account (2.4)–(2.6), we deduce that I(u)>I(u+)+I(u−). Analogously, one can prove (ii).
In the last part of this section, we prove the following inequality, which will play an important role in estimating the upper bound for m:=infu∈MI(u).
Lemma 2.7. For all u∈X with u±≠0 and constants σ,τ>0, it holds that
‖σu++τu−‖pX≤σp⟨A(u),u+⟩+τp⟨A(u),u−⟩. | (2.7) |
Furthermore, the inequality in (2.7) is an equality if and only if σ=τ.
Proof. First, we claim the following elementary inequality holds true:
(σa+τb)p≤(a+b)p−1(σpa+τpb), | (2.8) |
where a,b≥0, σ,τ>0 and p=Ns>2.
Indeed, if a=0 or b=0, one can easily check (2.8). Thus, we can assume that a,b>0. Setting κ=aa+b and t=στ, (2.8) becomes
(κt+(1−κ))p≤κtp+(1−κ). | (2.9) |
Let us define g(t):=κtp+(1−κ)−(κt+(1−κ))p, and then g′(t)=κp[tp−1−(κt+(1−κ))p−1]. Noting that 0<κ<1, we can observe that g′(1)=0, g′(t)<0 for 0<t<1, and g′(t)>0 for t>1. Therefore, g(t)>g(1)=0 for all t>0 and t≠1, which implies (2.9). Consequently, (2.8) holds true.
Now, let us consider the inequality (2.7). By a straightforward computation, one can see from (2.8) that
‖σu++τu−‖pX−σp⟨A(u),u+⟩−τp⟨A(u),u−⟩=∫(RN)+×(RN)−|σu+(x)−τu−(y)|p−|u+(x)−u−(y)|p−1(σpu+(x)−τpu−(y))|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫(RN)−×(RN)+|τu−(x)−σu+(y)|p−|u−(x)−u+(y)|p−1(τp(−u−(x))+σpu+(y))|x−y|N+psdxdy≤0, |
which implies (2.7), and Lemma 2.7 follows.
The aim of this section is to prove some technical lemmas related to the existence of a least energy nodal solution. Firstly, we collect some preliminary lemmas which will be fundamental to prove our main result.
Lemma 3.1. Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1, we have
(i) For all u∈N such that ‖u‖X→∞, I(u)→∞;
(ii) There exist ρ,μ>0 such that ‖u±‖X≥ρ for all u∈M and ‖u‖X>μ for all u∈N.
Proof. (i) Since u∈N and (f3) holds, we see that
I(u)=I(u)−1θ⟨I′(u),u⟩≥(1p−1θ)‖u‖pX. | (3.1) |
Hence, the above inequality ensures that I(u)→∞ as ‖u‖X→∞.
(ii) We claim that there exists μ>0, such that ‖u‖X>μ for all u∈N. By contradiction, we suppose that there exists a sequence {un}⊂N such that ‖un‖X→0 in X.
Then, it follows from Lemmas 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 and Hölder's inequality that
‖un‖pX=∫RNf(un)undx≤ε∫RN|un|pdx+C1(ε)∫RN|un|ζΦ(α,un)dx≤ε‖un‖pX+C1(ε)(∫RN|un|ζr′dx)1r′(∫RNΦ(α,un)rdx)1r=ε‖un‖pX+C2(ε)(∫RNΦ(α,un)rdx)1r‖un‖ζX, | (3.2) |
where α>α0, ζ>p and r>1 with 1r+1r′=1.
On the other hand, since ‖un‖X→0, there exists N0∈N and ϑ>0 such that ‖un‖p′X<ϑ<α∗α0 for all n>N0. Choosing α>α0, r>1 and β>r satisfying αϑ<α∗ and βαϑ<α∗, for all n>N0, we deduce from Lemmas 2.2 and 2.3 that
∫RNΦ(α,un)rdx=∫RN(exp(α|un|p′)−Skp−2(α,un))rdx=∫RN(exp(α‖un‖p′X(un‖un‖X)p′)−Skp−2(α‖un‖p′X,un‖un‖X))rdx≤C∫RN(exp(βαϑ(un‖un‖X)p′)−Skp−2(βαϑ,un‖un‖X))dx≤C. | (3.3) |
Combining (3.3) with (3.2), and choosing ε=12 in (3.2), we can see that
‖un‖pX≤C′‖un‖ζX, | (3.4) |
where C′ is a constant independent of n. Obviously, (3.4) contradicts with ‖un‖X→0, and we have proved the claim.
For un∈M, we have ⟨I′(un),u±n⟩=0. Hence, it follows from Lemma 2.6 that
⟨I′(u±n),u±n⟩<0, |
which implies
‖u±n‖pX<∫RNf(u±n)u±ndx. |
By arguments as with (3.2) and (3.3), we deduce that there exist ρ1,ρ2>0 such that ‖u+n‖X>ρ1 and ‖u−n‖X>ρ2. Select ρ=min(ρ1,ρ2), and then ‖u±n‖X>ρ, and this completes the proof.
Lemma 3.2. Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1, for any u∈X∖{0}, there exists a unique νu∈R+ such that νuu∈N. Moreover, for any u∈N, we have
I(u)=maxν∈[0,∞)I(νuu). | (3.5) |
Proof. Given u∈X∖{0}, we define g(ν)=I(νu) for all ν≥0, i.e.,
g(ν)=1pνp‖u‖pX−∫RNF(νu)dx. |
It follows from (f2) and (f4) that the function g(ν) possesses a global maximum point νu, and g′(νu)=0, i.e.,
νp−1u‖u‖pX=∫RNf(νuu)udx, | (3.6) |
which implies νuu∈N. Now, we claim the uniqueness of νu. Suppose, on the contrary, there exists ˜νu≠νu such that ˜νuu∈N. Then, it holds that
˜νp−1u‖u‖pX=∫RNf(˜νuu)udx. | (3.7) |
Without loss of generality, we may assume ˜νu>νu. Combining (3.6), (3.7) and (f5), we deduce that
0=∫{x∈RN: u(x)≠0}(f(˜νuu)|˜νuu|p−1−f(νuu)|νuu|p−1)|u|p−1udx>0, |
which leads to a contradiction. Thus, νu is unique. Obviously, for any u∈N, νu=1, and (3.5) follows. This completes our proof.
Since we are considering the constrained minimization problem on M, in the following, we will show that the set M is nonempty.
Lemma 3.3. If u∈X with u±≠0, then there exists a unique pair (σu,τu) of positive numbers such that
(⟨I′(σuu++τuu−),u+⟩,⟨I′(σuu++τuu−),u−⟩)=(0,0). |
Consequently, σuu++τuu−∈M.
Proof. Let G:(0,+∞)×(0,+∞)→R2 be a continuous vector field given by
G(σ,τ)=(⟨I′(σu++τu−),σu+⟩,⟨I′(σu++τu−),τu−⟩) |
for every (σ,τ)∈(0,+∞)×(0,+∞). By virtue of Lemmas 2.5 and 2.6, we deduce that
⟨I′(σu++τu−),σu+⟩≥⟨I′(σu+),σu+⟩=σp‖u+‖pX−∫RNf(σu+)σu+dx≥σp‖u+‖pX−εσp∫RN|u+|pdx−Cε∫RN|σu+|ζΦ(α,σu+)dx, | (3.8) |
where α>α0 and ζ>q. Choose ε=12, σ small enough such that ‖σu+‖p′X<α∗α0. Taking into account (3.8) and arguing as with (3.3) in Lemma 3.1, one can see that
⟨I′(σu++τu−),σu+⟩≥12σp‖u+‖pX−C1σζ‖u+‖ζX, | (3.9) |
and similarly
⟨I′(σu++τu−),τu−⟩≥12τp‖u−‖pX−C2τζ‖u−‖ζX. | (3.10) |
Hence, it follows from (3.9) and (3.10) that there exists R1>0 small enough such that
⟨I′(R1u++τu−),R1u+⟩>0 for all τ>0, | (3.11) |
and
⟨I′(σu++R1u−),R1u−⟩>0 for all σ>0. | (3.12) |
On the other hand, by (f3), there exist constants D1,D2>0 such that
F(t)≥D1tθ−D2 for all t>0. | (3.13) |
Then, we have
⟨I′(σu++τu−),σu+⟩≤σp∫(RN)+×(RN)+|u+(x)−u+(y)|p|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫(RN)+×(RN)−|σu+(x)−τu−(y)|p−1σu+(x)|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫(RN)−×(RN)+|τu−(x)−σu+(y)|p−1σu+(y)|x−y|N+psdxdy+σp∫RNV(x)|u+|pdx−D1σθ∫A+|u+|θdx+D2|A+|, | (3.14) |
where A+⊂supp(u+) is a measurable set with finite and positive measure |A+|. Due to the fact that θ>p, for R2 sufficiently large, we get
⟨I′(R2u++τu−),R2u+⟩<0 for all τ∈[R1,R2]. | (3.15) |
Similarly, we get
⟨I′(σu++R2u−),R2u−⟩<0 for all σ∈[R1,R2]. | (3.16) |
Hence, taking into account (3.6), (3.7), (3.15), (3.16) and thanks to the Miranda theorem [28], there exists (σu,τu)∈[R1,R2]×[R1,R2] such that G(σu,τu)=0, which implies σuu++τuu−∈M.
Now, we are in the position to prove the uniqueness of the pair (σu,τu). First, we assume that u=u++u−∈M and (σu,τu)∈(0,+∞)×(0,∞) is another pair such that σuu++τuu−∈M. In this case, we just need to prove that (σu,τu)=(1,1). Notice that
⟨A(u),u+⟩=∫RNf(u+)u+dx, ⟨A(u),u−⟩=∫RNf(u−)u−dx, | (3.17) |
and
⟨A(σuu++τuu−),σuu+⟩=∫RNf(σuu+)σuu+dx, ⟨A(σuu++τuu−),τuu−⟩=∫RNf(τuu−)τuu−dx. | (3.18) |
Without loss of generality, we may assume σu≤τu. Then, by a direct computation, one has
⟨A(σuu++τuu−),σuu+⟩=∫(RN)+×(RN)+|σuu+(x)−σuu+(y)|p|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫(RN)+×(RN)−|σuu+(x)−τuu−(y)|p−1σuu+(x)|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫(RN)−×(RN)+|τuu−(x)−σuu+(y)|p−1σuu+(y)|x−y|N+psdxdy≥⟨A(σuu++σuu−),σuu+⟩=σpu⟨A(u),u+⟩, | (3.19) |
which together with (3.18) implies
σpu⟨A(u),u+⟩≤∫RNf(σuu+)σuu+dx. | (3.20) |
Combining (3.20) with (3.17), we deduce that
∫{x∈RN:u+(x)≠0}(f(σuu+)(σuu+)p−1−f(u+)(u+)p−1)(u+)pdx≥0. |
Hence, by (f5) and since u+≠0, we obtain σu≥1. Moreover, using similar arguments as in (3.19), we can deduce that
⟨A(σuu++τuu−),τuu−⟩≤⟨A(τuu++τuu−),τuu−⟩. | (3.21) |
Therefore, it follows from (3.17), (3.18) and (3.21) that
∫{x∈RN: u−(x)≠0}(f(τuu−)(τuu−)p−1−f(u−)(u−)p−1)(u−)pdx≤0, |
which together with (f5) implies τu≤1. Thus, we conclude the proof of the uniqueness of the pair (1,1).
For the general case, we suppose that u does not necessarily belong to M. Let (σu,τu), (σ′u,τ′u)∈(0,+∞)×(0,∞). We define v=v++v− with v+=σuu+ and v−=τuu−. Therefore, we have v∈M and σ′uσuv++τ′uτuv−∈M, which implies (σu,τu)=(σ′u,τ′u), and this completes the proof.
The following two lemmas will be useful in proving Theorem 1.1.
Lemma 3.4. Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1, and let u∈X with u±≠0 such that ⟨I′(u),u±⟩≤0. Then, the unique pair of positive numbers obtained in Lemma 3.3 satisfies 0<σu,τu≤1.
Proof. Here we will only prove 0<σu≤1. The proof of 0<τu≤1 is analogous, and we omit it here. Since ⟨I′(u),u+⟩≤0, it holds that
⟨A(u),u+⟩≤∫RNf(u+)u+dx. | (3.22) |
Without loss of generality, we can assume that σu≥τu>0, and σuu++τuu−∈M. Therefore, utilizing a similar argument as in (3.19), we deduce that
σpu⟨A(u),u+⟩=⟨A(σuu++σuu−),σuu+⟩≥⟨A(σuu++τuu−),σuu+⟩=∫RNf(σuu+)σuu+dx. | (3.23) |
Taking into account (3.22) and (3.23), we obtain
∫RN(f(σuu+)(σuu+)p−1−f(u+)(u+)p−1)(u+)pdx≤0, |
which together with assumption (f5) and the fact u+≠0 shows that σu≤1. Hence, we finish the proof.
Lemma 3.5. Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1, let u∈X with u±≠0 and (σu,τu) be the unique pair of positive numbers obtained in Lemma 3.3. Then, (σu,τu) is the unique maximum point of the function hu:[0,+∞)×[0,+∞)→R given by
hu(σ,τ):=I(σu++τu−). |
Proof. In the demonstration of Lemma 3.3, we saw that (σu,τu) is the unique critical point of hu in (0,+∞)×(0,+∞). In addition, by the definition of hu and (3.13), we have
hu(σ,τ)=I(σu++τu−)≤1p‖σu++τu−‖pX−D1σθ∫A+|u+|θdx−D1τθ∫A−|τu−|θdx+D2(|A+|+|A−|), |
where A+⊂supp(u+) and A−⊂supp(u−) are measurable sets with finite and positive measures |A+| and |A−|. Since θ>p, we conclude that hu(σ,τ)→−∞ as |(σ,τ)|→∞. In particular, one can easily check that there exists R>0 such that hu(a,b)<hu(σu,τu) for all (a,b)∈ (0,∞)×(0,∞)∖¯BR(0), where ¯BR(0) is a closure of the ball of radius R in R2.
To end the proof, we just need to verify that the maximum of hu does not occur in the boundary of [0,+∞)×[0,+∞). Suppose, by contradiction, that (0,b) is a maximum point of hu. Then, for a>0 small enough, one can see from (3.9) that hu(a,0)=I(au+)>0. Hence, it follows from Lemma 2.6 that
hu(a,b)=I(au++bu−)>I(au+)+I(bu−)>hu(0,b), |
for a>0 small enough. However, this contradicts with the assumption that (0,b) is a maximum point of hu. The case (a,0) is similar, and we complete the proof.
Since Lemma 3.3 shows M is nonempty, and Lemma 3.1 implies that I(u)>0 for all u∈M, I is bounded below in M, which means that m:=infu∈MI(u) is well-defined. Now, we shall prove an upper bound for m to recover the compactness, which urges us to prove that m can be achieved.
Lemma 3.6. Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1 and that θ is the constant given by (f3),
0<m<θ−pθp(α∗α0)p−1. | (3.24) |
Proof. Due to M⊂N, we have m≥c:=infu∈NI(u). Moreover, for all u∈N, by Lemma 3.1 it holds that
I(u)≥(1p−1θ)‖u‖pX≥θ−pθpμp>0. | (3.25) |
On the other hand, by the similar procedure used in [13], there exists w∈Mq with w±≠0, such that Iq(w)=mq and ⟨I′q(w),w±⟩=0. Therefore, it holds that
1p‖w‖pX−1q|w|qq=mq and ⟨A(w),w±⟩=|w±|qq. | (3.26) |
In addition, by virtue of Lemma 3.3, there exist σ,τ>0 such that σw++τw−∈M. Therefore, it holds that
m≤I(σw++τw−)=1p‖σw++τw−‖pX−∫RNF(σw++τw−)dx, |
which together with (f4) implies that
m≤1p‖σw++τw−‖pX−γqσq|w+|qq−γqτq|w−|qq. |
Now, from (3.26) and thanks to Lemma 2.7, we conclude that
m≤1pσp⟨A(w),w+⟩+1pτp⟨A(w),w−⟩−γqσq|w+|qq−γqτq|w−|qq+1p(‖σw++τw−‖pX−σp⟨A(w),w+⟩−τp⟨A(w),w−⟩)≤(1pσp−γqσq)|w+|qq+(1pτp−γqτq)|w−|qq≤maxξ≥0(1pξp−γqξq)|w|qq=(1p−1q)γpp−q|w|qq=γpp−qmq. |
Therefore, by the definition of γ in Theorem 1.1, we obtain (3.24).
Lemma 3.7. Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1, let {un}⊂M be a minimizing sequence for m, and then
∫RNf(u±n)u±ndx→∫RNf(u±)u±dx as n→∞, | (3.27) |
and
∫RNF(u±n)dx→∫RNF(u±)dx as n→∞ | (3.28) |
hold for some u∈X.
Proof. We will only prove the first result, since the second limit is a direct consequence of the first one. Since {un}⊂M is a minimizing sequence for m, I(un)→m, and it follows from (3.25) that
‖un‖pX≤θpθ−pI(un), | (3.29) |
which implies {un} is bounded in X. Then, by virtue of Lemma 2.1, up to a subsequence, there exists u∈X such that
un⇀u in X,un→u in Lλ(RN) for λ∈[p,+∞),un→u a.e. in RN. | (3.30) |
Hence,
u±n⇀u± in X,u±n→u± in Lλ(RN) for λ∈[p,+∞),u±n→u± a.e. in RN. | (3.31) |
Moreover, utilizing (3.29) again, we deduce that there exist n0∈N and ϑ>0 such that ‖un‖p′X<ϑ<α∗α0 for n>n0. Choose α>α0, r>1 and close to 1, and β>r satisfying αϑ<α∗ and βαϑ<α∗, and then for all n>n0, it follows from Lemmas 2.2 and (3) that
∫RNΦ(α,un)rdx=∫RN(exp(α|un|p′)−Skp−2(α,un))rdx=∫RN(exp(α‖un‖p′X(un‖un‖X)p′)−Skp−2(α‖un‖p′X,un‖un‖X))rdx≤C∫RN(exp(βαϑ(un‖un‖X)p′)−Skp−2(βαϑ,un‖un‖X))≤C, | (3.32) |
where C is a constant independent of n. Thus, by virtue of Lemma 2.5 and Hölder's inequality, for every Lebesgue measurable set A⊂RN and n>n0, it holds that
|∫Af(un)undx|≤C1∫A|un|pdx+C2∫A|un|ζΦ(α,un)dx≤C1∫A|un|pdx+C2(∫A|un|ζr′dx)1r′(∫AΦ(α,un)rdx)1r=C1∫A|un|pdx+C2C1r(∫A|un|ζr′dx)1r′. | (3.33) |
Due to (3.33) and the fact that u±n→u± in Lp(RN) and Lζr′(RN), we conclude that for any ε>0 and n>n0, there exists δ>0 such that for every Lebesgue measurable set A⊂RN with meas(A)≤δ, it holds that
|∫Af(u±n)u±ndx|<ε. | (3.34) |
Similarly, for any ε>0 and n>n0, there exists R>0 such that
| ∫RN∖BR(0)f(u±n)u±ndx|<ε. | (3.35) |
Therefore, by (3.31), (3.34), (3.35) and thanks to Vitali's convergence theorem, one can prove
∫RNf(u±n)u±ndx→∫RNf(u±)u±dx as n→∞. | (3.36) |
Thus, we finish the proof.
In this section, we will prove Theorems 1.1 and 1.2. To this end, we consider the minimization problem
m:=infu∈MI(u). |
Firstly, let us start with the existence of a minimizer u∗∈M of I.
Lemma 4.1. Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1, the infimum m is achieved.
Proof. By using Lemma 3.1, we know that there exists a minimizing sequence {un}n⊂M bounded in X, such that
I(un)→m as n→∞. | (4.1) |
Without loss of generality, we may assume up to a subsequence that there exists u∗ such that
u±n⇀(u∗)± in X,u±n→(u∗)± in Lλ(RN) for all λ∈[p,+∞),u±n→(u∗)± a.e. in RN. |
Then, by Lemmas 2.6, 3.1 and 3.7, we conclude that
ρp≤lim infn→∞‖u±n‖pX≤lim infn→∞⟨A(un),u±n⟩=lim infn→∞∫RNf(u±n)u±ndx=∫RNf((u∗)±)(u∗)±dx, |
which implies (u∗)±≠0, and consequently u∗=(u∗)++(u∗)− is sign-changing. Hence, by Lemma 3.3, there exist σ,τ>0 such that
⟨I′(σ(u∗)++τ(u∗)−),(u∗)+⟩=0,⟨I′(σ(u∗)++τ(u∗)−),(u∗)−⟩=0. | (4.2) |
Now, we claim that σ=τ=1. Indeed, since un∈M, ⟨I′(un),u±n⟩=0, i.e.,
‖u+n‖pX+∫(RN)+n×(RN)−n(|u+n(x)−u−n(y)|p−1u+n(x)|x−y|N+ps−|u+n(x)|p|x−y|N+ps)dxdy+∫(RN)−n×(RN)+n(|u−n(x)−u+n(y)|p−1u+n(y)|x−y|N+ps−|u+n(y)|p|x−y|N+ps)dxdy=∫RNf(u+n)u+ndx, | (4.3) |
and
‖u−n‖pX+∫(RN)−n×(RN)+n(|u−n(x)−u+n(y)|p−1(−u−n(x))|x−y|N+ps−|u−n(x)|p|x−y|N+ps)dxdy+∫(RN)+n×(RN)−n(|u+n(x)−u−n(y)|p−1(−u−n(y))|x−y|N+ps−|u−n(y)|p|x−y|N+ps)dxdy=∫RNf(u−n)u−ndx, | (4.4) |
where (RN)+n:={x∈RN:un(x)≥0} and (RN)−n:={x∈RN:un(x)≤0}. Notice the functional ‖u‖pX is weakly lower semicontinuous on X, and we see that
‖(u∗)±‖pX≤lim infn→∞‖u±n‖pX. | (4.5) |
Moreover, it follows from Lemma 3.7 that
∫RNf(u±n)u±ndx→∫RNf((u∗)±)(u∗)±dx as n→∞. | (4.6) |
Taking into account (4.3)–(4.6) and thanks to Fatou's lemma, we deduce that
⟨I′(u∗),(u∗)+⟩≤0 and ⟨I′(u∗),(u∗)−⟩≤0, | (4.7) |
which together with Lemma 3.4 implies that 0<σ,τ≤1. In the following, we will show that σ=τ=1, and I(u∗)=m. In fact, by (4.2), (f5), Fatou's lemma and the definition of M, one has
m≤I(σ(u∗)++τ(u∗)−)=I(σ(u∗)++τ(u∗)−)−1p⟨I′(σ(u∗)++τ(u∗)−),(σ(u∗)++τ(u∗)−)⟩=∫RN[1pf(σ(u∗)+)σ(u∗)+−F(σ(u∗)+)]dx+∫RN[1pf(τ(u∗)−)τ(u∗)−−F(τ(u∗)−)]dx≤∫RN[1pf((u∗)+)(u∗)+−F((u∗)+)]dx+∫RN[1pf((u∗)−)(u∗)−−F((u∗)−)]dx≤lim infn→∞[I(un)−1p⟨I′(un),un⟩]=limn→∞I(un)=m. | (4.8) |
Let us observe that by the above calculation we can infer that σ=τ=1. Thus, u∗∈M, and I(u∗)=m.
Now we are ready to prove Theorem 1.1. The proof is based on the quantitative deformation lemma and Brouwer degree theory. For more details, we refer to the arguments used in [7].
Proof of Theorem 1.1. We assume by contradiction that I′(u∗)≠0. Then, there exist δ,κ>0 such that
|I′(v)|≥κ, for all ‖v−u∗‖X≤3δ. |
Define D:=[1−δ1,1+δ1]×[1−δ1,1+δ1] and a map ξ:D→X by
ξ(σ,τ):=σ(u∗)++τ(u∗)−, |
where δ1∈(0,12) small enough such that ‖ξ(σ,τ)−u∗‖X≤3δ for all (σ,τ)∈ˉD. Thus, by virtue of Lemma 4.1, we can see that
I(ξ(1,1))=m, I(ξ(σ,τ))<m for all (σ,τ)∈D∖{(1,1)}. |
Therefore,
β:=max(σ,τ)∈∂DI(ξ(σ,τ))<m. |
By using [36,Theorem 2.3] with
Sδ:={v∈X:‖v−u∗‖X≤δ} |
and c:=m. By choosing ε:=min{m−β4,κδ8}, we deduce that there exists a deformation η∈C([0,1]×X,X) such that:
(i) η(t,v)=v if v∉I−1([m−2ε,m+2ε]); (ii) I(η(1,v))≤m−ε for each v∈X with ‖v−u∗‖X≤δ and I(v)≤m+ε; (iii) I(η(1,v))≤I(v) for all u∈X.
By (ii) and (iii) we conclude that
max(σ,τ)∈¯DI(η(1,ξ(σ,τ)))<m. | (4.9) |
Therefore, to complete the proof of this Lemma, it suffices to prove that
η(1,ξ(¯D))∩M≠∅. | (4.10) |
Indeed, if (4.10) holds true, then by the definition of m and (4.9), we get a contradiction.
In the following, we will prove (4.10). To this end, let us define Ψu∗:[0,+∞)×[0,+∞)→R2 by
Ψu∗(σ,τ):=(Ψu∗1(σ,τ),Ψu∗2(σ,τ))=(⟨I′(σ(u∗)++τ(u∗)−),(u∗)+⟩,⟨I′(σ(u∗)++τ(u∗)−),(u∗)−⟩). |
Furthermore, for (σ,τ)∈¯D, we define
˜Ψ(σ,τ):=(1σ⟨I′(η(1,ξ(σ,τ))),η+(1,ξ(σ,τ))⟩,1τ⟨I′(η(1,ξ(σ,τ))),η−(1,ξ(σ,τ))⟩). |
Since η(1,ξ(σ,τ))=ξ(σ,τ) on ∂D, by the Brouwer degree theory (see Theorem D.9 [36]), we have
deg(˜Ψ,D,0)=deg(Ψu∗,D,0). | (4.11) |
Now, we assert that deg(Ψu∗,D,0)=1. If this assertion holds true, then ˜Ψ(σ0,τ0)=0 for some (σ0,τ0)∈D. Thus, there exists u0:=η(1,ξ(σ0,τ0))∈M and (4.10) follows.
In fact, let us first define
Ap:=∫R2N|u∗(x)−u∗(y)|p−2|(u∗)+(x)−(u∗)+(y)|2|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫RNV(x)|(u∗)+|pdx,Bp:=∫R2N|u∗(x)−u∗(y)|p−2|(u∗)−(x)−(u∗)−(y)|2|x−y|N+psdxdy+∫RNV(x)|(u∗)−|pdx,Cp:=∫R2N|u∗(x)−u∗(y)|p−2((u∗)−(x)−(u∗)−(y))((u∗)+(x)−(u∗)+(y))|x−y|N+psdxdy,Dp:=∫R2N|u∗(x)−u∗(y)|p−2((u∗)+(x)−(u∗)+(y))((u∗)−(x)−(u∗)−(y))|x−y|N+psdxdy,a1:=∫RNf′((u∗)+)|(u∗)+|2dx, a2:=∫RNf((u∗)+)(u∗)+dx,b1:=∫RNf′((u∗)−)|(u∗)−|2dx, b2:=∫RNf((u∗)−)(u∗)−dx. |
Clearly, Cp=Dp>0, Ap,Bp>0. Notice that u∈M, and we can see that
Ap+Cp=a2,Bp+Dp=b2. | (4.12) |
Moreover, (f5) guarantees
a1>(p−1)a2,b1>(p−1)b2. | (4.13) |
Then, by a direct computation, we have
∂Ψu∗1∂σ(1,1)=(p−1)Ap−a1<0, | (4.14) |
and
∂Ψu∗2∂τ(1,1)=(p−1)Bp−b1<0. | (4.15) |
In addition,
∂Ψu∗1∂τ(1,1)=∂Ψu∗2∂σ(1,1)=(p−1)Cp=(p−1)Dp. | (4.16) |
Taking advantage of (4.12)–(4.16), we deduce that
det(Ψu∗)′(1,1)=[(p−1)Ap−a1][(p−1)Bp−b1]−(p−1)2CpDp>[(p−1)a2−(p−1)Ap][(p−1)b2−(p−1)Bp]−(p−1)2CpDp=(p−1)2CpDp−(p−1)2CpDp=0. | (4.17) |
Notice that u∗∈M, and thanks to Lemmas 3.3 and 3.5, it holds that
deg(Ψu∗,D,0)=sgn(det(Ψu∗)′(1,1))=1, |
which together with (4.11) implies deg(Ψu∗,D,0)=1. This completes our proof.
Lemma 4.2. For any v∈M, there exist ˜σv,˜τv∈(0,1) such that ˜σvv+,˜τvv−∈N.
Proof. We just prove ˜σv∈(0,1). The other case can be obtained by similar arguments. Since v∈M, i.e., ⟨I′(v),v+⟩=0, by Lemma 2.6, we obtain
‖v+‖pX<∫RNf(v+)v+dx. | (4.18) |
On the other hand, by Lemma 3.2, there exists ˜σv>0 such that ˜σvv+∈N, which implies that
˜σpv‖v+‖pX=∫RNf(˜σvv+)˜σvv+dx. | (4.19) |
Taking into account (4.9) and (4.10), we deduce that
∫RN[f(v+)(v+)p−1−f(˜σvv+)(˜σvv+)p−1](˜σvv+)pdx>0. |
Thus, it follows from (f4) that ˜σv<1.
Proof of Theorem 1.2. Using a similar idea from the proof of Lemma 4.1, we find ˉu∈N such that I(ˉu)=c>0, where c:=infu∈NI(u). Furthermore, utilizing the same steps of the proof of Theorem 1.1, we show that I′(ˉu)=0. Thus, ˉu is a ground state solution of problem (1.1). Hence, to complete the proof of Theorem 1.2, we need to study the energy behavior of I(u∗), where u∗ is the sign-changing solution of (1.1) obtained in Theorem 1.1.
In fact, by Lemma 4.2, there exist 0<˜σu∗,˜τu∗<1 such that ˜σu∗(u∗)+,˜τu∗(u∗)−∈N. Therefore, we deduce from (f5) and Lemma 3.2 that
m=I(u∗)=I(u∗)−1p⟨I′(u∗),u∗⟩=∫RN(1pf(u∗)u∗−F(u∗))dx>∫RN(1pf(˜σu∗(u∗)+)˜σu∗(u∗)+−F(˜σu∗(u∗)+))dx+∫RN(1pf(˜τu∗(u∗)−)˜τu∗(u∗)−−F(˜τu∗(u∗)−))dx=I(˜σu∗(u∗)+)−1p⟨I′(˜σu∗(u∗)+),˜σu∗(u∗)+⟩+I(˜τu∗(u∗)−)−1p⟨I′(˜τu∗(u∗)−),˜τu∗(u∗)−⟩=I(˜σu∗(u∗)+)+I(˜τu∗(u∗)−)≥2c, |
which completes the proof of Theorem 1.2.
This manuscript has employed the variational method to study the fractional p-Laplacian equation involving Trudinger-Moser nonlinearity. By using the constrained variational methods, quantitative Deformation Lemma and Brouwer degree theory, we prove the existence of least energy sign-changing solutions for the problem.
K. Cheng was supported by the Jiangxi Provincial Natural Science Foundation (20202BABL211005), W. Huang was supported by the Jiangxi Provincial Natural Science Foundation (20202BABL211004), and L. Wang was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 12161038) and the Science and Technology project of Jiangxi provincial Department of Education (Grant No. GJJ212204).
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
[1] |
Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, et al. (2015) Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65: 87-108. doi: 10.3322/caac.21262
![]() |
[2] | Antoni S, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. (2016) Bladder Cancer Incidence and Mortality: A Global Overview and Recent Trends. Eur Urol. |
[3] |
Cancer Genome Atlas Research N (2014) Comprehensive molecular characterization of urothelial bladder carcinoma. Nature 507: 315-322. doi: 10.1038/nature12965
![]() |
[4] |
Shiels MS, Gibson T, Sampson J, et al. (2014) Cigarette smoking prior to first cancer and risk of second smoking-associated cancers among survivors of bladder, kidney, head and neck, and stage I lung cancers. J Clin Oncol 32: 3989-3995. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.8220
![]() |
[5] |
Vermeulen SH, Hanum N, Grotenhuis AJ, et al. (2015) Recurrent urinary tract infection and risk of bladder cancer in the Nijmegen bladder cancer study. Br J Cancer 112: 594-600. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.601
![]() |
[6] |
Burger M, Catto JW, Dalbagni G, et al. (2013) Epidemiology and risk factors of urothelial bladder cancer. Eur Urol 63: 234-241. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.07.033
![]() |
[7] |
Giedl J, Rogler A, Wild A, et al. (2016) TERT Core Promotor Mutations in Early-Onset Bladder Cancer. J Cancer 7: 915-920. doi: 10.7150/jca.15006
![]() |
[8] |
Sankhwar M, Sankhwar SN, Bansal SK, et al. (2016) Polymorphisms in the XPC gene affect urinary bladder cancer risk: a case-control study, meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses. Sci Rep 6: 27018. doi: 10.1038/srep27018
![]() |
[9] | Hua Q, Lv X, Gu X, et al. (2016) Genetic variants in lncRNA H19 are associated with the risk of bladder cancer in a Chinese population. Mutagenesis: gew018 |
[10] |
Aben KK, Witjes JA, Schoenberg MP, et al. (2002) Familial aggregation of urothelial cell carcinoma. Int J Cancer 98: 274-278. doi: 10.1002/ijc.10191
![]() |
[11] |
He L, Hannon GJ (2004) MicroRNAs: small RNAs with a big role in gene regulation. Nat Rev Genet 5: 522-531. doi: 10.1038/nrg1379
![]() |
[12] |
Bartel DP (2004) MicroRNAs: genomics, biogenesis, mechanism, and function. Cell 116: 281-297. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(04)00045-5
![]() |
[13] |
Lee Y, Kim M, Han J, et al. (2004) MicroRNA genes are transcribed by RNA polymerase II. EMBO J 23: 4051-4060. doi: 10.1038/sj.emboj.7600385
![]() |
[14] |
Ryan BM, Robles AI, Harris CC (2010) Genetic variation in microRNA networks: the implications for cancer research. Nat Rev Cancer 10: 389-402. doi: 10.1038/nrc2867
![]() |
[15] |
Landi D, Gemignani F, Barale R, et al. (2008) A catalog of polymorphisms falling in microRNA-binding regions of cancer genes. DNA Cell Biol 27: 35-43. doi: 10.1089/dna.2007.0650
![]() |
[16] |
Wei WJ, Wang YL, Li DS, et al. (2015) Association study of single nucleotide polymorphisms in mature microRNAs and the risk of thyroid tumor in a Chinese population. Endocrine 49: 436-444. doi: 10.1007/s12020-014-0467-8
![]() |
[17] | Jiao L, Zhang J, Dong Y, et al. (2014) Association between miR-125a rs12976445 and survival in breast cancer patients. Am J Transl Res 6: 869-875. |
[18] | Kupcinskas J, Bruzaite I, Juzenas S, et al. (2014) Lack of association between miR-27a, miR-146a, miR-196a-2, miR-492 and miR-608 gene polymorphisms and colorectal cancer. Sci Rep 4: 5993. |
[19] |
Lin M, Gu J, Eng C, et al. (2012) Genetic polymorphisms in MicroRNA-related genes as predictors of clinical outcomes in colorectal adenocarcinoma patients. Clin Cancer Res 18: 3982-3991. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2951
![]() |
[20] |
Ryan BM, McClary AC, Valeri N, et al. (2012) rs4919510 in hsa-mir-608 is associated with outcome but not risk of colorectal cancer. PLoS One 7: e36306. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036306
![]() |
[21] | Wang R, Zhang J, Ma Y, et al. (2014) Association study of miR149 rs2292832 and miR608 rs4919510 and the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in a largescale population. Mol Med Rep 10: 2736-2744. |
[22] |
Zhang P, Wang J, Lu T, et al. (2015) miR-449b rs10061133 and miR-4293 rs12220909 polymorphisms are associated with decreased esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in a Chinese population. Tumour Biol 36: 8789-8795. doi: 10.1007/s13277-015-3422-2
![]() |
[23] | Morales S, Gulppi F, Gonzalez-Hormazabal P, et al. (2016) Association of single nucleotide polymorphisms in Pre-miR-27a, Pre-miR-196a2, Pre-miR-423, miR-608 and Pre-miR-618 with breast cancer susceptibility in a South American population. BMC Genet 17: 109. |
[24] | Ma XP, Yu G, Chen X, et al. (2016) MiR-608 rs4919510 is associated with prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Tumour Biol 2016: 1-12. |
[25] | Sclafani F, Chau I, Cunningham D, et al. (2016) Sequence Variation in Mature MicroRNA-608 and benefit from neo-adjuvant treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer patients. Carcinogenesis: bgw073. |
[26] | Jiang J, Jia ZF, Cao DH, et al. (2016) Association of the miR-146a rs2910164 polymorphism with gastric cancer susceptibility and prognosis. Future Oncol 0. |
[27] |
Yang PW, Huang YC, Hsieh CY, et al. (2014) Association of miRNA-related Genetic Polymorphisms and Prognosis in Patients with Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 21: 601-609. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3709-3
![]() |
[28] | Hashemi M, Sanaei S, Rezaei M, et al. (2016) miR-608 rs4919510 C>G polymorphism decreased the risk of breast cancer in an Iranian subpopulation. Exp Oncol 38: 57-59. |
[29] |
Qiu F, Yang L, Zhang L, et al. (2015) Polymorphism in mature microRNA-608 sequence is associated with an increased risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Gene 565: 180-186. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2015.04.008
![]() |
[30] |
Huang AJ, Yu KD, Li J, et al. (2012) Polymorphism rs4919510:C>G in mature sequence of human microRNA-608 contributes to the risk of HER2-positive breast cancer but not other subtypes. PLoS One 7: e35252. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035252
![]() |
[31] |
Dai ZM, Kang HF, Zhang WG, et al. (2016) The Associations of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms in miR196a2, miR-499, and miR-608 With Breast Cancer Susceptibility: A STROBE-Compliant Observational Study. Medicine (Baltimore) 95: e2826. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002826
![]() |
[32] |
Yin Z, Cui Z, Guan P, et al. (2015) Interaction between Polymorphisms in Pre-MiRNA Genes and Cooking Oil Fume Exposure on the Risk of Lung Cancer in Chinese Non-Smoking Female Population. PLoS One 10: e0128572. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128572
![]() |
[33] |
Yin Z, Cui Z, Ren Y, et al. (2016) Association between polymorphisms in pre-miRNA genes and risk of lung cancer in a Chinese non-smoking female population. Lung Cancer 94: 15-21. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2016.01.013
![]() |
[34] |
Kupcinskas J, Wex T, Link A, et al. (2014) Gene polymorphisms of micrornas in Helicobacter pylori-induced high risk atrophic gastritis and gastric cancer. PLoS One 9: e87467. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087467
![]() |
[35] |
Wang K, Liang Q, Wei L, et al. (2016) MicroRNA-608 acts as a prognostic marker and inhibits the cell proliferation in hepatocellular carcinoma by macrophage migration inhibitory factor. Tumour Biol 37: 3823-3830. doi: 10.1007/s13277-015-4213-5
![]() |
[36] |
Xing J, Wan S, Zhou F, et al. (2012) Genetic polymorphisms in pre-microRNA genes as prognostic markers of colorectal cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 21: 217-227. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0624
![]() |
[37] |
Pardini B, Rosa F, Naccarati A, et al. (2015) Polymorphisms in microRNA genes as predictors of clinical outcomes in colorectal cancer patients. Carcinogenesis 36: 82-86. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgu224
![]() |
[38] | Liu H, Zhou Y, Liu Q, et al. (2016) Association of miR-608 rs4919510 polymorphism and cancer risk: a meta-analysis based on 13,664 subjects. Oncotarget. |
[39] |
Rah H, Kim HS, Cha SH, et al. (2015) Association of breast cancer-related microRNA polymorphisms with idiopathic primary ovarian insufficiency. Menopause 22: 437-443. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000000325
![]() |
[40] | Li D, Zhu G, Di H, et al. (2016) Associations between genetic variants located in mature microRNAs and risk of lung cancer. Oncotarget. |
[41] |
Zhang Y, Schiff D, Park D, et al. (2014) MicroRNA-608 and microRNA-34a regulate chordoma malignancy by targeting EGFR, Bcl-xL and MET. PLoS One 9: e91546. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091546
![]() |
[42] | Hezaveh K, Kloetgen A, Bernhart SH, et al. (2016) Alterations of miRNAs and miRNA-regulated mRNA expression in GC B cell lymphomas determined by integrative sequencing analysis. Haematologica. |
[43] |
Marzec-Kotarska B, Cybulski M, Kotarski JC, et al. (2016) Molecular bases of aberrant miR-182 expression in ovarian cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 55: 877-889. doi: 10.1002/gcc.22387
![]() |