Processing math: 94%
Research article Special Issues

On the concentration–compactness principle for Folland–Stein spaces and for fractional horizontal Sobolev spaces

  • In this paper we establish some variants of the celebrated concentration–compactness principle of Lions – CC principle briefly – in the classical and fractional Folland–Stein spaces. In the first part of the paper, following the main ideas of the pioneering papers of Lions, we prove the CC principle and its variant, that is the CC principle at infinity of Chabrowski, in the classical Folland–Stein space, involving the Hardy–Sobolev embedding in the Heisenberg setting. In the second part, we extend the method to the fractional Folland–Stein space. The results proved here will be exploited in a forthcoming paper to obtain existence of solutions for local and nonlocal subelliptic equations in the Heisenberg group, involving critical nonlinearities and Hardy terms. Indeed, in this type of problems a triple loss of compactness occurs and the issue of finding solutions is deeply connected to the concentration phenomena taking place when considering sequences of approximated solutions.

    Citation: Patrizia Pucci, Letizia Temperini. On the concentration–compactness principle for Folland–Stein spaces and for fractional horizontal Sobolev spaces[J]. Mathematics in Engineering, 2023, 5(1): 1-21. doi: 10.3934/mine.2023007

    Related Papers:

    [1] Mattia Fogagnolo, Andrea Pinamonti . Strict starshapedness of solutions to the horizontal p-Laplacian in the Heisenberg group. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(6): 1-15. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021046
    [2] Daniela De Silva, Ovidiu Savin . On the boundary Harnack principle in Hölder domains. Mathematics in Engineering, 2022, 4(1): 1-12. doi: 10.3934/mine.2022004
    [3] Juan-Carlos Felipe-Navarro, Tomás Sanz-Perela . Semilinear integro-differential equations, Ⅱ: one-dimensional and saddle-shaped solutions to the Allen-Cahn equation. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(5): 1-36. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021037
    [4] Isabeau Birindelli, Kevin R. Payne . Principal eigenvalues for k-Hessian operators by maximum principle methods. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(3): 1-37. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021021
    [5] Emilio N. M. Cirillo, Giuseppe Saccomandi, Giulio Sciarra . Compact structures as true non-linear phenomena. Mathematics in Engineering, 2019, 1(3): 434-446. doi: 10.3934/mine.2019.3.434
    [6] Rupert L. Frank, Tobias König, Hynek Kovařík . Energy asymptotics in the Brezis–Nirenberg problem: The higher-dimensional case. Mathematics in Engineering, 2020, 2(1): 119-140. doi: 10.3934/mine.2020007
    [7] La-Su Mai, Suriguga . Local well-posedness of 1D degenerate drift diffusion equation. Mathematics in Engineering, 2024, 6(1): 155-172. doi: 10.3934/mine.2024007
    [8] María Ángeles García-Ferrero, Angkana Rüland . Strong unique continuation for the higher order fractional Laplacian. Mathematics in Engineering, 2019, 1(4): 715-774. doi: 10.3934/mine.2019.4.715
    [9] Konstantinos T. Gkikas . Nonlinear nonlocal equations involving subcritical or power nonlinearities and measure data. Mathematics in Engineering, 2024, 6(1): 45-80. doi: 10.3934/mine.2024003
    [10] Lucio Boccardo . Weak maximum principle for Dirichlet problems with convection or drift terms. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(3): 1-9. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021026
  • In this paper we establish some variants of the celebrated concentration–compactness principle of Lions – CC principle briefly – in the classical and fractional Folland–Stein spaces. In the first part of the paper, following the main ideas of the pioneering papers of Lions, we prove the CC principle and its variant, that is the CC principle at infinity of Chabrowski, in the classical Folland–Stein space, involving the Hardy–Sobolev embedding in the Heisenberg setting. In the second part, we extend the method to the fractional Folland–Stein space. The results proved here will be exploited in a forthcoming paper to obtain existence of solutions for local and nonlocal subelliptic equations in the Heisenberg group, involving critical nonlinearities and Hardy terms. Indeed, in this type of problems a triple loss of compactness occurs and the issue of finding solutions is deeply connected to the concentration phenomena taking place when considering sequences of approximated solutions.



    Dedicated to the memory of Professor Ireneo Peral, with high feelings of admiration for his notable contributions in Mathematics and great affection

    In recent years, geometric analysis and partial differential equations on the Heisenberg group have attracted great attention. In this article, we investigate some concentration–compactness results related to the Hardy–Sobolev embedding on the classical and fractional Folland–Stein spaces in the Heisenberg group. Before stating the main results, let us recall some relevant contributions in the topic.

    The Heisenberg group Hn is the Lie group which has R2n+1 as a background manifold and whose group structure is given by the non–Abelian law

    ξξ=(z+z,t+t+2ni=1(yixixiyi))

    for all ξ, ξHn, with

    ξ=(z,t)=(x1,,xn,y1,,yn,t)  and  ξ=(z,t)=(x1,,xn,y1,,yn,t).

    We denote by r the Korányi norm, defined as

    r(ξ)=r(z,t)=(|z|4+t2)1/4,

    with ξ=(z,t), z=(x,y)Rn×Rn, tR, and |z| the Euclidean norm in R2n.

    A key result, whose importance is also due to its connection with the CR Yamabe problem, is the subelliptic Sobolev embedding theorem in Hn, which is due to Folland and Stein [14]. This result is valid in the more general context of Carnot groups, but we state it in the set up of the Heisenberg group. If 1<p<Q, where Q=2n+2 is the homogeneous dimension of the Heisenberg group Hn, we know by [14] that there exists a positive constant C=C(p,Q) such that

    Hn|φ|pdξCHn|DHφ|pHdξfor allφCc(Hn),p=pQQp, (1.1)

    and p is the critical exponent related to p. Moreover, the vector

    DHu=(X1u,,Xnu,Y1u,,Ynu)

    is the horizontal gradient of a regular function u, where {Xj,Yj}nj=1 is the basis of horizontal left invariant vector fields on Hn, that is

    Xj=xj+2yjt,Yj=yj2xjt,j=1,,n. (1.2)

    Unlike the Euclidean case, cf. [34] and [2], the value of the best constant in (1.1) is unknown. In the particular case p=2, the problem of the determination of the best constant in (1.1) is related to the CR Yamabe problem and it has been solved by the works of Jerison and Lee [21,22,23,24]. In the general case, existence of extremal functions of (1.1) was proved by Vassilev in [35] via the concentration–compactness method of Lions, see also [20]. This method does not allow an explicit determination of the best constant Cp of (1.1). However, we know from [35] that Cp is achieved in the Folland–Stein space S1,p(Hn), which is defined, for 1<p<Q, as the completion of Cc(Hn) with respect to the norm

    DHup=(Hn|DHu|pHdξ)1/p.

    Thus, we can write the best constant Cp of the Folland–Stein inequality (1.1) as

    Cp=infuS1,p(Hn)u0DHuppupp. (1.3)

    Note that the Euler–Lagrange equation of the nonnegative extremals of (1.1) leads to the critical equation

    ΔH,pu=|u|p2u in Hn,

    where the operator ΔH,p is the well known p Kohn–Spencer Laplacian, which is defined as

    ΔH,pφ=divH(|DHφ|p2HDHφ),

    for all φC2(Hn).

    The study of critical equations is deeply connected to the concentration phenomena, which occur when considering sequences of approximated solutions. Indeed, given a weakly convergent sequence (uk)k in S1,p(Hn), we can infer that (uk)k is bounded in Lp(Hn), but we do not have compactness properties in general. On the other hand, we know that the sequences μk=|DHu|pHdξ and νk=|uk|pdξ weak converge to some measures μ and ν in the dual space M(Hn) of all real valued, finite, signed Radon measures on Hn. An essential step in the concentration–compactness method is the study of the exact behavior of the limit measures in the space M(Hn) and in the spirit of Lions. In particular, following [25,26], Ivanov and Vassilev in [20] proved the following result.

    Theorem A (Lemma 1.4.5, Ivanov and Vassilev [20]). Let (uk)k be a sequence in S1,p(Hn) such that uku in S1,p(Hn) and |uk|pdξν, |DHuk|pHdξμ in M(Hn), for some appropriate uS1,p(Hn), and finite nonnegative Radon measures μ, ν on Hn.

    Then, there exist an at most countable set J, a family of points {ξj}jJHn and two families of nonnegative numbers {μj}jJ and {νj}jJ such that

    ν=|u|pdξ+jJνjδξj,μ|DHu|pHdξ+jJμjδξjνp/pjμjCpforalljJ,

    where δξj are the Dirac functions at the points ξj of Hn.

    The aim of this paper is to extend Theorem A in two different ways. First, we want to prove a version of Theorem A suitable to deal with a combined Hardy and Sobolev embedding. Indeed, following [16], we set

    ψ(ξ)=|DHr(ξ)|H=|z|r(ξ) for ξ=(z,t)(0,0).

    Assume from now on that 1<p<Q and let φCc(Hn{O}). Then, the Hardy inequality in the Heisenberg group states as follows

    Hn|φ|pψpdξrp(pQp)pHn|DHφ|pHdξ. (1.4)

    Inequality (1.4) was obtained by Garofalo and Lanconelli in [16] when p=2 and then extended to all p>1 in [7,29]. When p=2, the optimality of the constant (2/(Q2))2 is shown in [18]. Let us also mention that a sharp inequality of type (1.4) has been derived in general Carnot–Carathéodory spaces by Danielli, Garofalo and Phuc in [8].

    Obviously, inequality (1.4) remains valid in S1,p(Hn). Moreover, inequalities (1.1) and (1.4) imply that for any σ(,Hp) the following best constant is well defined

    Iσ=infuS1,p(Hn)u0DHuppσupHpupp, (1.5)

    where

    Hp=infuS1,p(Hn)u0DHuppupHp,upHp=Hn|u|pψprpdξ. (1.6)

    Note that, when σ=0, we recover the Sobolev embedding, that is I0=Cp. However, the Hardy embedding S1,p(Hn)Lp(Hn,ψprpdξ) is continuous, but not compact, even locally in any neighborhood of O, where O=(0,0) denotes the origin of Hn. A challenging problem is then to provide sufficient conditions for the existence of a nontrivial solution to critical equations with Hardy terms in the whole space Hn, when a triple loss of compactness takes place. To overcome this difficulty, we prove in Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2 some versions of the concentration–compactness principle for related to the embedding (1.5).

    Theorem 1.1. Let σ(,Hp) and let (uk)k be a sequence in S1,p(Hn) such that uku in S1,p(Hn), and|uk|pdξν, |DHuk|pHdξμ, |uk|pψpdξr(ξ)pω in M(Hn), for some appropriateuS1,p(Hn), and finite nonnegative Radon measures μ, ν, ω on Hn.

    Then, there exist an at most countable set J, a family of points {ξj}jJHn, two families of nonnegative numbers {μj}jJ and {νj}jJ and three nonnegative numbers ν0,μ0,ω0, such that

    ν=|u|pdξ+ν0δO+jJνjδξj, (1.7)
    μ|DHu|pHdξ+μ0δO+jJμjδξj, (1.8)
    ω=|u|pψpdξr(ξ)p+ω0δO, (1.9)
    νp/pjμjCpforalljJ,νp/p0μ0σω0Iσ, (1.10)

    whereCp=I0 and Iσ are defined in (1.3) and (1.5), while δO,δξj are the Dirac functions at the points O and ξj of Hn, respectively.

    Theorem 1.1 extends Theorem A and also Theorem 1.2 of [5] to the case of unbounded domains, see also [20,31,32]. The strategy is the same as the one in the seminal papers of Lions [25,26], but there are some complications due to the non Euclidean context.

    The whole Heisenberg group is endowed with noncompact families of dilations and translations, which could provide a loss of compactness due to the drifting towards infinity of the mass, or – in other words – the concentration at infinity. In order to deal with this type of phenomena, we prove a variant of the concentration–compactness principle of Lions, that is the concentration–compactness principle at infinity. This variant was introduced by Bianchi, Chabrowski and Szulkin in [3,6] and we prove an extension of their results suitable to deal with critical Hardy equations in the Heisenberg group.

    Denote by BR(ξ) the Korányi open ball of radius R centered at ξ. For simplicity BR is the ball of radius R centered at ξ=O.

    Theorem 1.2. Let (uk)k be a sequence in S1,p(Hn) as in Theorem 1.1 and define

    ν=limRlim supkBcR|uk|pdξ,μ=limRlim supkBcR|DHuk|pHdξ, (1.11)
    ω=limRlim supkBcR|uk|pψpdξr(ξ)p. (1.12)

    Then,

    lim supkHn|uk|pdξ=ν(Hn)+ν,lim supkHn|DHuk|pHdξ=μ(Hn)+μ, (1.13)
    lim supkHn|uk|pψpdξr(ξ)p=ω(Hn)+ω,νp/pμσωIσ, (1.14)

    where μ,ν,ω are the measures introduced in Theorem 1.1.

    In the second part of the paper, we want to extend the previous results to the fractional case. Let 0<s<1 and 1<p<. We define the fractional Sobolev space HWs,p(Hn) as the completion of Cc(Hn) with respect to the norm

    HWs,p(Hn)=Lp(Hn)+[]H,s,p,

    where

    [φ]H,s,p=(Hn×Hn|φ(ξ)φ(η)|pr(η1ξ)Q+spdξdη)1/palong anyφCc(Hn). (1.15)

    The fractional Sobolev embedding in the Heinseberg group was obtained in [1] following the lines of [9] and states as follows. If sp<Q, then there exists a constant Cps depending on p,Q and s such that

    φppsCps[φ]pH,s,pfor allφCc(Hn),ps=pQQsp. (1.16)

    The proof of the above inequality is obtained directly, by extending the method of [9] to the Heisenberg context.

    For notational simplicity, the fractional (s,p) horizontal gradient of any function uHWs,p(Hn) is denoted by

    |DsHu|p(ξ)=Hn|u(ξ)u(η)|pr(η1ξ)Q+psdη=Hn|u(ξh)u(ξ)|pr(h)Q+psdh. (1.17)

    Note that the (s,p) horizontal gradient of a function uHWs,p(Hn) is well defined a.e. in Hn and |DsHu|pL1(Hn) thanks to Tonelli's theorem.

    From now on we fix 0<s<1, 1<p< with sp<Q. Then, the following result holds true.

    Theorem 1.3. Let (uk)k be a sequence in HWs,p(Hn) such that uku in HWs,p(Hn), and furthermore|uk|psdξν, |DsHuk|pdξμ, in M(Hn), for some appropriateuHW1,p(Hn), and finite nonnegative Radon measures μ, ν on Hn.

    Then, there exist an at most countable set J, a family of points {ξj}jJHn, two families of nonnegative numbers {μj}jJ and {νj}jJsuch that

    ν=|u|psdξ+jJνjδξj,μ|DsHu|pdξ+jJμjδξj, (1.18)
    νp/psjμjCpsforalljJ, (1.19)

    where the constant Cps is defined in (1.16).

    In the Euclidean setting, the first extension of the CC method in the fractional Sobolev spaces was obtained in [30] for p=2 and then in [28] for any p, with 1<p<N/s. We also refer to [4,10,12] for similar results in this context and to [33] for the vectorial fractional Sobolev spaces.

    In Theorem 1.3 we extend the previous results from the Euclidean setting to the Heisenberg environment and we also widen Theorem A from the local case to the fractional setup. To the best of our knowledge Theorem 1.3 is the first extension of the method in the fractional Sobolev space in Heisenberg group.

    Actually, the strategy is the same as the one in the seminal papers of Lions [25,26], but there are several complications due to both the nonlocal and the subelliptic context. In order to overcome these difficulties, we employ the crucial Lemmas 4.4 and 4.5, proved using the key Lemma 4.2 and Corollary 4.3. To enter into details, the latter results give precise decay estimates and scaling properties for the fractional (s,p) horizontal gradients of functions of class Cc(Hn), with respect to the intrinsic family of dilations δR.

    The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we recall some fundamental definitions and properties related to the Heisenberg group Hn. Section 3 is devoted to the proof of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2, while the final Section 4 deals with the proof of Theorem 1.3, based on some preliminary lemmas.

    In this section we present the basic properties of Hn as a Lie group. For a complete treatment, we refer to [13,16,17,20,35]. Let Hn be the Heisenberg group of topological dimension 2n+1, that is the Lie group which has R2n+1 as a background manifold and whose group structure is given by the non–Abelian law

    ξξ=(z+z,t+t+2ni=1(yixixiyi))

    for all ξ, ξHn, with

    ξ=(z,t)=(x1,,xn,y1,,yn,t)andξ=(z,t)=(x1,,xn,y1,,yn,t).

    The inverse is given by ξ1=ξ and so (ξξ)1=(ξ)1ξ1.

    The real Lie algebra of Hn is generated by the left–invariant vector fields on Hn

    Xj=xj+2yjt,Yj=yj2xjt,T=t,

    for j=1,,n. This basis satisfies the Heisenberg canonical commutation relations

    [Xj,Yk]=4δjkT,[Yj,Yk]=[Xj,Xk]=[Yj,T]=[Xj,T]=0.

    Moreover, all the commutators of length greater than two vanish, and so Hn is a nilpotent graded stratified group of step two. A left invariant vector field X, which is in the span of {Xj,Yj}nj=1, is called horizontal.

    For each real positive number R, the dilation δR:HnHn, naturally associated with the Heisenberg group structure, is defined by

    δR(ξ)=(Rz,R2t)for all ξ=(z,t)Hn.

    It is easy to verify that the Jacobian determinant of the dilatation δR is constant and equal to R2n+2, where the natural number Q=2n+2 is the homogeneous dimension of Hn.

    The anisotropic dilation structure on Hn introduces the Korányi norm, which is given by

    r(ξ)=r(z,t)=(|z|4+t2)1/4for all ξ=(z,t)Hn.

    Consequently, the Korányi norm is homogeneous of degree 1, with respect to the dilations δR, R>0, that is

    r(δR(ξ))=r(Rz,R2t)=(|Rz|4+R4t2)1/4=Rr(ξ)for all ξ=(z,t)Hn.

    Clearly, δR(ηξ)=δR(η)δR(ξ). The corresponding distance, the so called Korányi distance, is

    dK(ξ,ξ)=r(ξ1ξ)for all (ξ,ξ)Hn×Hn.

    Let BR(ξ0)={ξHn:dK(ξ,ξ0)<R} be the Korányi open ball of radius R centered at ξ0. For simplicity we put BR=BR(O), where O=(0,0) is the natural origin of Hn.

    The Lebesgue measure on R2n+1 is invariant under the left translations of the Heisenberg group. Thus, since the Haar measures on Lie groups are unique up to constant multipliers, we denote by dξ the Haar measure on Hn that coincides with the (2n+1)–Lebesgue measure and by |U| the (2n+1)–dimensional Lebesgue measure of any measurable set UHn. Furthermore, the Haar measure on Hn is Q–homogeneous with respect to dilations δR. Consequently,

    |δR(U)|=RQ|U|,d(δRξ)=RQdξ.

    In particular, |BR(ξ0)|=|B1|RQ for all ξ0Hn.

    We define the horizontal gradient of a C1 function u:HnR by

    DHu=nj=1[(Xju)Xj+(Yju)Yj].

    Clearly, DHuspan{Xj,Yj}nj=1. In span{Xj,Yj}nj=1R2n we consider the natural inner product given by

    (X,Y)H=nj=1(xjyj+˜xj˜yj)

    for X={xjXj+˜xjYj}nj=1 and Y={yjXj+˜yjYj}nj=1. The inner product (,)H produces the Hilbertian norm

    |X|H=(X,X)H

    for the horizontal vector field X.

    For any horizontal vector field function X=X(ξ), X={xjXj+˜xjYj}nj=1, of class C1(Hn,R2n), we define the horizontal divergence of X by

    divHX=nj=1[Xj(xj)+Yj(˜xj)].

    Similarly, if uC2(Hn), then the Kohn–Spencer Laplacian in Hn, or equivalently the horizontal Laplacian, or the sub–Laplacian, of u is

    ΔHu=nj=1(X2j+Y2j)u=nj=1(2x2j+2y2j+4yj2xjt4xj2yjt)u+4|z|22ut2.

    According to the celebrated Theorem 1.1 due to Hörmander in [19], the operator ΔH is hypoelliptic. In particular, ΔHu=divHDHu for each uC2(Hn). A well known generalization of the Kohn–Spencer Laplacian is the horizontal p–Laplacian on the Heisenberg group, p(1,), defined by

    ΔH,pφ=divH(|DHφ|p2HDHφ) for all φCc(Hn).

    Let us now review some useful facts about the classical Sobolev spaces on the Heisenberg group Hn. We just consider the special case in which 1p<Q and Ω is an open set in Hn. Denote by HW1,p(Ω) the horizontal Sobolev space consisting of the functions uLp(Ω) such that DHu exists in the sense of distributions and |DHu|HLp(Ω), endowed with the natural norm

    uHW1,p(Ω)=(upLp(Ω)+DHupLp(Ω))1/p,DHuLp(Ω)=(Ω|DHu|pHdξ)1/p.

    By [14] we know that if 1p<Q, then the embedding

    HW1,p(Ω)Ls(Ω) for all s[p,p],p=pQQp,

    is continuous.

    Let us also briefly recall a version of the Rellich theorem in the Heisenberg group. This topic is largely treated in [13,16,17,20] for vector fields satisfying the Hörmander condition. The general Hörmander vector fields have been introduced in [19] and include, as a special case, the horizontal vector fields (1.2) on the Heisenberg group. For our purposes it is sufficient to recall that for any p, with 1p<Q, and for any Korányi ball BR(ξ0), the embedding

    HW1,p(BR(ξ0))↪↪Lq(BR(ξ0)) (2.1)

    is compact, provided that 1q<p. This result holds, more in general, for bounded Poincaré–Sobolev domains Ω of Hn and was first established in [27], even for general Hörmander vector fields. For a complete treatment on this topic we mention, e.g., [16,20,25].

    Let s(0,1) and 1<p<. We endow HWs,p(Hn), defined in the Introduction, with the norm

    HWs,p(Hn)=p+[]H,s,p.

    Our aim is to prove the compactness of the immersion HWs,p(Hn)Lp(BR(ξ0)) for all ξ0Hn and R>0. The proof relies on a Lie group version of the celebrated Frèchet–Kolmogorov Compactness Theorem, cf. Theorem A.4.1 of [11]. First, we need the following lemma.

    Lemma 2.1. Let 0<s<1, 1<p<.Then, there exists a constant C=C(s,p,n)>0 such that for any hHn, with 0<r(h)<1/2,

    τhuupCr(h)s[u]H,s,pforalluHWs,p(Hn),

    where τhu(ξ)=u(hξ) for ξHn.

    Proof. Fix uHWs,p(Hn), hHn, with 0<r(h)<1/2, and ξHn. Take any ηB(ξ,r(h)). Let us first observe that r(η1ξ)r(h), so that r(η1hξ)r(η1ξ)+r(h)2r(h) by the triangle inequality. Then,

    |τhu(ξ)u(ξ)|p2p1(|u(hξ)u(η)|p+|u(η)u(ξ)|p).

    Now, averaging in η over B(ξ,r(h)), we get

    |τhu(ξ)u(ξ)|pc(1r(h)QB(ξ,r(h))|u(hξ)u(η)|pdη+1r(h)QB(ξ,r(h))|u(η)u(ξ)|pdη),

    with c=c(s,p,n). Thus, integrating in ξ over Hn, we obtain

    τhuupcr(h)sp(HnB(ξ,r(h))|u(hξ)u(η)|pr(h)Q+spdηdξ+HnB(ξ,r(h))|u(η)u(ξ)|pr(h)Q+spdηdξ)2cr(h)sp(HnB(ξ,r(h))|u(hξ)u(η)|pr(η1hξ)Q+spdηdξ+HnB(ξ,r(h))|u(η)u(ξ)|pr(η1ξ)Q+spdηdξ)Cr(h)sp[u]H,s,p,

    with C=4c.

    Theorem 2.2. Let 0<s<1 and 1<p<. Then, for every sequence (uk)k bounded in HWs,p(Hn) there exists uHWs,p(Hn) and a subsequence (ukj)j(uk)k such thatfor all ξ0Hn and R>0

    ukjuinLp(BR(ξ0))asj.

    Proof. Let M=supkNukHWs,p(Hn). Clearly, if (uk)k is bounded in HWs,p(Hn), then is also bounded in Lp(Hn). Moreover, by Lemma 2.1, we know that

    τhukukpCr(h)s[uk]H,s,pCMr(h)s.

    Consequently,

    limhOsupkNτhukukp=0.

    Therefore, a Lie group version of the Fréchet–Kolmogorov theorem, cf. Theorem A.4.1 of [11], yields the existence of a function uLp(Hn) and a subsequence of (uk)k, still denoted (uk)k, such that uku a.e. in Hn and uku in Lp(BR(ξ0)) for all ξ0Hn and R>0.

    It remains to prove that uHWs,p(Hn). This follows straightly from an application of Fatou's Lemma. Indeed,

    0limk|uk(η)uk(ξ)|pr(η1ξ)Q+sp=|u(η)u(ξ)|pr(η1ξ)Q+sp for a.e. (ξ,η)Hn×Hn.

    Consequently, Fatou's Lemma, together with the lower semicontinuity of []H,s,p, gives

    [u]H,s,plimk[uk]H,s,psupkN[uk]H,s,p<.

    This concludes the proof.

    This section is devoted to the proof of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2.

    Proof of Theorem 1.1. Let (uk)k be a sequence in S1,p(Hn) as in the statement of the theorem. Obviously, (1.7), (1.8) and the first part of (1.10) follow from Theorem A, see [20]. Thus, there is no reason to repeat the proof here. Let us then focus on the proof of (1.9). We proceed diving the argument into two cases.

    Case 1. u=0. Fix φCc(Hn). Then, since clearly φukS1,p(Hn) for all k, we get by (1.6)

    HpφukpHpHn|φ|p|DHuk|pHdξ+DHφukpp. (3.1)

    Now, by the subelliptic Rellich Theorem, see (2.1), we know that uk0 in Lp(BR) for all R>0. Therefore,

    limkDHφukp=0. (3.2)

    Consequently, by the weak convergence and (3.2), letting k, we obtain

    (Hn|φ|pdω)1/pH1/pp(Hn|φ|pdμ)1/pfor all φCc(Hn).

    Thus, by Lemma 1.4.6 of [20], we conclude that there exist an at most countable set J, a family of points {ξj}jJHn and a family of nonnegative numbers {ωj}jJ{0}, such that

    ω=ω0δO+jJωjδξj. (3.3)

    Clearly, the set J determined in (3.3) is not necessary the same of the one obtained in the representation of ν. However, since the coefficients νj,μj,ωj are allowed to be 0, we can replace these two sets with their union (which is still at most countable). For this reason we keep the same notation J for the index set.

    In order to conclude the proof of (1.9) on Case 1, it remains to show that ω is concentrated at O, namely that ωj=0 for any jJ. But this is obvious. Indeed, fix φCc(Hn), with Osuppφ, so that ξ|φ(ξ)|pψpr(ξ)p is in L(suppφ). Then, since obviously uk0 in Lp(suppφ), we get

    Hn|φ|p|uk|pψpdξr(ξ)p=suppφ|φ|p|uk|pψpdξr(ξ)pCsuppφ|uk|pdξ0

    as k. This, combined with the weak convergence, gives Hn|φ|pdω=0, that is ω is a measure concentrated in O. Hence ω=ω0δO, and so (1.9) in proved in Case 1.

    Case 2. u0. Set ˜uk=uku. Clearly, ˜uk0 in S1,p(Hn) and (3.1) still holds for φ˜uk for any φCc(Hn). Moreover, thanks to Case 1, there exists a finite nonnegative Radon measure ˜ω on Hn, such that, up to a subsequence still labelled (˜uk)k, we have as k

    |˜uk|pψpdξr(ξ)p˜ωin M(Hn), (3.4)

    where

    ˜ω=ω0δO, (3.5)

    and ω0 is an appropriate nonnegative number as shown in Case 1. Now, by (2.1), up to a subsequence,

    ukua.e. in Hn,|uk|gRa.e. in Hn

    for some gRLp(BR) and all R>0. Thus, for all φCc(Hn) an application of Brézis–Lieb lemma yields

    limk(φukpHpφ~ukpHp)=φupHp.

    A combination of the above formulas gives for all φCc(Hn)

    |uk|pψpdξr(ξ)p|u|pψpdξr(ξ)p=|uku|pψpdξr(ξ)po(1), (3.6)

    where o(1)0 in M(Hn). Then, computing the limit in (3.6), by the weak convergence and (3.4), we get ˜ω=ω|uku|pψpdξr(ξ)p. Consequently, taking into account (3.5), we obtain (1.9).

    It remains to prove that νp/p0(μ0σω0)/Iσ. Fix φCc(Hn) such that 0φ1, φ(O)=1 and supp φ=¯B1. Take ε>0 and put φε(ξ)=φ(δ1/ε(ξ)), ξHn. Then,

    Iσ(Hn|φε|p|uk|pdξ)p/pHn|φε|p|DHuk|pHdξ+DHφεukppσHn|φε|p|uk|pψpdξr(ξ)p=Hn|φε|p|DHuk|pHdξ+o(1)σHn|φε|p|uk|pψpdξr(ξ)p, (3.7)

    arguing as before. Now, we know that

    limε0+limkHn|φε|p|uk|pdξ=ν0, (3.8)

    and

    limε0+limkHn|φε|p|DHuk|pHdξ=μ0. (3.9)

    Finally, from (1.9) and the fact that ωω0δO we get

    limε0+limkHn|φε|p|uk|pψpdξr(ξ)p=limε0+Bε|φε|pdωω0. (3.10)

    Hence, passing to the limit as k and ε0+ in (3.7), by (3.8)–(3.10) we obtain that

    Iσνp/p0μ0σω0.

    This concludes the proof.

    In Theorem 1.1 we examine the behavior of weakly convergent sequences in the Folland–Stein space in situations in which the lack of compactness occurs. However, this method does not exclude a possible loss of compactness due to the drifting towards infinity of the mass, or – in other words – the concentration at infinity. Let us then turn to the proof of the concentration–compactness principle at infinity, which extend the method introduced in the Euclidean setting in [3,6].

    Proof of Theorem 1.2. Fix a sequence (uk)k in S1,p(Hn), as in the statement of the Theorem 1.1.

    Let ΨC(Hn) be such that 0Ψ1, Ψ=0 in B1 and Ψ=1 in Bc2. Take R>0 and put ΨR(ξ)=Ψ(δ1/R(ξ)), ξHn. Write

    Hn|DHuk|pHdξ=Hn|DHuk|pH|ΨR|pdξ+Hn|DHuk|pH(1|ΨR|p)dξ. (3.11)

    We first observe that

    Bc2R|DHuk|pHdξHn|DHuk|pH|ΨR|pdξBcR|DHuk|pHdξ

    and so by (1.11)

    μ=limRlim supkHn|DHuk|pH|ΨR|pdξ. (3.12)

    On the other hand, since μ is finite, 1|ΨR|p has compact support and ΨR0 a.e. in Hn, we have by the definition of μ and the dominated convergence theorem that

    limRlim supkHn|DHuk|pH(1|ΨR|p)dξ=limRHn(1|ΨR|p)dμ=μ(Hn). (3.13)

    Using (3.12) and (3.13) in (3.11) we obtain the second part of (1.13). Arguing similarly for ν and ω, we see that

    ν=limRlim supkHn|ΨR|p|uk|pdξ,ω=limRlim supkHn|ΨR|p|uk|pψpdξr(ξ)p, (3.14)

    and

    limRlim supkHn(1|ΨR|p)|uk|pdξ=ν(Hn),limRlim supkHn(1|ΨR|p)|uk|pψpdξr(ξ)p=ω(Hn).

    Thus, (1.13)–(1.14) are proved in the same way.

    In order to show the last part of (1.14), let us consider again the regular function ΨR. Then, since 0ΨR1, by (1.5) applied to ΨRukS1,p(Hn), we get for all k

    Iσ(Hn|ΨR|p|uk|pdξ)p/pHn|ΨR|p|DHuk|pHdξ+DHΨRukppσHn|ΨR|p|uk|pψpdξr(ξ)p. (3.15)

    Finally, from the fact that limRlim supkDHΨRukpp=0, using (3.12) and (3.14) in (3.15) we obtain the desired conclusion.

    This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 1.3. Before getting there, we need some preliminary results.

    Lemma 4.1. Let φCc(Hn), ε>0 and ξ0Hn. Define Hnξφε(ξ)=φ(δ1/ε(ξ10ξ)). Then,

    |DsHφε(ξ)|p=1εsp|DsHφ(δ1/ε(ξ10ξ))|p.

    Proof. Fix φCc(Hn), ε>0 and ξ0Hn. The proof is a simple consequence of the change of variables formula. Indeed, if we put η=δ1/ε(h), dη=εQdh, then

    |DsHφε(ξ)|p=Hn|φε(ξh)φε(ξ)|pr(h)Q+psdh=Hn|φ(δ1/ε(ξ10ξh))φ(δ1/ε(ξ10ξ))|pr(h)Q+psdh=Hn|φ(δ1/ε(ξ10ξ)δ1/ε(h))φ(δ1/ε(ξ10ξ))|pr(h)Q+psdh=1εspHn|φ(δ1/ε(ξ10ξη)φ(δ1/ε(ξ10ξ))|pr(η)Q+psdη,

    as required thanks to (1.17).

    Note that, in general, the nonlocal (s,p) horizontal gradient of a compactly supported function does not need to have compact support. For this, we use the following lemma, which gives valuable decay estimates of the fractional (s,p) horizontal gradient of a Cc(Hn) function as r(ξ). The next lemma is an extension of Lemma 2.2 of [4] to the Heisenberg setting.

    Lemma 4.2. Let φCc(Hn) be such that 0φ1, suppφBR for some R>0.Then, there exists a constant C=C(s,p,n) such that for any ξHn

    |DsHφ(ξ)|pCmin{1,RQr(ξ)(Q+sp)}.

    In particular, |DsHφ|pL(Hn).

    Proof. Let us first prove the global L bound. Consider for any ξHn

    |Dsφ(ξ)|p=Hn|φ(ξh)φ(ξ)|pr(h)Q+psdh=(B1+Bc1)|φ(ξh)φ(ξ)|pr(h)Q+psdh

    and compute separately the last two integrals. By the mean value theorem and [14]

    B1|φ(ξh)φ(ξ)|pr(h)Q+psdhC1B11r(h)Q+sppdhC2,

    since Q+spp<Q. On the other hand,

    Bc1|φ(ξh)φ(ξ)|pr(h)Q+psdh2pφpBc11r(h)Q+spdhC3,

    being obviously Q+sp>Q. Now, consider ξHn with r(ξ)2R. Clearly, φ(ξ)=0 and so

    |Dsφ(ξ)|p=Hn|φ(ξh)|pr(h)Q+psdh=r(ξh)<R|φ(ξh)|pr(h)Q+psdh.

    Now, if r(ξh)<R and r(ξ)>2R, then r(ξ)r(h)r(ξh) so that r(h)r(ξ)Rr(ξ)/2. Therefore,

    |Dsφ(ξ)|p2Q+spr(ξ)Q+spφpr(ξh)<RdhCRQr(ξ)(Q+sp).

    This concludes the proof of the lemma.

    Combining Lemma 4.1 and Lemma 4.2, we obtain the following.

    Corollary 4.3. Let φCc(Hn) be such that 0φ1 and suppφB1. Let ξ0Hn and define Hnξφε(ξ)=φ(δ1/ε(ξ10ξ)). Then, there exists a constant C=C(s,p,n) such that for any ξHn

    |DsHφε(ξ)|pCmin{εsp,εQr(ξ)(Q+sp)}.

    Using the previous estimates, we are able to prove the next result, which is an extension of Lemma 2.4 of [4] to the Heisenberg context.

    Lemma 4.4. Let φCc(Hn).Then, the following embedding is compact

    HWs,p(Hn)↪↪Lp(Hn,|DsHφ|pdξ).

    Proof. Let (uk)k be a bounded sequence in HWs,p(Hn), say supkukHWs,p(Hn)M, with M>0. From the reflexivity of HWs,p(Hn) and Theorem 2.2, there exist uHWs,p(Hn) and a subsequence, still denoted by (uk)k, such that

    uku in HWs,p(Hn),ukuLp(BR)for any R>0. (4.1)

    Fix R>0 so large that suppφBR. Certainly,

    Hn|uk(ξ)u(ξ)|p|DsHφ(ξ)|pdξ=(B2R+Bc2R)|uk(ξ)u(ξ)|p|DsHφ(ξ)|pdξ.

    Now, from Lemma 4.2 and (4.1)

    B2R|uk(ξ)u(ξ)|p|DsHφ(ξ)|pdξDsHφpB2R|uk(ξ)u(ξ)|pdξ=o(1) (4.2)

    as k. On the other hand, using (1.16) and the Hölder inequality with q=ps/p=Q/(Qsp) and q=Q/sp, we get by Lemma 4.2

    Bc2R|uk(ξ)u(ξ)|p|DsHφ(ξ)|pdξukupps(Bc2R|Hn|φ(ξh)φ(ξ)|pr(h)Q+psdh|Q/sdξ)sp/Q2p21φp2(ukpps+upps)(Bc2Rdξr(ξ)Q(1+Q/sp))sp/QC(Bc2Rdξr(ξ)Q(1+Q/sp))sp/Q (4.3)

    where C=2p2φp2Mp. Now, for any τ>0 we can choose R>0 ever larger, if necessary, so that

    (Bc2Rdξr(ξ)Q(1+Q/sp))sp/Q<τC.

    Finally, by (4.2) and (4.3), we obtain

    lim supkHn|uk(ξ)u(ξ)|p|DsHφ(ξ)|pdξτ

    for all τ>0. Sending τ0+ we get the desired conclusion.

    The proof of the next lemma is based on the precise decay rate of |DsHφε|p, cf. Corollary 4.3. The main difficulty here, as we already pointed out in the Introduction, is based essentially on the fact that the nonlocal (s,p) horizontal gradient |DsHφε|p does not need to have compact support. The proof uses the same strategy of Lemma 4.4, which is effective thanks to the decay estimates given in Lemma 4.1 and Corollary 4.3.

    Lemma 4.5. Let (uk)k be a bounded sequence in HWs,p(Hn) and let φCc(Hn) besuch that 0φ1, φ(O)=1 andsupp φB1. Take ε>0, fix ξ0Hn and putHnξφε(ξ)=φ(δ1/ε(ξ10ξ)). Then

    limε0+lim supkHn|DsHφε|p|uk|pdξ=0.

    Proof. Let (uk)k be a bounded sequence in HWs,p(Hn), say supkukHWs,p(Hn)=M. From the reflexivity of HWs,p(Hn) and Theorem 2.2, there exist uHWs,p(Hn) and a subsequence, still denoted by (uk)k, such that

    uku in HWs,p(Hn),uku in Lp(BR(ξ0)), (4.4)

    for any R>0 and ξ0Hn. Clearly,

    Hn|DsHφε|p|uk|pdξ=(Bε(ξ0)+Bcε(ξ0))|DsHφε|p|uk|pdξ.

    Let us first estimate the integral over Bε(ξ0). By Corollary 4.3 there exists C=C(s,p,n)>0 such that

    lim supkBε(ξ0)|DsHφε|p|uk|pdξClim supkεspBε(ξ0)|uk|p=CεspBε(ξ0)|u|pdξε0+0 (4.5)

    thanks to (4.4) and the Lebesgue theorem, being sp<Q.

    Now we turn to the integral over Bcε(ξ0). Using the Hölder inequality with q=ps/p=Q/(Qsp) and q=Q/sp, and again Corollary 4.3, we get

    Bcε(ξ0)|DsHφε|p|uk|pdξukpps(Bcε(ξ0)|DsHφε(ξ)|Q/sdξ)sp/QCMpεQ(Bcεdξr(ξ)Q(1+Q/sp))sp/QCMp|B1|sp/QεQ(εQ(1Q/sp))sp/Q=CMp|B1|sp/Qεsp.

    Therefore, it follows that

    lim supkBcε|DsHφε|p|uk|pdξCMp|B1|sp/Qεsp. (4.6)

    Finally, using (4.5) and (4.6), we conclude

    limε0+lim supkHn|DsHφε,j|p|uk|pdξlimε0+(CεspBε(ξ0)|u|pdξ+CMp|B1|sp/Qεsp)=0,

    as required.

    Lemma 4.5 extends to the Heisenberg case a remark given in the proof of Theorem 1.1 of [4], stated in the Euclidean framework.

    Proof of Theorem 1.3. Let (uk)k be a sequence in HWs,p(Hn), as in the statement of the theorem, and let us divide the proof into two cases.

    Case 1. u=0. Fix φCc(Hn). Then, an application of Lemma 4.4 immediately yields

    Hn×Hn|uk(ξ)|p|φ(ξ)φ(η)|pr(η1ξ)Q+spdξdη=o(1),

    as k. Consequently, since φukHWs,p(Hn) for all k, we get

    Cps(Hn|φ|ps|uk|psdξ)p/ps[φuk]pH,s,p=(Hn×Hn|(φuk)(ξ)(φuk)(η)|pr(η1ξ)Q+spdξdη)2p1(Hn×Hn|φ(η)|p|uk(ξ)uk(η)|pr(η1ξ)Q+spdξdη+Hn×Hn|uk(ξ)|p|φ(ξ)φ(η)|pr(η1ξ)Q+spdξdη)2p1Hn|φ|p|DsHuk|pdξ+o(1) (4.7)

    as k. Therefore, passing to the limit in (4.7), by the weak convergence we have the following reverse Hölder inequality

    (Hn|φ|psdν)1/psC(Hn|φ|pdμ)1/qfor all φCc(Hn).

    Thus, by Lemma 1.4.6 of [20], we conclude that there exist an at most countable set J, a family of points {ξj}jJHn and a family of nonnegative numbers {νj}jJ such that

    ν=jJνjδξj (4.8)

    Case 2. u0. Set ˜uk=uku. Clearly, ˜uk0 in HWs,p(Hn) and (4.7) still holds for φ˜uk for any φCc(Hn). Moreover, k|˜uk|psdξ and k|DsH˜uk|pdξ are still bounded sequences of measures and so by Proposition 1.202 of [15], we can conclude that there exist two bounded nonnegative Radon measure ˜ν and ˜μ on Hn, such that, up to a subsequence, we have

    |DsH˜uk|pdξ˜μ,|˜uk|psdξ˜ν in M(Hn). (4.9)

    Thus, from Case 1 there exist an at most countable set J, a family of points {ξj}jJHn and a family of nonnegative numbers {νj}jJ such that ˜ν=jJνjδξj. Consequently, the claimed representation (1.7) of ν follows exactly as in Theorem 1.1.

    Let us now prove the first part of (1.10). Fix a test function φCc(Hn), such that 0φ1, φ(O)=1 and supp φB1. Take ε>0 and put φε,j(ξ)=φ(δ1/ε(ξ1jξ)), ξHn, for any fixed jJ, where {ξj}j is introduced in (1.7). Fix jJ and τ>0. Then, there exists Cτ>0 such that, by (1.16) applied to φε,juk, we have

    Cps(Hn|φε,j|ps|uk|psdξ)p/psHn×Hn|(φε,juk)(ξ)(φε,juk)(η)|pr(η1ξ)Q+spdξdη(1+τ)Hn|φε,j|p|DsHuk|pdξ+CτHn|DsHφε,j|p|uk|pdξ. (4.10)

    We aim to pass to the limit in (4.10) as k and ε0+. To do this, let us observe first that from the weak convergence and (1.7) we get

    limε0+limkHn|φε,j|ps|uk|psdξ=limε0+Bε(ξj)|φε,j|psdν=limε0+{Bε(ξj)|φε,j|ps|u|psdξ+νjδξj(φε,j)}=νj, (4.11)

    since

    Bε(ξj)|φε,j|ps|u|psdξBε(ξj)|u|psdξ=o(1)

    as ε0+, being 0φ1. On the other hand, the weak convergence gives

    limkHn|φε,j|p|DsHuk|pdη=Hn|φε,j|pdμ, (4.12)

    while Lemma 4.5 yields

    limε0+lim supkHn|DsHφε,j|p|uk|pdη=0. (4.13)

    Then, combining (4.11)–(4.13) and letting ε0+ in (4.10), we find that

    Cpsνp/psj(1+τ)μj for any jJ,

    where \mu_j = \lim_{\varepsilon\to 0^+}\mu(B_\varepsilon(\xi_j)) . Since \tau > 0 is arbitrary, sending \tau\to0^+ , we finally obtain

    \begin{equation*} C_{ p_s^*} \nu_j^{ p/ p_s^*}\leq \mu_j, \quad j\in J. \end{equation*}

    Obviously,

    \mu\geq \sum\limits_{j\in J}\mu_j\delta_{\xi_j}.

    Denote by \mathcal B_\varepsilon(\xi_0) the Euclidean ball of \mathbb{R}^{2n+1} of center \xi_0\in\mathbb H^n and radius \varepsilon . By Lebesgue's differentiation theorem for measures (see for example [15]), in order to prove that \mu\ge |D_H^s u|^ p d\xi it suffices to show that

    \begin{equation} \liminf\limits_{\varepsilon \to0^+}\frac{\mu (\mathcal B_\varepsilon(\xi_0)}{|\mathcal B_\varepsilon(\xi_0)|}\geq |D_H^s u|^p(\xi_0)\quad \mbox{for a.e.}\; \xi_0\in\mathbb H^n , \end{equation} (4.14)

    where |\mathcal B_\varepsilon(\xi_0)| is the Lebesgue measure of the Euclidean ball \mathcal B_\varepsilon(\xi_0) .

    Clearly, since |D_H^s u|^ p d\xi \in L^{1}_{\rm{loc}}(\mathbb H^n) , we know that for a.e. \xi_0\in\mathbb H^n

    \begin{equation} \lim\limits_{\varepsilon\to 0^+} \frac{1}{|\mathcal B_\varepsilon(\xi_0)|} \int_{\mathcal B_\varepsilon(\xi_0)}|D_H^s u|^ p(\xi) d\xi = |D_H u|_H^ p(\xi_0). \end{equation} (4.15)

    Fix \varepsilon > 0 and \xi_0\in\mathbb H^n such that (4.15) holds. Now, the functional \Phi: HW^{s, p}(\mathbb H^n)\rightarrow \mathbb{R} , defined as

    \Phi u = \int_{\mathcal B_\varepsilon(\xi_0)}\int_{\mathbb H^n} \frac{\left|u(\xi)-u(\eta)\right|^{ p}}{r(\eta^{-1}\circ \xi)^{Q+s p}} d\eta d\xi = \int_{\mathcal B_\varepsilon(\xi_0)}|D^s_H u|^ p d\xi,

    is convex and strongly continuous on HW^{s, p}(\mathbb H^n) . Thus, since u_k\rightharpoonup u in HW^{s, p}(\mathbb H^n) , we have

    \liminf\limits_{k\to\infty}\int_{\mathcal B_\varepsilon(\xi_0)} |D^s_H u_k|^{p} d\xi \geq \int_{\mathcal B_\varepsilon(\xi_0)}|D^s_H u|^p d\xi.

    Therefore, an application of Proposition 1.203 – Part (ii) of [15] gives

    \begin{align*} \frac{\mu (\mathcal B_\varepsilon(\xi_0)}{|\mathcal B_\varepsilon(\xi_0)|} &\geq \limsup\limits_{k\to\infty} \frac{\mu_k (\mathcal B_\varepsilon(\xi_0))}{|\mathcal B_\varepsilon(\xi_0)|} = \limsup\limits_{k\to\infty}\frac{1}{|\mathcal B_\varepsilon(\xi_0)|} \int_{\mathcal B_\varepsilon(\xi_0)} |D^s_H u_k|^p d\xi \\ &\geq \liminf\limits_{k\to\infty}\frac{1}{|\mathcal B_\varepsilon(\xi_0)|} \int_{\mathcal B_\varepsilon(\xi_0)} |D^s_H u_k|^p d\xi \geq \frac{1}{|\mathcal B_\varepsilon(\xi_0)|} \int_{\mathcal B_\varepsilon(\xi_0)} |D^s_H u|^p d\xi. \end{align*}

    Now, passing to the liminf as \varepsilon \to0^+ and using (4.15), we obtain (4.14).

    Finally, since |D^s_H u|^ p d\xi is orthogonal to \sum_{j\in J}\mu_j\delta_{\xi_j} , we get the desired conclusion. This concludes the proof.

    The authors are members of the Gruppo Nazionale per l'Analisi Matematica, la Probabilità e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM). P. Pucci was partly supported by the INdAM – GNAMPA Project Equazioni alle derivate parziali: problemi e modelli (Prot_U-UFMBAZ-2020-000761) and also by the Fondo Ricerca di Base di Ateneo – Esercizio 2017–2019 of the University of Perugia, named PDEs and Nonlinear Analysis.

    All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.



    [1] Adimurth, A. Mallick, A Hardy type inequality on fractional order Sobolev spaces on the Heisenberg group, Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5), ⅩⅧ (2018), 917–949. http://dx.doi.org/10.2422/2036-2145.201604_010 doi: 10.2422/2036-2145.201604_010
    [2] T. Aubin, Problèmes isopérimétriques et espaces de Sobolev, J. Differential Geom., 11 (1976), 573–598. http://dx.doi.org/10.4310/jdg/1214433725 doi: 10.4310/jdg/1214433725
    [3] G. Bianchi, J. Chabrowski, A. Szulkin, On symmetric solutions of an elliptic equation with a nonlinearity involving critical Sobolev exponent, Nonlinear Anal. Theor., 25 (1995), 41–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0362-546X(94)E0070-W doi: 10.1016/0362-546X(94)E0070-W
    [4] J. F. Bonder, N. Saintier, A. Silva, The concentration-compactness principle for fractional order Sobolev spaces in unbounded domains and applications to the generalized fractional Brezis-Nirenberg problem, Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl., 25 (2018), 52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00030-018-0543-5 doi: 10.1007/s00030-018-0543-5
    [5] S. Bordoni, R. Filippucci, P. Pucci, Existence of solutions in problems on Heisenberg groups involving Hardy and critical terms, J. Geom. Anal., 30 (2020), 1887–1917. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12220-019-00295-z doi: 10.1007/s12220-019-00295-z
    [6] J. Chabrowski, Concentration–compactness principle at infinity and semilinear elliptic equations involving critical and subcritical Sobolev exponents, Calc. Var., 3 (1995), 493–512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01187898 doi: 10.1007/BF01187898
    [7] L. D'Ambrosio, Hardy–type inequalities related to degenerate elliptic differential operators, Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5), (2005), 451–486. http://dx.doi.org/10.2422/2036-2145.2005.3.04 doi: 10.2422/2036-2145.2005.3.04
    [8] D. Danielli, N. Garofalo, N. C. Phuc, Inequalities of Hardy–Sobolev type in Carnot–Carathéodory, In: Sobolev spaces in mathematics I, New York, NY: Springer, 2009,117–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-85648-3_5
    [9] E. Di Nezza, G. Palatucci, E. Valdinoci, Hitchhiker's guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces, Bull. Sci. Math., 136 (2012), 521–573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bulsci.2011.12.004 doi: 10.1016/j.bulsci.2011.12.004
    [10] S. Dipierro, M. Medina, E. Valdinoci, Fractional elliptic problems with critical growth in the whole of \mathbb R^n, Pisa: Edizioni della Normale, 2017.
    [11] N. Dungey, A. F. M. ter Elst, D. W. Robinson, Analysis on Lie groups with polynomial growth, Boston: Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., 2003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2062-6
    [12] A. Fiscella, P. Pucci, Kirchhoff Hardy fractional problems with lack of compactness, Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 17 (2017), 429–456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ans-2017-6021 doi: 10.1515/ans-2017-6021
    [13] G. B. Folland, Subelliptic estimates and function spaces on nilpotent Lie groups, Ark. Mat., 13 (1975), 161–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02386204 doi: 10.1007/BF02386204
    [14] G. B. Folland, E. M. Stein, Estimates for the \overline \partial_b complex and analysis on the Heisenberg group, Commun. Pure Appl. Math., 27 (1974), 429–522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpa.3160270403 doi: 10.1002/cpa.3160270403
    [15] I. Fonseca, G. Leoni, Modern methods in the calculus of variations: L^p spaces, New York: Springer, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-69006-3
    [16] N. Garofalo, E. Lanconelli, Frequency functions on the Heisenberg group, the uncertainty principle and unique continuation, Ann. Inst. Fourier, 40 (1990), 313–356. http://dx.doi.org/10.5802/aif.1215 doi: 10.5802/aif.1215
    [17] N. Garofalo, D.-M. Nhieu, Isoperimetric and Sobolev inequalities for Carnot–Carathéodory spaces and the existence of minimal surfaces, Commun. Pure Appl. Math., 49 (1996), 1081–1144.
    [18] J. A. Goldstein, Q. S. Zhang, On a degenerate heat equation with a singular potential, J. Funct. Anal., 186 (2001), 342–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jfan.2001.3792 doi: 10.1006/jfan.2001.3792
    [19] L. Hőrmander, Hypoelliptic second order differential equations, Acta Math., 119 (1967), 147–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02392081 doi: 10.1007/BF02392081
    [20] S. P. Ivanov, D. N. Vassilev, Extremals for the Sobolev inequality and the quaternionic contact Yamabe problem, Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/7647
    [21] D. Jerison, J. M. Lee, A subelliptic, nonlinear eigenvalue problem and scalar curvature on CR manifolds, In: Microlocal analysis, Providence, RI: Amer. Math. Soc., 1984, 57–63.
    [22] D. Jerison, J. M. Lee, The Yamabe problem on CR manifolds, J. Differential Geom., 25 (1987), 167–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.4310/jdg/1214440849 doi: 10.4310/jdg/1214440849
    [23] D. Jerison, J. M. Lee, Extremals for the Sobolev inequality on the Heisenberg group and the CR Yamabe problem, J. Amer. Math. Soc., 1 (1988), 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0894-0347-1988-0924699-9 doi: 10.1090/S0894-0347-1988-0924699-9
    [24] D. Jerison, J. M. Lee, Intrinsic CR normal coordinates and the CR Yamabe problem, J. Differential Geom., 29 (1989), 303–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.4310/jdg/1214442877 doi: 10.4310/jdg/1214442877
    [25] P. L. Lions, The concentration–compactness principle in the calculus of variations. The limit case, Part 1, Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana, 1 (1985), 145–201. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4171/RMI/6 doi: 10.4171/RMI/6
    [26] P. L. Lions, The concentration–compactness principle in the calculus of variations. The limit case, Part 2, Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana, 1 (1985), 45–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.4171/RMI/12 doi: 10.4171/RMI/12
    [27] G. Lu, Weighted Poincaré and Sobolev inequalities for vector fields satisfying Hörmander's condition and applications, Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana, 8 (1992), 367–439. http://dx.doi.org/10.4171/RMI/129 doi: 10.4171/RMI/129
    [28] S. Mosconi, K. Perera, M. Squassina, Y. Yang, The Brezis–Nirenberg problem for the fractional p-Laplacian, Calc. Var., 55 (2016), 105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00526-016-1035-2 doi: 10.1007/s00526-016-1035-2
    [29] P. Niu, H. Zhang, Y. Wang, Hardy–type and Rellich type inequalities on the Heisenberg group, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 129 (2001), 3623–3630. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2699514 doi: 10.2307/2699514
    [30] G. Palatucci, A. Pisante, Improved Sobolev embeddings, profile decomposition, and concentration-compactness for fractional Sobolev spaces, Calc. Var., 50 (2014), 799–829. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00526-013-0656-y doi: 10.1007/s00526-013-0656-y
    [31] P. Pucci, L. Temperini, Existence for (p, q) critical systems in the Heisenberg group, Adv. Nonlinear Anal., 9 (2020), 895–922. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/anona-2020-0032 doi: 10.1515/anona-2020-0032
    [32] P. Pucci, L. Temperini, Concentration–compactness results for systems in the Heisenberg group, Opuscula Math., 40 (2020), 151–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.7494/OpMath.2020.40.1.151 doi: 10.7494/OpMath.2020.40.1.151
    [33] P. Pucci, L. Temperini, Existence for fractional (p, q) systems with critical and Hardy terms in \mathbb R^N, Nonlinear Anal., 211 (2021), 112477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2021.112477 doi: 10.1016/j.na.2021.112477
    [34] G. Talenti, Best constant in Sobolev inequality, Annali di Matematica, 110 (1976), 353–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02418013 doi: 10.1007/BF02418013
    [35] D. Vassilev, Existence of solutions and regularity near the characteristic boundary for sub-Laplacian equations on Carnot groups, Pac. J. Math., 227 (2006), 361–397. http://dx.doi.org/10.2140/pjm.2006.227.361 doi: 10.2140/pjm.2006.227.361
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Sainan Wang, Lieb's and Lions' type theorems on Heisenberg group and applications, 2022, 0170-4214, 10.1002/mma.8937
    2. Ning Zhang, Xianhua Tang, Sitong Chen, Mountain-Pass Type Solutions for the Chern–Simons–Schrödinger Equation with Zero Mass Potential and Critical Exponential Growth, 2023, 33, 1050-6926, 10.1007/s12220-022-01046-3
    3. Baoling Yang, Deli Zhang, Sihua Liang, Nontrivial Solutions for a (p, q)-Type Critical Choquard Equation on the Heisenberg Group, 2023, 46, 0126-6705, 10.1007/s40840-022-01449-z
    4. Patrizia Pucci, Letizia Temperini, Critical equations with Hardy terms in the Heisenberg group, 2022, 71, 0009-725X, 1049, 10.1007/s12215-022-00741-y
    5. Zupei Shen, Jianshe Yu, Cylindrical Solutions and Ground State Solutions to Weighted Kirchhoff Equations, 2022, 32, 1050-6926, 10.1007/s12220-022-00995-z
    6. F. Faraci, K. Silva, Non-compact perturbations of coercive functionals and applications, 2023, 30, 1021-9722, 10.1007/s00030-022-00829-5
    7. Jinguo Zhang, Shuhai Zhu, On criticality coupled sub-Laplacian systems with Hardy type potentials on Stratified Lie groups, 2023, 15, 2836-3310, 70, 10.3934/cam.2023005
    8. Sihua Liang, Patrizia Pucci, Yueqiang Song, Xueqi Sun, On a critical Choquard-Kirchhoff p-sub-Laplacian equation in ℍ n , 2024, 12, 2299-3274, 10.1515/agms-2024-0006
    9. Xueqi Sun, Yueqiang Song, Sihua Liang, Binlin Zhang, Critical Kirchhoff equations involving the p-sub-Laplacians operators on the Heisenberg group, 2023, 13, 1664-3607, 10.1142/S1664360722500060
    10. Hongying Jiao, Shuhai Zhu, Jinguo Zhang, Existence of infinitely many solutions for critical sub-elliptic systems via genus theory, 2024, 16, 2836-3310, 237, 10.3934/cam.2024011
    11. Patrizia Pucci, 2024, Chapter 9, 978-3-031-56731-5, 95, 10.1007/978-3-031-56732-2_9
    12. Giampiero Palatucci, Mirco Piccinini, Letizia Temperini, Struwe’s global compactness and energy approximation of the critical Sobolev embedding in the Heisenberg group, 2024, 1864-8258, 10.1515/acv-2024-0044
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(2556) PDF downloads(295) Cited by(12)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog