Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2018 May 10;2018(1):110. doi: 10.1186/s13660-018-1708-9

Multiplicity and asymptotic behavior of solutions to a class of Kirchhoff-type equations involving the fractional p-Laplacian

Liejun Shen 1,
PMCID: PMC5945764  PMID: 29773928

Abstract

The present study is concerned with the following fractional p-Laplacian equation involving a critical Sobolev exponent of Kirchhoff type:

[a+b(R2N|u(x)u(y)|p|xy|N+psdxdy)θ1](Δ)psu=|u|ps2u+λf(x)|u|q2uin RN,

where a,b>0, θ=(Nps/2)/(Nps) and q(1,p) are constants, and (Δ)ps is the fractional p-Laplacian operator with 0<s<1<p< and ps<N. For suitable f(x), the above equation possesses at least two nontrivial solutions by variational method for any a,b>0. Moreover, we regard a>0 and b>0 as parameters to obtain convergent properties of solutions for the given problem as a0+ and b0+, respectively.

Keywords: Critical Sobolev exponent, Fractional p-Laplacian, Kirchhoff, Multiplicity, Asymptotic behavior

Introduction and main results

In this paper, we consider the following fractional p-Laplacian equation involving critical Sobolev exponent of Kirchhoff type:

[a+b(R2N|u(x)u(y)|p|xy|N+psdxdy)θ1](Δ)psu=|u|ps2u+λf(x)|u|q2uin RN, 1.1

where a,b>0 and θ=(Nps/2)/(Nps) are constants, ps=Np/(Nps) is the critical Sobolev exponent, and (Δ)ps is the fractional p-Laplacian operator with 0<s<1<q<p< and ps<N which, up to normalization factors, works on the Riesz potential as

(Δ)psφ=2limσ0+Bσc(x)|φ(x)φ(y)|p2(φ(x)φ(y))|xy|N+psdy,

where Bσc(x) is the complement set in RN of Bσ(x):={yRN:|yx|<σ}. As for some recent results on the p-Laplacian, we refer to [16] and the references therein.

We call Eq. (1.1) a Kirchhoff-type p-fractional Schrödinger equation because of the appearance of the term b(R2N|u(x)u(y)|p/|xy|N+psdxdy)θ1. Indeed, if we choose p=2, s=1, N=3 and let |u|ps2u+f(x)|u|q2u=k(x,u)V(x)u, then (1.1) transforms to the following classical Kirchhoff-type equation:

(a+bR3|u|2dx)Δu+V(x)u=k(x,u), 1.2

which is degenerate if b=0 and non-degenerate otherwise. Equation (1.2) arises in an interesting physical context. In fact, if we set V(x)=0 and replace R3 by a bounded domain ΩR3 in (1.2), then we get the following Kirchhoff Dirichlet problem:

(a+bΩ|u|2dx)Δu=k(x,u),

which is related to the stationary analog of the equation

ρ2ut2(P0hE2L0L|ux|2dx)2ux2=0,

proposed by Kirchhoff in [7] as an extension of the classical D’Alembert wave equation for free vibrations of elastic strings. This model takes the changes in length of the string produced by transverse vibrations into account. After Lions in his pioneering work [8] presented an abstract functional analysis framework to use for (1.2), this problem has been widely studied in extensive literature such as [913]. In view of the above facts, it is reasonable to consider the p-fractional Kirchhoff equation.

When a=1, b=0, p=2 and let |u|ps2u+f(x)|u|q2u=k(x,u)V(x)u, then (1.1) can be reduced to the following fractional Schrödinger equation:

(Δ)su+V(x)u=k(x,u),xRN, 1.3

which was used to study the standing wave solutions ψ(x,t)=u(x)eiωt for the equation

iħψt=ħ2(Δ)αψ+W(x)ψk(x,ψ),xRN,

where ħ is the Planck constant, W:RNR is an external potential and k is a suitable nonlinearity. Since the fractional Schrödinger equation appears in problems involving nonlinear optics, plasma physics and condensed matter physics, it is one of the main objects of fractional quantum mechanics. To learn more, the reader can refer to [1423] and the references therein.

Very recently, great attention has been paid to the study of fractional p-Laplacian problems. For example, Pucci–Xiang–Zhang [2] were concerned with the nonhomogeneous Schrödinger equations involving the fractional p-Laplacian of Kirchhoff type

M(R2N|u(x)u(y)|p|xy|N+psdxdy)(Δ)psu+V(x)|u|p2u=k(x,u)+g(x)in RN, 1.4

where M is the so-called Kirchhoff function, k(x,u) satisfies the subcritical growth. They employed the mountain-pass theorem and Ekeland’s variational principle to prove that the existence of at least two solutions for (1.4). In [24], Xiang–Zhang–Zhang studied problem (1.1) with q=1 and they obtained infinitely many solutions when λ=0 and for different a,b,θ. They also proved the existence of multiple solutions for suitable λ>0. Subsequently, if k(x,u)+g(x)=ξ|u|ps2u+τf(x)|u|q2u, Wang–Zhang [25] established the existence of infinitely many solutions which tend to zero for suitable positive parameters ξ and τ by the Kajikiya version of the symmetric mountain-pass theorem. Some other important and meaningful results on the p-fractional Schrödinger equation of Kirchhoff type can be found in [2630] and the references therein.

Before stating our main results, we introduce some useful notations and definitions. Let Ds,p(RN) denote the completion of C0(RN) with respect to the norm

u=(R2N|u(x)u(y)|p|xy|N+psdxdy)1p

and Cc(RN)={uC(RN):suppu is a compact subset of RN}. We write C0(RN) for the closure of Cc(RN) with respect to the norm |η|=supxRN|η(x)|. Since a finite measure on RN is a continuous linear functional on C0(RN), for a measure μ we write

μ0=supηC0(RN),|η|=1|(μ,η)|=supηC0(RN),|η|=1|RNηdμ|.

Throughout this paper we shall denote C and Ci (i=1,2,) for various positive constants whose exact value may change from line to line but are not essential to the analysis of the problem. Lr(RN) (1r+) is the usual Lebesgue space with the standard norm |u|r. We use “→” and “⇀” to denote the strong and weak convergence in the related function spaces, respectively. Let (X,) be a Banach space with its dual space (X,), and Ψ be its functional on X. The Palais–Smale sequence at level dR ((PS)d sequence in short) corresponding to Ψ satisfies Ψ(xn)d and Ψ(xn)0 as n, where {xn}X.

Motivated by all the work mentioned above, we are interested in the multiplicity and asymptotic behavior of solutions for problem (1.1) whose natural variational functional is given by

J(u)=apup+bθpuθp1psRN|u|psdxλqRNf(x)|u|qdx.

Note that we can employ the idea used in [31] (or [2]) to prove that J(u) is well defined on Ds,p(RN) and of class C1. Furthermore, any solution of (1.1) is a critical point of J(u). Hence we obtain the solutions of it by finding the critical point of the functional J(u). To this aim, we assume the following condition:

  • (F)

    fLps/(psq)(RN) with f(x)0 and f(x)0.

Definition 1.1

We say that uDs,p(RN) is a (weak) solution of (1.1) if

(a+bu(θ1)p)R2N|u(x)u(y)|p2(u(x)u(y))(v(x)v(y))|xy|N+psdxdy=RN|u|ps2uvdx+λRNf(x)|u|q2uvdx

for all vDs,p(RN).

Our first result is as follows.

Theorem 1.2

Assume (F) and q(1,p), then for any a,b>0 there exists a constant λ>0 such that Eq. (1.1) has at least two nontrivial solutions, u1 and u2, satisfying

J(u2)<0<J(u1),λ(0,λ).

Remark 1.3

We point out here that if q=1 in (1.1), the results in Theorem 1.2 can be seen as a part of [24]. Although the generalization in this sense is trivial, the main interest of this paper is not here, but more attention is paid to the relation between the solutions obtained in Theorem 1.2 and the parameters a>0 and b>0, and the convergent properties (see Theorems 1.5 and 1.7 below) of the solutions are given. Also, our results extend the results of [32] to fractional Kirchhoff type. Briefly speaking, if a=s=1, b=0 and p2 in (1.1), the results in Theorem 1.2 can be found in [32].

Remark 1.4

When the nontrivial solutions of (1.1) are obtained, we can prove that the existence of ground state solutions of it. In fact, with Theorem 1.2 in hand, we know that N={uDs,p(RN){0}:J(u),u=0} and m=infuNJ(u) are well defined. Hence any minimizing sequence of m is bounded, then by Lemmas 2.62.7 below we derive that m is attained by some function and it is a ground state solution.

It is worth mentioning that the idea of proving the asymptotic behavior of solutions to (1.1) comes from [12, 33]. Since the solutions u1 and u2 obtained in Theorem 1.2 depend on the parameter b, we next denote u1 and u2 by ub1 and ub2 to emphasize this dependence, respectively. By analyzing the convergence property of ub1 and ub2 as b0+, we establish one of the following main results in this paper.

Theorem 1.5

Assume (F) and q(1,p), let λ(0,λ) and a>0 be fixed constants, if {ub1} and {ub2} are nontrivial solutions of (1.1) obtained in Theorem 1.2, there exist subsequences still denoted by themselves {ub1} and {ub2} such that ubiui in Ds,p(RN) as b0+ for i{1,2}, where u1 and u2 are two nontrivial solutions of

a(Δ)psu=|u|ps2u+λf(x)|u|q2uin RN. 1.5

Remark 1.6

If the whole space RN is replaced with a bounded domain Ω and assume b>0 suffciently small, Lei–Liu–Guo [13] proved that problem (1.1) admits at least two nontrivial solutions when p=2, s=1, N=3 and f(x)1. In a more general case, Theorem 1.5 tells us that the solutions of problem (1.1) are actually the solutions of problem (1.5) if the positive parameter b is small enough.

Inspired by Theorem 1.5, the solutions of problem (1.1) also depend on the parameter a>0 and then we have the following result.

Theorem 1.7

Assume (F) and q(1,p), then there exists λ>0 such that the problem (1.1) admits at least two nontrivial solutions. Furthermore if we let λ(0,λ) and b>0 be fixed constants and denote {ua11} and {ua22} are nontrivial solutions of (1.1) obtained above, then there exist subsequences still denoted by themselves {ua11} and {ua22} such that uaiiuii in Ds,p(RN) as a0+ for i{1,2}, where u11 and u22 are two nontrivial solutions of

b(R2N|u(x)u(y)|p|xy|N+psdxdy)θ1(Δ)psu=|u|ps2u+λf(x)|u|q2uin RN. 1.6

Remark 1.8

In this paper, we only consider the convergence of the solutions with a>0 and b>0 as the parameters, respectively. It is natural to raise the following two open problems: (i) Do our results still remain valid when b<0 and b0? (ii) If we take λ>0 as the parameter and let the positive constants a and b be fixed, does the convergent property of the solutions still exist when λ0+? Xiang–Zhang–Zhang [24] studied the existence of solutions for problem (1.1) with q=1 and λ=0, but from our point of view, it seems to be different when it comes to taking λ>0 as a parameter.

We note that, to the best of our knowledge, there is no result on asymptotic behavior of solutions of critical Kirchhoff-type equations involving the fractional p-Laplacian. We now sketch our proofs of Theorems 1.2, 1.5 and 1.7 based on variational method. What makes the proof of Theorem 1.2 more complicated is not only the lack of compactness imbedding of Ds,p(RN) into Lps(RN), but also how to estimate the critical value. To deal with the difficulties mentioned above, some arguments are in order. Using the idea of the well-known Brézis–Nirenberg argument [34], we obtain the threshold value

c=a(1p1ps)SNps(bS2θ12+b2S2θ1+4a2)1θ1+b(1θp1ps)SNθps(bS2θ12+b2S2θ1+4a2)θθ1 1.7

by solving a quadratic algebra equation with one unknown, where S>0 is the best Sobolev constant, that is,

S=inf{R2N|u(x)u(y)|p|xy|N+psdxdy:uDs,p(RN) and |u|ps=1}. 1.8

After pulling the mountain-pass energy level down below the critical value, we use the celebrated concentration–compactness principle developed by Lions [35] and extended to the fractional Sobolev space Ds,p(RN) at some level by Xiang–Zhang–Zhang [24] to show that any (PS) sequence of J(u) contains a strongly convergent subsequence. As to the proof of Theorem 1.5, Although most difficult, the lack of compactness imbedding of Ds,p(RN) into Lps(RN) has been solved, we cannot draw the conclusion that the two sequences of solutions of (1.1) converge to some functions which are nontrivial solutions of (1.5). To overcome it, we have to further estimate the mountain-pass value and local minimum carefully; see (4.3) below for example. Compared with the proof of Theorem 1.5, there are some necessary modifications. For example, Lemma 2.5 below which plays a vital role in the proof Theorem 1.2 can never take positive effect when we take a(0,1] as a parameter. Therefore, we can successfully prove Theorems 1.2, 1.5 and 1.7 step by step.

The outline of this paper is as follows. In Sect. 2, we present some preliminary results for Theorem 1.2. In Sect. 3, we obtain the existence of two nontrivial solutions of problem (1.1). In Sects. 4 and 5, we prove the convergent properties on the parameters b>0 and a>0, respectively.

Some preliminaries

In this section, we first recall the concentration–compactness principle in the setting of the fractional p-Laplacian and then investigate the mountain-pass geometry and the behavior of the (PS) sequence. The following definition can be found in [31].

Definition 2.1

Let M(RN) denote the finite nonnegative Borel measure space on RN. For any μM(RN), μ(RN)=μ0. We say that μnμ weakly ∗ in M(RN), if (μn,η)(μ,η) holds for all ηC0(RN) as n.

The proofs of the Propositions 2.22.4 can be found in [24].

Proposition 2.2

Let {un}Ds,p(RN) with upper bound M0>0 for all n1 and

unuin Ds,p(RN),RN|un(x)un(y)|p|xy|N+psdyμweak  in M(RN),|un(x)|psνweak  in M(RN).

Then

μ=RN|u(x)u(y)|p|xy|N+psdy+jJμjδxj+μ,μ(RN)M0p,ν=|u|ps+jJνjδxj,ν(RN)SpsM0p,

where J is at most countable, {μj},{νj} are positive constants, {δxj} is the Dirac mass centered at xj, μ̅ is a non-atomic measure, S>0 is given by (1.8) and

ν(RN)Spspμ(RN)psp,νjSpspμjpspfor all jJ. 2.1

Proposition 2.3

Let {un}Ds,p(RN) be a bounded sequence such that

RN|un(x)un(y)|p|xy|N+psdyμweak  in M(RN),|un(x)|psνweak  in M(RN),

and for any R>0 we define

μ:=limRlimsupn{xRN:|x|>R}RN|un(x)un(y)|p|xy|N+psdydx,ν:=limRlimsupn{xRN:|x|>R}|un(x)|psdx.

Then the quantities μ and ν are well defined and satisfy

limsupnR2N|un(x)un(y)|p|xy|N+psdydx=μ(RN)+μ,limsupnRN|un(x)|psdx=ν(RN)+ν.

Moreover,

νSppsμpps.

Proposition 2.4

Assume that {un}Ds,p(RN) is the sequence given by Proposition 2.2, let x0RN be fixed and ϕ be a smooth cut-off function such that 0ϕ1, ϕ0 when xB2c(0), ϕ1 when xB1(0) and |ϕ|4. For any ϵ>0, we set ϕx0ϵ(x)=ϕ(xx0ϵ) for any xRN, then

limϵ0limsupnR2N|ϕx0ϵ(x)ϕx0ϵ(y)|p|un(x)|p|xy|N+psdxdy=0.

Now we will verify that the functional J exhibits the mountain-pass geometry.

Lemma 2.5

There exists λ0>0 such that the functional J(u) satisfies the mountain-pass geometry around 0Ds,p(RN) for any λ(0,λ0), that is,

  • (i)

    there exist α,ρ>0 such that J(u)α>0 when u=ρ and λ(0,λ0);

  • (ii)

    there exists eDs,p(RN) with e>ρ such that J(e)<0.

Proof

(i) It follows from (1.8) and Hölder’s inequality that

J(u)apup1psSpspupsλq|f|pspsqSqpuq=uq(apupq1psSpspupsqλq|f|pspsqSqp)[apsSpsp(pq)p(psq)]qpsp{a(psp)p(psq)[apsSpsp(pq)p(psq)]pqpspλq|f|pspsqSqp}.

Therefore if we set

ρ=[apsSpsp(pq)p(psq)]1psp>0andλ0=aqSqp(psp)p|f|pspsq(psq)[apsSpsp(pq)p(psq)]pqpsp>0,

then there exists α>0 such that J(u)α>0 when u=ρ>0 for any λ(0,λ0).

(ii) Choosing u0Ds,p(RN){0}, then since θp<ps and f(x) is nonnegative one has

J(tu0)aptpu0p+bθptθpu0θptpspsRN|u0|psdxas t+.

Hence letting e=t0u0Ds,p(RN){0} with t0 sufficiently large, we have e>ρ and J(e)<0. The proof is complete. □

By Lemma 2.5, and the mountain-pass theorem in [31], a (PS) sequence of the functional J(u) at the level

c:=infγΓmaxt[0,1]J(γ(t))α>0 2.2

can be constructed, where the set of paths is defined as

Γ:={γC([0,1],Ds,p(RN)):γ(0)=0,J(γ(1))<0}.

In other words, there exists a sequence {un}Ds,p(RN) such that

J(un)c,J(un)0as n. 2.3

As the existence of the critical Sobolev exponent in (1.1), we have to estimate the mountain-pass value given by (2.2) carefully. Thanks to the results in [36], there exists a positive function U(x) satisfying

(Δ)psu=ups1in RN

and Up=|U|psps=SN/ps.

Lemma 2.6

There exists λ>0 such that the mountain-pass value satisfies

c<cC0λppq,where C0=a(θ1)(pq)qθp[(θpq)|f|ps/(psq)a(θ1)pSqp]ppq>0

for any λ(0,λ), c and S are given by (1.7) and (1.8), respectively.

Proof

It is obvious that there exists λ1>0 independent of b such that

cC0λppq>0for any λ(0,λ1).

We then claim that

J(tU)cfor any t0. 2.4

Indeed, let us define

g(t)=aptpUp+bθptθpUθptpspsRN|U|psdx:=C1tp+C2tθpC3tps,t0,

where

C1=apUp=apSNps,C2=bθpUθp=bθpSNθps,C3=1psRN|U|psdx=1psSNps.

By some elementary calculations, we have

g(t)=C1ptp1+C2θptθp1C3pstps1=0,t0,

which is equivalent to

C1p+C2θptθppC3pstpsp=0,t0.

Since psp=2(θpp), we know that g(t)=0 has a unique root, that is,

t0=(C2θp+C22θ2p2+4C1C3psp2C3ps)1θpp=(bS2θ12+b2S2θ1+4a2)1θpp>0,

where we use the fact that θ=(Nps/2)/(Nps). Therefore we can conclude that

maxt0g(t)=g(t0)=C1t0p+C2t0θpC1pt0p+C2θpt0θpps=a(1p1ps)SNpst0p+b(1θp1ps)SNθpst0θp=c, 2.5

which together with the fact f(x) is nonnegative gives (2.4).

Since J(0)=0, there exists t1(0,1) such that

max0tt1J(tU)<cC0λppqfor any λ(0,λ1).

On the other hand, the facts

J(tU)=g(t)tqqλRNf(x)|U|qdxmaxt0g(t)tqqλRNf(x)|U|qdx

and (2.5) show that

maxtt1J(tU)ct1qqλR3f(x)|U|qdx.

Taking

λ2=(t1qRNf(x)|U|qdxC0q)pqq>0,

then we have

maxtt1J(tU)<cC0λppqfor any 0<λ<λ2.

Finally, choosing λ=min{λ0,λ1,λ2}>0 we can deduce that

maxt0J(tU)<cC0λppqfor any 0<λ<λ,

which yields the proof of this lemma. □

The following lemma provides the interval where the (PS) condition holds for J(u).

Lemma 2.7

If λ(0,λ), any sequence satisfying (2.2) contains a strongly convergent subsequence whenever c<cC0λppq, where c is given by (1.7).

Proof

Let {un}Ds,p(RN) be a sequence verifying (2.3) and we conclude that {un} is bounded in Ds,p(RN). Recalling that θ=(Nps/2)/(Nps)>1, then we have

c+1+o(1)unJ(un)1θpJ(un),una(1p1θp)unp(1q1θp)λ|f|pspsqSqpunq,

which shows that {un} is bounded in Ds,p(RN) since p>q>1. Up to a subsequence if necessary, there exists uDs,p(RN) such that unu in Ds,p(RN), unu in Llocr(RN) for r[1,ps) and unu a.e. in RN. Obviously, the conclusions in Proposition 2.2 are true in the sense of a subsequence. Now we prove that unu in Ds,p(RN).

To do it, we first claim that the set J given by Proposition 2.2 is an empty set. Arguing it by contradiction, for some jJ and for any ϵ>0 choosing ϕjϵ to be a smooth cut-off function such that 0ϕjϵ1, ϕjϵ0 when xBϵc(xj), ϕjϵ1 when xBϵ/2(xj) and |ϕjϵ|4/ϵ. It follows from Proposition 2.2 that

limϵ0limn(a+bun(θ1)p)R2N|un(x)un(y)|pϕjϵ(y)|xy|N+psdxdylimϵ0limn[aR2N|un(x)un(y)|pϕjϵ(y)|xy|N+psdxdy+b(R2N|un(x)un(y)|pϕjϵ(y)|xy|N+psdxdy)θ]=aμj+bμjθ

and

|(a+bun(θ1)p)R2N|un(x)un(y)|p2(un(x)un(y))(ϕjϵ(x)ϕjϵ(y))un(x)|xy|N+psdxdy|C(R2N|un(x)un(y)|p|xy|N+psdxdy)p1p(R2N|ϕjϵ(x)ϕjϵ(y)|p|un(x)|p|xy|N+psdxdy)1pC(R2N|ϕjϵ(x)ϕjϵ(y)|p|un(x)|p|xy|N+psdxdy)1p0as ϵ0 and n,

where we have used Proposition 2.4. We also know that

limϵ0limnRN|un|psϕjϵdx=limϵ0limnBϵ(xj)|un|psϕjϵdx+νj=νj

and

limϵ0limnRNf(x)|un|qϕjϵdx=limϵ0limnBϵ(xj)f(x)|un|qϕjϵdx=0.

Since unϕjϵDs,p(RN) is bounded, we have J(un),unϕjϵ=o(1), that is,

(a+bun(θ1)p)R2N|un(x)un(y)|p2(un(x)un(y))(un(x)ϕjϵ(x)un(y)ϕjϵ(y))|xy|N+psdxdy=RN|un|psϕjϵdx+RNf(x)|un|qϕjϵdx+o(1).

It is easy to see that

|un(x)un(y)|p2(un(x)un(y))(un(x)ϕjϵ(x)un(y)ϕjϵ(y))=|un(x)un(y)|pϕjϵ(y)+|un(x)un(y)|p2(un(x)un(y))(ϕjϵ(x)ϕjϵ(y))un(x).

Coming the above six formulas, we have νjaμj+bμjθ. In view of (2.1) and ps/p=2θ1, we obtain

S(2θ1)μj2(θ1)bμjθ1a0,

which gives that

μj(b+b2+4aS(2θ1)2S(2θ1))1θ1=SNps(bS2θ12+b2S2θ1+4a2)1θ1.

Using Proposition 2.2 and (2.3) again, we derive

c+o(1)=J(un)1θpJ(un),un=a(1p1θp)unp+(1θp1ps)RN|un|psdx(1q1θp)λRNf(x)|un|qdxa(1p1θp)(μj+up)+(1θp1ps)νj(1q1θp)λ|f|pspsqSqpuqa(1p1θp)μj+(1θp1ps)(aμj+bμjθ)C0λppq=a(1p1ps)μj+b(1θp1ps)μjθC0λppqcC0λppq, 2.6

a contradiction. Hence we have J=.

We then claim that the quantities μ and ν given by Proposition 2.3 satisfy μ=ν0. For any R>0, let φR(x) to be a smooth function such that 0φR1, φR1 when xBRc(0), φR0 when xBR/2(0) and |φR|4/R. Now repeating the same process of proving the above claim, we can obtain μ=ν0.

Finally, based on the above two claims and [24, Lemma 4.5], we have unu in Ds,p(RN). Therefore J(u)=0 and J(u)=c. The proof is complete. □

The proof of Theorem 1.2

In this section, we will prove Theorem 1.2 in detail.

Existence of a first solution for (1.1)

Proof

Let λ>0 be given as in Lemma 2.6, then for any λ(0,λ) there exists a sequence {un}Ds,p(RN) verifying (2.3) by Lemma 2.5. In view of the proof of Lemma 2.7, we know that there exists a critical point u1Ds,p(RN) of J such that J(u1)=c>0. Hence u1 is a nontrivial solution of (1.1). □

Existence of a second solution for (1.1)

Before we obtain the second solution, we introduce the following proposition.

Proposition 3.1

(Ekeland’s variational principle [37], Theorem 1.1)

Let V be a complete metric space and F:VR{+} be lower semicontinuous, bounded from below. Then, for any ϵ>0, there exists some point vV with

F(v)infVF+ϵ,F(w)F(v)ϵd(v,w)for all wV.

We are in a position to show the existence of a second positive solution for (1.1).

Proof

For ρ>0 given by Lemma 2.5(i), we define

Bρ={uDs,p(RN),uρ},Bρ={uDs,p(RN),u=ρ},

and clearly Bρ is a complete metric space with the distance d(u,v)=uv. It is obvious that the functional J is lower semicontinuous and bounded from below on Bρ (see [31]).

We claim first that

c˜:=inf{J(u):uBρ}<0. 3.1

Indeed, choosing a nonnegative function ψC0(RN) and then we have

limt0J(tψ)tq=λqRNf(x)|ψ|qdx<0.

Therefore there exists a sufficiently small t0>0 such that t0ψρ and J(t0ψ)<0, which imply that (3.1) holds. By Proposition 3.1, for any nN there exists u˜n such that

c˜J(u˜n)c˜+1nandJ(v)J(u˜n)1nu˜nv,vBρ. 3.2

Then we claim that u˜n<ρ for nN sufficiently large. In fact, we will argue it by contradiction and just suppose that u˜n=ρ for infinitely many n, without loss of generality, we may assume that u˜n=ρ for any nN. It follows from Lemma 2.5 that J(u˜n)α>0 and by (3.2) we have c˜α>0 which is a contradiction to (3.1). Next, we will show that J(u˜n)0 in (Ds,p(RN)). Indeed, set

vn=u˜n+tu,uB1={uDs,p(RN),u=1},

where t>0 small enough such that 0<tρu˜n for fixed n large, then

vn=u˜n+tuu˜n+tρ,

which imply that vnBρ. So it follows from (3.2) that

J(vn)J(u˜n)tnu˜nvn,

that is,

J(u˜n+tu)J(u˜n)t1n.

Letting t0, then we have J(u˜n),u1n for any fixed n large. Similarly, choosing t<0 and |t| small enough, and repeating the process above we have J(u˜n),u1n for any fixed n large. Therefore the conclusion J(u˜n),u0 as n for any uB1 implies that J(u˜n)0 in (Ds,p(RN)).

Hence, we know that {u˜n} is a (PS)c˜ sequence for the functional J(u) with c˜<0. Therefore, Lemma 2.7 implies that there exists a function u2Bρ such that J(u2)=0 and J(u2)=c˜<0. Hence u2 is a nontrivial solution of (1.1). □

Asymptotic behavior as b0+

In this section, we prove Theorem 1.5. In the following, we regard b>0 as a parameter in problem (1.1) and analyze the convergence property of ubi as b0 for i{1,2}. The variational functional corresponding to (1.5) is given by

J0(u)=apup1psRN|u|psdxλqRNf(x)|u|qdx,

which is of class of C1 due to [31] (or [2]). For any b(0,1], we have

ca(1p1ps)SNps(S2θ12+S2θ1+4a2)1θ1+(1θp1ps)SNθps(S2θ12+S2θ1+4a2)θθ1:=M<+,

where M is independent of b. Let {ubi} (i{1,2}) be the solutions of (1.1) obtained in Theorem 1.2, that is,

Jb(ub1)=0,Jb(ub1)=cb 4.1

and

Jb(ub2)=0,Jb(ub2)=cb˜, 4.2

where

Jb(u)=apup+bθpuθp1psRN|u|psdxλqRNf(x)|u|qdx.

Proof of Theorem 1.5

To present the proof clearly, we will split it into several steps:

Step 1: there exist four constants independent of b(0,1] such that

0<αcb<MC0λppqandC0λppqcb˜λ2qRNf(x)|ψ0|qdx<0. 4.3

In fact, the constant α>0 given by Lemma 2.5 is independent of any b>0, then by (2.2) we have Jb(ub1)α. On the other hand, using (4.2) we have

Jb(ub2)=Jb(ub2)1θpJb(ub2),ub2a(1p1θp)ub2p(1q1θp)λ|f|pspsqSqpub2qC0λppq,

where C0>0 is given by Lemma 2.6. We choose a nonnegative function ψ0C0(RN) to satisfy ψ0(2qC0/|f|ps/(psq))1qλ1pqS1p. Since

limt0Jb(tψ0)tq=λqRNf(x)|ψ0|qdx<0,

we can let t0>0 such that t0ψρ, where ρ>0 is given by Lemma 2.5(ii). Therefore we can obtain

cb˜=inf{Jb(u):uBρ}λ2qRNf(x)|ψ0|qdx<0.

So the proof of Step 1 is complete.

Step 2: the sequences {ubi} (i{1,2}) contain strongly convergent subsequences.

By (4.1) and (4.2), we know that {ubi} (i{1,2}) are (PS) sequences of the functionals Jb(u). We claim that {ubi} (i{1,2}) are bounded. In fact,

M>Jb(ubi)=Jb(ubi)1θpJb(ubi),ubia(1p1θp)ubip(1q1θp)λ|f|pspsqSqpubiq,

which shows that {ubi} are bounded in Ds,p(RN) since p>q>1. With (4.1) and (4.2) at hand, we can see Lemma 2.7 as a special case to show that the sequences {ubi} (i{1,2}) contain strongly convergent subsequences with {cb˜,cb}<a(psp)/(pps)SN/(ps). Hence there exist subsequences still denoted by themselves and uiDs,p(RN) such that ubiui in Ds,p(RN) as b0+ for i{1,2}. Therefore, φC0(RN) we have

0=(a+bubi(θ1)p)R2N|ubi(x)ubi(y)|p2(ubi(x)ubi(y))(φ(x)φ(y))|xy|N+psdxdyRN|ubi|ps2ubiφdxλRNf(x)|ubi|q2ubiφdxaR2N|ui(x)ui(y)|p2(ui(x)ui(y))(φ(x)φ(y))|xy|N+psdxdyRN|ui|ps2uiφdxλRNf(x)|ui|q2uiφdxas b0+,

which shows that uiDs,p(RN) are solutions of (1.5) for i{1,2}.

Step 3: J0(u2)<0<J0(u1).

Indeed,

J0(u1)=limb0+Jb(ub1)α>0

and

J0(u2)=limb0+Jb(ub2)λ2qRNf(x)|ψ0|qdx<0.

Summing the above three steps, we see that u1 and u2 are two nontrivial solutions of (1.5). The proof is complete. □

Asymptotic behavior as a0+

In this section, we regard a(0,1] as a parameter in problem (1.1) and analyze the convergence property. To do it, we have to prove that problem (1.1) admits at least two nontrivial solutions again. We introduce the following variational functional:

Ja(u)=apup+bθpuθp1psRN|u|psdxλqRNf(x)|u|qdx

to emphasize the independence of a(0,1]. In order to eliminate the influence of parameter a>0, we have the following lemma which is different from Lemma 2.5.

Lemma 5.1

There exists λ00>0 such that the functional Ja(u) satisfies the mountain-pass geometry around 0Ds,p(RN) for any λ(0,λ00), that is:

  • (i)

    there exist α0,ρ0>0 such that Ja(u)α>0 when u=ρ0 and λ(0,λ00);

  • (ii)

    there exists e0Ds,p(RN) with e0>ρ such that Ja(e0)<0.

Proof

(i) It follows from (1.8) and Hölder’s inequality that

Ja(u)uq(bθpuθpq1psSpspupsqλq|f|pspsqSqp)[bpsSpsθp(θpq)θp(psq)]1psθp{b(psθp)θp(psq)[bpsSpsθp(θpq)θp(psq)]θpqpsθpλq|f|pspsqSqp}.

Therefore if we set

ρ0=[bpsSpsθp(θpq)θp(psq)]1psθp>0andλ00=bqSqp(psθp)θp|f|pspsq(psq)[bpsSpsθp(θpq)θp(psq)]θpqpsθp>0,

then there exists α0>0 such that Ja(u)α0>0 when u=ρ0>0 for any λ(0,λ00).

(ii) Choosing u0Ds,p(RN){0}, then since θp<ps and f(x) is nonnegative one has

J(tu0)aptpu0p+bθptθpu0θptpspsRN|u0|psdxas t+.

Hence letting e0=t0u0Ds,p(RN){0} with t0 sufficiently large, we have e0>ρ0 and Ja(e0)<0. The proof is complete. □

By Lemma 5.1, and the mountain-pass theorem in [31], a (PS) sequence of the functional Ja(u) at the level

ca:=infγΓmaxt[0,1]Ja(γ(t))α0>0 5.1

can be constructed, where the set of paths is defined as

Γa:={γC([0,1],Ds,p(RN)):γ(0)=0,Ja(γ(1))<0}.

In other words, there exists a sequence {un}Ds,p(RN) such that

Ja(un)ca,Ja(un)0as n. 5.2

The following two lemmas are very similar to Lemmas 2.6 and 2.7, respectively.

Lemma 5.2

There exists λ>0 such that the mountain-pass value satisfies

ca<cC00λppqwith C00=(θ1)(pq)qθp[(θpq)|f|ps/(psq)a(θ1)pSqp]ppq>0

for any λ(0,λ), c and S are given by (1.7) and (1.8), respectively.

Lemma 5.3

If λ(0,λ), any sequence satisfying (2.2) contains a strongly convergent subsequence whenever ca<cC00λppq, where c is given by (1.7).

Remark 5.4

Since a(0,1], always

cC0λppqcC00λppq,

where C00>0 is independent of a. Consequently, in addition to the proper adjustment of λ, the proof of Lemma 5.2 is exactly the same as that of Lemma 2.6. The above formula is applied to Eq. (2.6) to get a contradiction, hence we can prove Lemma 5.3.

In view of Sect. 3.2 and using Lemmas 5.15.3, we have the following proposition.

Proposition 5.5

Assume (F), then for any a,b>0 there exists a constant λ>0 such that Eq. (1.1) has at least two nontrivial solutions, ua11 and ua22, satisfying

Ja(ua22)<0<J(ua11),λ(0,λ).

Now let λ(0,λ) and b>0 be fixed; we have the following.

Proposition 5.6

Let {ua11} and {ua22} be nontrivial solutions of (1.1) obtained in Proposition 5.5, then there exist subsequences still denoted by themselves {ua11} and {ua22} such that uaiiuii in Ds,p(RN) as a0+ for i{1,2}, where u11 and u22 are two nontrivial solutions of (1.6).

Proof

For any a(0,1], there exists M00>0 independent of a such that

c(1p1ps)SNps(bS2θ12+b2S2θ1+42)1θ1+b(1θp1ps)SNθps(bS2θ12+b2S2θ1+42)θθ1:=M00<+.

Recalling Steps 1–3 in the proof of Theorem 1.5, we have the following facts.

Fact 1: there exist four constants independent of a(0,1] such that

0<α0ca<M00C00λppqandC00λppqca˜λ2qRNf(x)|ψ00|qdx<0,

where ca˜=inf{Ja(u):uBρ0}.

Fact 2: the sequences {uaii} (i{1,2}) contain strongly convergent subsequences with {ca˜,ca}<b(psp)/(θpps)SNθ/(ps)bθ/(θ1)Sθ(2θ1)/2(θ1). Hence there exist subsequences still denoted by themselves and uiiDs,p(RN) such that uaiiuii in Ds,p(RN) as a0+ for i{1,2}. Therefore, φC0(RN) we have

0=(a+buaii(θ1)p)R2N|uaii(x)uaii(y)|p2(uaii(x)uaii(y))(φ(x)φ(y))|xy|N+psdxdyRN|uaii|ps2uaiiφdxλRNf(x)|uaii|q2uaiiφdxbuii(θ1)pR2N|uii(x)uii(y)|p2(uii(x)uii(y))(φ(x)φ(y))|xy|N+psdxdyRN|uii|ps2uiiφdxλRNf(x)|uii|q2uiiφdxas a0+,

which shows that uiiDs,p(RN) are solutions of (1.6) for i{1,2}.

Fact 3: J00(u22)<0<J00(u11), where

J00(u)=bθpuθp1psRN|u|psdxλqRNf(x)|u|qdx.

Therefore we know that u11 and u22 are two nontrivial solutions of (1.6). The proof is complete. □

Proof of Theorem 1.7

In view of Sect. 3.2 and using Lemmas 5.15.3, we know that for any a,b>0 there exists a constant λ>0 such that (1.1) has at least two nontrivial solutions, ua11 and ua22, satisfying

Ja(ua22)<0<J(ua11),λ(0,λ).

Now we use Proposition 5.6 to obtain the desired result directly. The proof is complete. □

Conclusion

This paper is concerned with the qualitative analysis of solutions of a nonlocal problem driven by the fractional p-Laplace operator. A key feature of this paper is the presence of the critical Sobolev exponent of Kirchhoff-type. We are interested both in the existence of solutions and in the multiplicity properties of the solutions. We also establish the convergence of solutions as the positive parameters converge to zero. There are obtained several very nice results and the variational arguments play a central role in the arguments developed in this paper. Finally, we obtain the threshold value by solving a quadratic algebra equation with one unknown which does not seem to have appeared in previous literature.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the handling editors and anonymous referee for the help in the processing of the paper.

Authors’ contributions

The author read and proved the final manuscript.

Funding

The author was supported by NSFC (Grant No. 11371158, 11771165), the program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University (No. IRT13066).

Competing interests

The author declares that he has no interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Di Nezza E., Palatucci G., Valdinoci E. Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces. Bull. Sci. Math. 2012;136:521–573. doi: 10.1016/j.bulsci.2011.12.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pucci P., Xiang M., Zhang B. Multiple solutions for nonhomogeneous Schrödinger–Kirchhoff type equations involving the fractional p-Laplacian in RN. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 2015;54:2785–2806. doi: 10.1007/s00526-015-0883-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Molica Bisci G., Repovs D. Multiple solutions of p-biharmonic equations with Navier boundary conditions. Complex Var. Elliptic Equ. 2014;59:271–284. doi: 10.1080/17476933.2012.734301. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Molica Bisci G., Rădulescu V., Servadei R. Variational Methods for Nonlocal Fractional Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Xiang M., Zhang B., Rădulescu V. Existence of solutions for perturbed fractional p-Laplacian equations. J. Differ. Equ. 2016;260:1392–1413. doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2015.09.028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Xiang M., Zhang B., Rădulescu V. Multiplicity of solutions for a class of quasilinear Kirchhoff system involving the fractional p-Laplacian. Nonlinearity. 2016;29:3186–3205. doi: 10.1088/0951-7715/29/10/3186. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kirchhoff G. Mechanik. Leipzig: Teubner; 1883. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lions J.L. Contemporary Developments in Continuum Mechanics and Partial Differential Equations, Proceedings of International Symposium. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1978. On some questions in boundary value problems of mathematical physics; pp. 284–346. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Figueiredo G., Ikoma N., Santos Júnior J.R. Existence and concentration result for the Kirchhoff type equations with general nonlinearities. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 2014;213:931–979. doi: 10.1007/s00205-014-0747-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Li G., Ye H. Existence of positive ground state solutions for the nonlinear Kirchhoff type equations in R3. J. Differ. Equ. 2014;257:566–600. doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2014.04.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.He Y., Li G. Standing waves for a class of Kirchhoff type problems in R3 involving critical Sobolev exponents. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 2015;54:3067–3106. doi: 10.1007/s00526-015-0894-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Shuai W. Sign-changing solutions for a class of Kirchhoff-type problem in bounded domains. J. Differ. Equ. 2015;259:1256–1274. doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2015.02.040. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lei C., Liu G., Guo L. Multiple positive solutions for a Kirchhoff type problem with a critical nonlinearity. Nonlinear Anal. 2016;31:343–355. doi: 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2016.01.018. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Laskin N. Fractional quantum mechanics and Lévy path integrals. Phys. Lett. A. 2000;268:298–305. doi: 10.1016/S0375-9601(00)00201-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Laskin N. Fractional Schrödinger equation. Phys. Rev. E. 2002;66:56. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.66.056108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Caffarelli L., Silvestre L. An extension problem related to the fractional Laplacian. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 2007;32:1245–1260. doi: 10.1080/03605300600987306. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Felmer P., Quaas A., Tan J. Positive solutions of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation with the fractional Laplacian. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. A. 2012;142:1237–1262. doi: 10.1017/S0308210511000746. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Molica Bisci G., Repovs D. On some variational algebraic problems. Adv. Nonlinear Anal. 2013;2:127–146. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Molica Bisci G., Rădulescu V. Ground state solutions of scalar field fractional Schrödinger equations. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 2015;54:2985–3008. doi: 10.1007/s00526-015-0891-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.He X., Zou W. Existence and concentration result for the fractional Schrödinger equations with critical nonlinearities. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 2016;55:1–39. doi: 10.1007/s00526-015-0942-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ambrosio V. Ground states solutions for a non-linear equation involving a pseudo-relativistic Schrödinger operator. J. Math. Phys. 2016;57:051502. doi: 10.1063/1.4949352. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Giacomoni J., Mukherjee T., Sreenadh K. Positive solutions of fractional elliptic equation with critical and singular nonlinearity. Adv. Nonlinear Anal. 2017;6:327–354. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lyons J., Neugebauer J. Positive solutions of a singular fractional boundary value problem with a fractional boundary condition. Opusc. Math. 2017;37:421–434. doi: 10.7494/OpMath.2017.37.3.421. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Xiang M., Zhang B., Zhang X. A nonhomogeneous fractional p-Kirchhoff type problem involving critical exponent in RN. Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 2017;3:611–640. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wang L., Zhang B. Infinitely many solutions for Schrödinger–Kirchhoff type equations involving the fractional p-Laplacian and critical exponent. Electron. J. Differ. Equ. 2016;2016:339. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Pucci P., Xiang M., Zhang B. Existence and multiplicity of entire solutions for fractional p-Kirchhoff equations. Adv. Nonlinear Anal. 2016;5:27–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Xiang M., Zhang B., Ferrara M. Multiplicity results for the nonhomogeneous fractional p-Kirchhoff equations with concave–convex nonlinearities. Proc. R. Soc., Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2015;471:2177. doi: 10.1098/rspa.2015.0034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Xiang M., Zhang B., Rădulescu V. Existence of solutions for a bi-nonlocal fractional p-Kirchhoff type problem. Comput. Math. Appl. 2016;71:255–266. doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2015.11.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Fiscella A., Pucci P. p-fractional Kirchhoff equations involving critical nonlinearities. Nonlinear Anal. 2017;35:350–378. doi: 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2016.11.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Pucci P., Saldi S. Asymptotic stability for nonlinear damped Kirchhoff systems involving the fractional p-Laplacian operator. J. Differ. Equ. 2017;263:2375–2418. doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2017.02.039. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Willem M. Minimax Theorems. Boston: Birkhäuser; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Alves C.O. Multiple positive solutions for equations involving critical Sobolev exponent in RN. Electron. J. Differ. Equ. 1997;1997:13. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Deng Y., Peng S., Shuai W. Existence and asymptotic behavior of nodal solutions for the Kirchhoff-type problems in R3. J. Funct. Anal. 2015;269:3500–3527. doi: 10.1016/j.jfa.2015.09.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Brézis H., Nirenberg L. Positive solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations involving critical Sobolev exponents. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 1983;36:437–477. doi: 10.1002/cpa.3160360405. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lions P.L. The concentration–compactness principle in the calculus of variation. The locally compact case. Part I. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré, Anal. Non Linéaire. 1984;1:109–145. doi: 10.1016/S0294-1449(16)30428-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Brasco L., Mosconi S., Squassina M. Optimal decay of extremals for the fractional Sobolev inequality. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 2016;55:23. doi: 10.1007/s00526-016-0958-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ekeland I. Nonconvex minimization problems. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 1979;1:443–473. doi: 10.1090/S0273-0979-1979-14595-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Inequalities and Applications are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES