Cha Brow Ski 1997

de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics 24
Editors: Heinz Bauer · Jerry L. Kazdan · Eduard Zehnder
Brought to you by | Cornell University Library

Authenticated
Download Date | 7/9/17 3:13 AM
de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics
1 Riemannian Geometry, 2nd rev. ed., Wilhelm P. Α. Klingenberg
2 Semimartingales, Michel Mitivier
3 Holomorphic Functions of Several Variables, Ludger Kaup
and Burchard Kaup
4 Spaces of Measures, Corneliu Constantinescu
5 Knots, Gerhard Burde and Heiner Zieschang
6 Ergodic Theorems, Ulrich Krengel
7 Mathematical Theory of Statistics, Helmut Strasser
8 Transformation Groups, Tammo torn Dieck
9 Gibbs Measures and Phase Transitions, Hans-Otto Georgii
10 Analyticity in Infinite Dimensional Spaces, Michel Herve
11 Elementary Geometry in Hyperbolic Space, Werner Fenchel
12 Transcendental Numbers, Andrei B. Shidlovskii
13 Ordinary Differential Equations, Herbert Amann
14 Dirichlet Forms and Analysis on Wiener Space,
Nicolas Bouleau and Francis Hirsch
15 Nevanlinna Theory and Complex Differential Equations, lipo Laine
16 Rational Iteration, Norbert Steinmetz
17 Korovkin-type Approximation Theory and its Applications,
Francesco Altomare and Michele Campiti
18 Quantum Invariants of Knots and 3-Manifolds,
Vladimir G. Turaev
19 Dirichlet Forms and Symmetric Markov Processes,
Masatoshi Fukushima, Yoichi Oshima, Masayoshi Takeda
20 Harmonic Analysis of Probability Measures on Hypergroups,
Walter R. Bloom and Herbert Hey er
21 Potential Theory on Infinite-Dimensional Abelian Groups,
Alexander Bendikov
22 Methods ofNoncommutative Analysis, Vladimir E. Nazaikinskii,
Victor E. Shatalov, Boris Yu. Sternin
23 Probability Theory, Heinz Bauer

Authenticated
Jan Chabrowski
Variational Methods for

Potential Operator Equations
With Applications to Nonlinear Elliptic Equations
W Walter de Gruyter
DE
G Berlin · New York 1997

Authenticated
Author
Jan Chabrowski
Department of Mathematics
The University of Queensland
St Lucia, Qld 4072
Australia
Series Editors
Heinz Bauer Jerry L. Kazdan Eduard Zehnder
Mathematisches Institut Department of Mathematics ETH-Zentrum/Mathematik
der Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg University of Pennsylvania Rämi straße 101
Bismarckstraße VA 209 South 33rd Street CH-8092 Zürich
D-91054 Erlangen, FRG Philadelphia, PA 19104-6395, USA Switzerland
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification: 35-02; 35D05, 35J20, 35J60, 35J65, 58E05, 58E30
Keywords: Nonlinear elliptic equations, critical and subcritical Sobolev exponents, min-max theory,
variational principles
© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Chabrowski, Jan, 1941 —

Variational methods for potential operator equations : with applica-
tions to nonlinear elliptic equations / Jan Chabrowski.
p. cm. — (De Gruyter studies in mathematics ; 24)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 3-11-015269-X
1. Calculus of variations. 2. Differential equations, Elliptic-Numeri-
cal solutions. 3. Differential equations, Nonlinear-Numerical solutions.
I. Title. II. Series.
QA316.C485 1997
515'.64—dc21 97-8060
CIP
Die Deutsche Bibliothek — Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Chabrowski, Jan:
Variational methods for potential operator equations : with applications to
nonlinear elliptic equations / Jan Chabrowski. - Berlin ; New York : de
Gruyter, 1997
(De Gruyter studies in mathematics ; 24)
ISBN 3-11-015269-X
© Copyright 1997 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-10785 Berlin.

All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be
reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or
any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Printed in Germany.
Typeset using the Author's T£X-Files: I. Zimmermann, Freiburg.
Printing: Arthur Collignon GmbH, Berlin.
Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin. Cover design: Rudolf Hübler, Berlin.

Authenticated
Preface
In this book we are concerned with methods of the variational calculus which are
directly related to the theory of partial differential equations of elliptic type. The meth-
ods which we discuss and describe here go far beyond elliptic equations. In particular,
these methods can be applied to Hamiltonian systems, nonlinear wave equations and
problems related to surfaces of prescribed mean curvature.
In Chapter 1 we discuss minimization (maximization) of functionals subject to some
constraints. The corresponding Euler-Lagrange equation has the form of the difference
of two potential operators. This characteristic feature of the Euler-Lagrange equation
is maintained throughout the whole book. In Chapter 1 we assume that both potential
operators are homogeneous. Due to this assumption we can provide a rather complete
description of relations between the various methods of minimization (maximization).
We also emphasize here an efficient tool, an abstract version of the Sobolev inequality,
which has been widely used in the theory of partial differential equations.
In Chapter 2 we focus our attention on critical points which are not necessarily
maximizers (minimizers) of the corresponding functionals. To study such points we
use the Lusternik-Schnirelman theory of critical points. In this approach, critical
values of a given functional F : X ->· Ε on a Banach space X are obtained as
c = inf max7 F(u),

ueA AeJ
where JF is a suitable class of subsets of X. The choice of Τ depends on the nature of a

variational problem and topological properties of level sets of T . We use this theory in
the foifH presented in the work of Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz [10]. The reader may also
consult the books by Berger [31], Chow-Hale [75] and Foucik-Necas-Soucek [121].
The essential condition that must be satisfied in order to use this theory is the Palais-
Smale condition. The most difficult case is where both potential operators appearing
in the Euler-Lagrange equation have the same degree of the homogeneity.
Chapters 3 and 4 are devoted to some generalizations of the results presented in
the first two chapters. Namely, in Chapter 3 we consider the situation where one
of the potential operators is not homogeneous. We show that we can still apply the
Lusternik-Schnirelman theory. Among the important results here are perturbation
theorems. These theorems allow us to associate with a given variational problem
another variational problem which is easier to solve and whose solvability implies the
existence of a solution to an original problem. We return to this method in Chapter 8,
where exactly the same role is played by the concentration-compactness principle at
infinity.

Authenticated
vi Preface
Chapter 4 is concerned with variational problems where both potential operators

satisfy some covariance condition. Obviously, we can drop the homogeneity assump-
tion on potential operators.
In Chapter 5 we continue the investigation of constrained minimization. We con-
sider constraints depending on a parameter and investigate dependence of eigenvalues
and eigenvectors on this parameter.
One of the most effective theorems applied in many variational problems is the
Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz mountain pass theorem [10]. However, there are some limita-
tions on the applicability of this theorem. In Chapter 6 we present some generalizations
of this theorem.
In Chapter 7 we concentrate on theorems of mountain pass type for locally Lipschitz
functionals. The first proof of the mountain pass theorem, given by Ambrosetti-
Rabinowitz [10], was based on a deformation lemma. In this chapter we present a
different proof based on Ekeland's variational principle combined with techniques
from the Clarke theory of generalized gradient.
In the final Chapters 8 and 9 we concentrate on weak methods of convergence in
Sobolev spaces. In particular, we discuss variational problems involving subcritical
and critical Sobolev exponents. There are number of factors creating some difficulties
in solving these problems: the lack of compactness, invariance of these problems with
respect to a group of translations in subcritical case and additionally in the critical case
with respect to a group of dilations. We discuss in these chapters the applicability
of the first and second concentration-compactness principles both due to P. L. Lions
[ 158], [ 159]. These two principles are complemented by quantitative information about
possible loss of mass at infinity of weakly convergent minimizing sequences. This gives
rise to the concentration-compactness principle at infinity in both the subcritical and
critical case.
The material discussed and covered by this book requires some knowledge of
functional analysis, nonlinear partial differential equations and the theory of Sobolev
spaces. For the reader's convenience, most of the required prerequisites are given in
Appendix.
The problems discussed in this book have an extensive literature and the bibliogra-
phy for this book is not intended to be complete, but rather to supplement and illuminate
the text.
Finally, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr K. R. Matthews for his
help in improving the presentation of the material in this book. I am also indebted to
Dr K. G. Smith for his help in surmounting various problems with the manuscript.

Authenticated
Contents
1 Constrained minimization 1
1.1 Preliminaries 1
1.2 Constrained minimization 8
1.3 Dual method 13
1.4 Minimizers with the least energy 14
1.5 Application of dual method 15
1.6 Multiple solutions of nonhomogeneous equation 17
1.7 Sets of constraints 19
1.8 Constrained minimization for Ff 24
1.9 Subcritical problem 29
1.10 Application to the p-Laplacian 30
1.11 Critical problem 35
1.12 Bibliographical notes 37
2 Applications of Lusternik-Schnirelman theory 39

2.1 Palais-Smale condition, case ρ φ q 39
2.2 Duality mapping 40
2.3 Palais-Smale condition, case ρ = q 43
2.4 The Lusternik-Schnirelman theory 47
2.5 Case ρ > q 55
2.6 Case ρ < q 56
2.7 Case p = q 60
2.8 The p-Laplacian in bounded domain 63
2.9 Iterative construction of eigenvectors 67
2.10 Critical points of higher order 70
3 Nonhomogeneous potentials 74
3.1 Preliminaries and assumptions 74
3.3 Application — compact case 79
3.4 Perturbation theorems — noncompact case 81
3.5 Perturbation of the functional a — noncompact case 85
3.6 Existence of infinitely many solutions 88

Authenticated
viii Contents
3.7 General minimization — case ρ > q 90

3.8 Set of constraints V 99
3.9 Application to a critical case ρ = η 101
3.10 Technical lemmas 103
3.11 Existence result for problem (3.34) 112
4 Potentials with covariance condition 115

4.1 Preliminaries and constrained minimization 115
4.2 Dual method 120
4.3 Minimization subject to constraint V 120
4.4 Sobolev inequality 121
4.5 Mountain pass theorem and constrained minimization 122
4.6 Minimization problem for a system of equations 125
5 Eigenvalues and level sets 128

5.1 Levelsets 128
5.2 Continuity and monotonicity of σ 130
5.3 The differentiability properties of σ 132
5.4 Schechter's version of the mountain pass theorem 135
5.5 General condition for solvability of (5.11) 138
5.6 Properties of the function κ(ί) 140
5.7 Hilbert space case 142
5.8 Application to elliptic equations 143
6 Generalizations of the mountain pass theorem 149

6.1 Version of a deformation lemma 149
6.2 Mountain pass alternative 153
6.3 Consequences of mountain pass alternative 155
6.4 Hampwile alternative 157
6.5 Applicability of the mountain pass theorem 160
6.6 Mountain pass and Hampwile alternative 163
7 Nondifferentiable functionals 167

7.1 Concept of a generalized gradient 167
7.2 Generalized gradients in function spaces 172
7.3 Mountain pass theorem for locally Lipschitz functionals 174
7.4 Consequences of Theorem 7.3.1 181
7.5 Application to boundary value problem with discontinuous nonlinearity 183
7.6 Lower semicontinuous perturbation 185
7.7 Deformation lemma for functionals satisfying condition (L) 188

Authenticated
Contents ix
7.8 Application to variational inequalities 195

8 Concentration-compactness principle — subcritical case 198

8.1 Concentration-compactness principle at infinity — subcritical case . . 198
8.2 Constrained minimization — subcritical case 200
8.3 Constrained minimization with b φ const, subcritical case 205
8.4 Behaviour of the Palais-Smale sequences 211
8.5 The exterior Dirichlet problem 215
8.6 The Palais-Smale condition 218
8.7 Concentration-compactness principle I 221
9 Concentration-compactness principle — critical case 224

9.1 Critical Sobolev exponent 224
9.2 Concentration-compactness principle II 228
9.3 Loss of mass at infinity 229
9.4 Constrained minimization — critical case 233
9.5 Palais-Smale sequences in critical case 237
9.6 Symmetric solutions 244
9.7 Remarks on compact embeddings into L2*(Q) and 250
Appendix 253
A.l Sobolev spaces 253
A.2 Embedding theorems 254
A.3 Compact embeddings of spaces WÔR") and 255
A.4 Conditions of concentration and uniform decay at infinity 259
A.5 Compact embedding for H} (R n ) 261
A.6 Schwarz symmetrization 264
A.7 Pointwise convergence 264
A.8 Gateaux derivatives 266
Bibliography 270
Glossary 287
Index 289

Authenticated
Authenticated
Chapter 1
Constrained minimization
The purpose of this chapter is to describe various minimization techniques involving

sets of constraints. We distinguish two cases: subcritical and critical minimization
problems. In the next chapters, we illustrate both cases by considering variational
problems from the theory of boundary value problems for nonlinear elliptic equations.
We begin with two fundamental results of the modern variational calculus: Ekeland's
variational principle and the Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz mountain pass theorem which
are used throughout this book. The proof of the mountain pass theorem is postponed
until Chapter 7, where we present several more general variants of this theorem for
nondifferentiable functionals.
1.1 Preliminaries
We introduce some terminology which is quite standard and for more details we refer
to the monographs [231 ], [95], [203] and [9].
Let X be a Banach space equipped with norm || · ||. By {·, ·) we denote the duality
pairing between X and its dual X*. We denote the weak convergence in X and X* by
1
a n d the strong convergence by "—> ". We always denote an open ball centered at x0
of radius R by B(x0, R) and the corresponding sphere by 5(λ:0, R), that is B(x0, R) =
{χ· II* - JColl < R} and S(x 0 , R) = {*; ||x - x0|| = *}·
Let X and Y be two real Banach spaces. A map F : X —>· Y is said to be Frechet
differentiable at u0 e X if there is an F'(u0) € L(X, Y) such that
F(u0 + h) = F(u0) + F'(u0)h + ω(κ0, h)
anda>(w0, h) = ο(||Λ||) as/i 0. Herεω(« 0 , h) = ο(||Λ||) denotes Landau's symbol.

If F is differentiable at every point u e X and F' : X L{X, Y) is continuous,
then F is said to be continuously differentiable on X. We express this by writing
F G Cl(X, Y).
A functional a : X -»· Μ is said to be Gäteaux differentiable if there exists an
Μ* € X* such that
lim t~1 (a(u0 + th) - a(ua)) = {u*, h) = u*(h)

Authenticated
2 1 Constrained minimization
for all A e X. The functional u* is called the Gateaux derivative of a at u0 and we

denote it by A(u0) = u*. We recall that if a : X -»· R has a Gateaux derivative A(m)
at every point κ in a neighbourhood of a point u0 and A(u) is continuous at u0, then a
is Frechet differentiable at u0 and the Frechet derivative of a at u0 is equal to A(u0).
For simplicity, we have defined both derivatives for mappings defined on X. In the
same way we can define Frechet and Gateaux differentiability for mappings defined
on open set Ω C X.
A mapping A : X —> X* is said to be a potential operator with a potential
a : X — R , if a is Gateaux differentiable and
lim t~l (a(u + tv) — a(u)) = (A(u), υ)
for all u and ν in X. For a potential we always assume that α (0) = 0.

A mapping A : X —• X* is called hemicontinuous if it is continuous on line
segments in X and X* is equipped with the weak topology.
A potential of a hemicontinuous potential operator can be represented in the form
a(u) = f (A(tu),u)dt for all u € X.

Jo
Indeed, we set φ(ί) = a(v + t(u — ν)) for u and ν in X, 0 < t < 1, then φ'(ί) =
(Λ(ι» + t(u — ν), u — ν). Integrating over [0, 1] and setting υ = 0, the integral formula
follows.
We say that the mapping Λ : X -> X* is homogeneous of degree β > 0 if for
every u e X and t > 0
A(tu) = tÂ(u).
Consequently, for homogeneous hemicontinuous potential operator A of degree β with
the potential a, we have
ρ+ 1
A mapping A : X — X * is strongly monotone if there exists a continuous function
κ \ [0, oo) [0, oo) which is positive on (0, oo) and lim/ôo/cC/) = oo and such
that
(A(u) — Α(υ), u — υ) > /c(||« — u||)||u — υ||
for all u and ν in X.
A mapping A : X —• X* is said to satisfy condition (S)i if for every sequence
{uj} in X with uj —^ u and A(uj) -»• υ in X* we have Uj u. Evidently, a strongly
monotone operator satisfies the condition (5)i.
We now recall weaker definitions of the monotonicity for potential operators.
A mapping A : X X* is said to be monotone if (A(u) — Α(υ), u — ν) > 0 for
all u and υ in X and strictly monotone if equality implies u = v.
It is well known that a Gateaux differentiable functional a : X -»• R is convex
if and only if its potential operator A is hemicontinuous and monotone. Moreover,
potential α of a monotone potential operator A is convex.

Authenticated
1.1 Preliminaries 3
We say that a mapping A : X —>· X* is strongly continuous if for every Uj —^ u

in X we have A(uj) A(u) in X*.
We say that a mapping A : X X* is weakly continuous if for every uj —u in
X we have A(uj) A(u) in X*.
A functional a : X ->· R is said to be weakly continuous if uj —» u implies
a(uj) a(u).
A functional a : X —• R is said to be coercive if lim^H-»^ a(u) = oo.
Let
-Apu = -D(\Vu\p~2Du), 1 < ρ < oo,
be the p-Laplacian defined for u in the Sobolev space where Ω c M" is a

bounded domain. Writing for u and ν in W0 (Ω)
(A(u),v)= f \Vu\p~2DuDvdx
Ja
we define a potential operator A : τν 0 1,ρ (Ω) - * ± + j? = 1, with a

l,p
potential a : W 0 (ß) given by
a{u) = - f \Vu\pdx.
Ρ Ja
The potential operator A is hemicontinuous, bounded, monotone and coercive. The
monotonicity of A follows from the algebraic inequalities
(\X\P~2X - \y\P-2y, χ - y) > ax \x - y\p
if 2 < ρ < oo and
(\x\'-2x-\y\P-2y,x-y)>av ~ ^
(\x\ + \y\)2~p
if 1 < ρ < 2, for all χ and _y in M" and some constant a\ > 0. Applying these
inequalities to
<A(M) - A ( v ) , u - v ) - I (\Vu\p~2Du -\Vv\p~2Dv)(Du - Dv)dx,

Jn
with u and υ in W0 (Ω), we obtain, using the Holder inequality if 1 < ρ < 2, with
1 —1ι _ Ezl
ρ ~ ρ ·
(A(u) - Α ( υ ) , u - v ) > a2\\Vu - Vv\\p
if ρ > 2, and
IIVm - Vw||J
(A(m) - A(v), u - v ) > a2-
(Ι|ν Μ || ρ + | | ν υ | | ρ ) Ρ - 2
if 1 < ρ < 2, for some constant a2 > 0. If 2 < p, the operator A is strongly monotone.

Authenticated
Lemma 1.1.1. Let X be a reflexive Banach space. If A : X —»• X* is a strongly

continuous potential operator, with potential a, then A is uniformly continuous on
bounded sets and a is weakly continuous.
Proof. Arguing indirectly, suppose that there is a bounded set 5 C X such that A is
not uniformly continuous on S. This means that there exists an € > 0 and sequences
{uj},{vj} C S such that
\\uj-vj\\<- and \\A(uj)~A(vj)\\>€
for all j > 1. Since S is bounded we may assume that Uj u and vj v.

Hence u = ν and since A is strongly continuous A(uj) — A(vj) -»· 0 in X* which is
impossible. Hence A is uniformly continuous on bounded sets. To prove the second
assertion, suppose that Uj u. Then
b(u„)= (A(aun), un) da
and ( A ( a u n , u n ) {A(au, «)) for every σ € [0, 1]. Since Λ is uniformly continuous
on bounded sets, it must be bounded. Applying the dominated convergence theorem
we conclude that b(um) b(u). •
A mapping A : X —• X* is said to be bounded if A maps bounded sets into
bounded sets. Obviously, if A : X — X * is strongly continuous, then A is bounded.
A mapping A : X —• X* is said to be odd if A(u) = —A(—u) for all u e X.
If A : X ->· X* is an odd potential operator, with a potential a, then a is an even
potential.
We shall frequently refer to Ekeland's variational principle ([109], [212]).
Theorem 1.1.1 (Ekeland's variational principle). Let (M, d) be a complete metric

space with metric d and let F : Μ —• R U {oo} be lower semicontinuous, bounded
from below and φ oo. Then for every € > 0 and λ > 0 and every u e Μ such that
F(u) < inf F + e

Μ
there exists an element ν € Μ such that
F(v) < F(u),
d(v, u) < —
λ'
and for each w φ ν in Μ
F(w) > F(v) — ekd(w, ν).

Authenticated
1.1 Preliminaries 5
Proof. It is sufficient to prove our assertion for λ = 1. The general case is obtained
by replacing d by an equivalent metric kd. We define the relation on Μ:
w < ν F ( w ) + €d(v, w) < F(v).
It is easy to see that this relation defines a partial ordering on M. We now construct
inductively a sequence {um} as follows: u0 = u; also assuming that um has been
defined we set
Sn = {w € M\ ιν < u„j
and choose un+1 e Sn so that
1
F(u„+1) < inf F +
Sn η + 1
Since un+i < un, Sn+1 C Sn and by the lower semicontinuity of F, Sn is closed.
We now show that diamS„ —> 0. Indeed, if w e Sn+j, then w < u n + \ < un and
consequently
ed(w, un+1) < F(un+1) - F(w) < inf F Η - inf F = — .

Sn η + 1 Sn η + 1
This estimate implies that

2
diam5 w + i <
€(n + 1)
and our claim follows. The fact that Μ is complete implies that
Π = w
n> 0
for some υ e M. In particular, υ e S0, that is,
ν < uQ = u
and hence
F(v) < F(u) - €d(u, v) < F(u)
and moreover
d ( u , v ) < e - 1 ( F ( « ) - F(v)) < e _ 1 (inf F + e — inf F ) = 1.

Μ Μ
To complete the proof we must show w < ν implies w = v. If w < v, then w < un
= n
for each integer η > 0, that is w 6 f \ > o Μ·
As an immediate consequence one obtains the existence of a minimizing sequence

{um} for C 1 -functional F on a Banach space for which F'(um) — 0 in X*.

Authenticated
Theorem 1.1.2. If X is a Banach space and F e Cl(X, R) is bounded from below,

then there exists a minimizing sequence {um} for F such that F(um) —> inf χ F and
F'(um) 0 in X* asm oo.
To obtain the existence of a minimizer we need a compactness condition on F
which guarantees the convergence of a subsequence of a minimizing sequence.
Let F g Cl(X, R). We say that F satisfies the Palais-Smale condition (the (PS)
condition for short) if for every sequence {um} e X such that {F(wm)} is bounded and
F'(um) -»· 0 in X*, then {um} possesses a convergent subsequence.
We say that F 6 C 1 (X, R) satisfies the (PS)C condition, c e R, if every sequence
{um} C X such that F(um) -»• c and F'(um) 0 in X* contains a convergent
subsequence.
Corollary 1.1.1. If F e C ^ X . R ) is bounded from below and satisfies the (PS) con-
dition, then there exists u e X such that
F(u) = inf F(u).
ueX
It is worth mentioning that a C Afunctional bounded from below and satisfying the
(PS) condition must be coercive.
Proposition 1.1.1. Let F € Cl(X, R) be bounded from below. If F satisfies the (PS)
condition then F is coercive.
Proof. If the conclusion of the theorem were not true, there would exist c e R
such that limn«ιι-^οο F(m) = c. Then for every integer m > 1 there exists um such
that F(u m ) < c + ^ and ||um|| > 2m. By virtue of Theorem 1.1.1, applied with
€ = c + ^ — inf χ F and λ = ^ , we get the existence of vm e X such that
F(vm) < F(um) < c + —,

m
llWmll > \\um II - ll"m - vm || > ||um|| - m > m
and
F ( w ) > F ( v m ) - - ( c + - - inf F)||u; - um ||
m m x
for each w e X. The last inequality implies that
HF>m)||<-(c+l-infF).
m m x
Since ||um|| oo, lim^-ôo F(v m) = c. On the other hand F'(vm) 0 which
contradicts the (PS) condition. •
One of the most useful min-max results allowing us to find critical points for a
large class of functionals is the mountain pass theorem (see [10]).

Authenticated
1.1 Preliminaries 7
Theorem 1.1.3 (Mountain pass theorem). Let F : X -»• Μ be of class Cl(X, M).
Suppose that
(i) F(0) = 0 and there exists a ρ > 0 such that F(u) > 0 for u € B(0, ρ) — {0} and
F(u) > a on S(0, p) for some constanta > 0,
(ii) there exists e e X, e φ 0 with F(e) < 0,
(iii) F satisfies the Palais-Smale condition.
Then
a0 = inf max F(g(t))
«er/£[0,l]
is a critical value of F with 0 < a < a0 < oo, where
Γ = {g e C([0, 1], X); g(0) = 0, = e).
A widely known proof of this theorem is based on a deformation lemma. The

main step is to construct a deformation mapping η : [0, 1] χ Χ —• X which has the
following property: if a0 is not a critical value of F then given any € > 0, there exists
an € € (0, €) and a mapping η : [0,1] χ Χ —• X such that η(ί, u) = u for 0 < t < Τ
and u & F _ 1 ( [ c -€,c + e]) and 77(1, Fao+e) c Fao-€y where Fj = {«; F(u) < d).
Assuming the existence of a mapping η with the above property we can easily complete
the proof. Since g([0, 1]) Π 3ß(0, ρ) φ 0 for each g € Γ, we conclude that a < a0.
Arguing indirectly, we assume that a a is not a critical value and apply the previous
step with € = I to find the corresponding e > 0 and a deformation mapping η. Next,
we choose g e Γ such that maxMe^([o,i]) F(u) < a0 + €. It is easy to check that
h(t) = »7(1, g(0) belongs to Γ. Since g([0, 1]) C FUo+€, we have Ä([0, 1]) C F« o _ 6
and this gives a contradiction. Therefore, it remains to establish the existence of a
deformation mapping. If F G C2(X, R), then the deformation can be obtained as a
solution of the initial value problem
^ = VOtfVFft), 77(0 ,«) = «,

dt
where V is a suitable locally Lipschitz cutoff function. Since VVF is Lipschitz
continuous one can show, modulo modification of η, that η(\, ·) has a deformation
property with respect to level sets of F. This approach in no longer true if F e
C 1 (X, R). To overcome this difficulty we replace V F by apseudogradient. The details
are omitted here and we shall return to a deformation lemma and pseudogradient in
Chapters 2,6 and 7, where various forms of these concepts will be given. The method
described here will be exploited on many occasions in this book to establish min-max
theorems.
In Chapter 7 we present a different approach based on Theorem 1.1.1 which can
be applied to a large class of nondifferentiable functionals.
We also need a version of the mountain pass theorem without the Palais-Smale
condition(sec [42]).

Authenticated
Theorem 1.1.4. Let F : X —> R be of class Cl(X, R). Suppose that there exists a
neighbourhood U of 0 in X and a constant ρ > 0 such that F(u) > ρ for u in the
boundary ofU, F{0) < ρ and F(e) < ρ for some e & U. Let
c = inf max F(g(t)).
£€Γίε[0,1]
Then there exists a sequence {um} C X such that F(um) —• c as m oo and
F'(um) 0 in X* asm oo.
This theorem is a particular case of a more general result, namely Theorem 7.3.1,
which will be proved in Chapter 7.
1.2 Constrained minimization

The main objective of this section is to discuss a possibly general approach to the
constrained minimization problem
(/) / = min{a(«); b{u) = 1},
where a : X -»• R and b : X -> R are potentials of potential operators A : X X*
and Β : X X*, respectively. This minimization problem is very often used to solve
the eigenvalue problem
A(u) = XB(u), λ G R (1.1)
If A and Β are continuously Fr£chet differentiable, then a solution of (/) satisfies (1.1),
where λ is a corresponding Lagrange multiplier. In our approach we assume that A and
Β have at u Gateaux derivatives not necessarily at all directions ν e X. In Theorem
1.2.1 below we assume that b is defined on a set D(b) C X which contains a linear
subspace Ε c X. Obviously, it is understood that the minimum in (/) is taken over
u e D(b) satisfying b(u) — 1. This specific assumption on the domain of definition
of b is made in this chapter in Theorems 1.2.1 and 1.4.1. Otherwise we shall always
assume that D(b) = X. Throughout this chapter we assume that X is a reflexive
Banach space.
We say that problem (/) has a solution if there exists u 6 D(b) such that a (w) = I
and b{u) = 1. In the sequel we use notation b+(u) = max(fc(«),0) and b~(u) =
min(t(M), 0).
Theorem 1.2.1.
(i) Suppose that A is a hemicontinuous and homogeneous potential operator ofdegree
ρ — 1 with potential a. Moreover, suppose that problem ( / ) has a solution u and
thatb has a linear continuous Gateaux derivative {B(u), v) at all directions υ e Ε
and that Β is homogeneous of degree q — 1. Then
(A(u),v) = I?-{B(u),v) (1.2)

<•.1

Authenticated
for all υ 6 Ε. If I > 0, then the " scaled minimizer" u = au, where σ = y f j j P ?
if Ρ Φ Q satisfies the equation
(A(ü), ν) = (B(ä), ν) (1.3)
for all υ ξ. Ε. If ρ = q we have a typical eigenvalue problem.

(ii) Additionally, suppose that A is a strongly monotone potential operator and that
b~ is weakly lower semicontinuous and that b+ is weakly continuous. Finally,
suppose that all weak limit points of every bounded subset of the level set {u €
D(b)\ b{u) = 1} belong to D(b). Then the constrained minimization problem
( / ) has α nontrivial solution with I > 0.
Proof, (i) The proof is similar to that of Proposition 2.1 in[48]. Wesetd = (B(u), υ),
ν e Ε, and for σ > 0 we have by the definition of the Gateaux derivative that
b(au + €σν) = aq (1 + ed + o(e)).
There exists e 0 > 0 such that 1 + ed + o(e) > 0 for all |e| < eQ. Also, for such
€ > 0 there exists σ = σ(€) such that b(pu + eav) = 1. Consequently, if we set
h = (A(m), ν), ν e E, we get
I < a(au + σεν) = apa(u + ev) = a(u) + e(h - -Id) + o(c).
Since this holds for all |e| < €0, we must have h — Îd = 0 and this proves (1.2).
Since for σ > 0
(.B(au),v) =aq{B(u),a~xv), {A{au),v) = ap(A{u), σ~ι υ)
we see that
(A(au), v) = -Iap~q{B{au), υ).
q
Therefore, if / > 0, then ü = σιι, with σ = ( ^ j j P~" satisfies equation (1.3).
(ii) Let {uj} be a minimizing sequence. Since
a(uj) = \\uj\\P{A(uj\\uj\\-l,Uj\\uj\\-1)) >K(l)\\uj\\P,
we see that the sequence is bounded. Therefore, we may assume that Uj — u in X.

According to our assumption on D(b), u € D(b) and a(u) < I. We now have
b~(uj) = b+(uj) - 1 b+(u) — 1 as j -»• oo,
and consequently
b~(u) < liminf b~(uj) = b+(u) - 1.
7-»·οο

Authenticated
Therefore b(u) > 1 and u Φ 0. Obviously a(u) > 0 and hence I > 0. Assuming that
b(u) > 1, we have a^biu) = 1 with 0 < aq < 1, since a(u) < I < a(pu) = apa{u)
which implies that 1 < σ ρ and we have arrived at the contradiction and this completes
the proof. •
In this theorem we have assumed that the Gateaux derivative of b exists in all
directions υ e E, where £ is a linear subspace of D(b). This requirement may look
artificial, but as we shall see later, it is useful in applications.
If we assume in Theorem 1.2.1 that b(u) > 0 on D(b) — {0}, then our assumption
means that b is weakly continuous.
If this assumption is replaced by a weaker condition: b is continuous on D(b), we
may not be able to claim the existence of a solution of problem (/). However, we can
still show that / > 0. In fact, we only need the continuity of b at 0. This leads to an
abstract version of the Sobolev inequality. For the future use we formulate these two
observations separately, in the case where D(b) = X.
Proposition 1.2.1. Suppose that A is a hemicontinuous, strongly monotone and ho-

mogeneous potential operator of degree ρ — 1 and that Β is a positive homogeneous,
strongly continuous potential operator of degree q — 1. Then the assertions (i) and (ii)
of Theorem 1.2.1 hold with Ε = X.
Proposition 1.2.2 (Sobolev inequality). Suppose that A is a strongly monotone, hemi-

continuous and homogeneous potential operator of degree q — 1 and that Β is a positive
hemicontinuous and homogeneous potential operator of degree q — 1 whose potential
b is continuous at 0. Then there exists an absolute constant Spq > 0 such that
Sp,q{B{u),u)* < (A(u),u)
for all u e X.
Proof We set
Sp,q =inf{(A(«),«); (B(u),u) = 1}. (1.4)
We show that Sp<q > 0. In the contrary case there exists a sequence {um} c X such
that
lim ( A ( u m ) , um) = 0 and { B ( u m ) , um) = 1
m—>-oo
for each m > 1. By the strong monotonicity we have
ll"mlk(ll"mll) < {A(um),um}
and consequently || Hm II — 0 as m —> oo. This in turn implies that (5(0), 0) — 1,

which is impossible. For a given « ^ O w e set
u
V= p.
(B(u),u)1

Authenticated
It is easy to see that (B(v), v) = 1, so Sp,q < (Α(υ), υ) and this is equivalent to (1.4).
•
Remark 1.2.1. If we define the best Sobolev constant Sp<q as
Sp,q = inf{a(u); b(u) = 1},
we then have _
Sp,qb(u)i < a(u)
for all u G X and p(q) Sp,q = Sp.q- If p = q, then Sp,p = SRiP.
Remark 1.2.2. Inspection of the proof of Proposition 1.2.2 shows that the strong
monotonicity assumption for A can be replaced by a weaker condition: there ex-
ists a continuous function κ : [0, oo) -»· [0, οο), with κ{ί) > 0 on (0, oo) and
limf^.ooÄ-(i) = oo, such that {A(u), u) > *:(||m||)||u|| for each u G X.
The inequalities established in Proposition 1.2.1 (or in Remark 1.2.1) correspond

to the Sobolev inequalities from the theory of Sobolev spaces (see Theorem 1.2.1 in
Appendix) with potentials a : Τνο1,ρ(Ω) ->· Κ and b : wl'p{Q.) R given by
a(u) = - f \Vu\pdx and b(u) = - [ \u\q dx,

Ρ Ja <1 Jo.
where Ω C 1 " is a bounded domain, η > 2 and ρ < q < We emphasize that
Proposition 1.2.1 has been established under the assumption that b is continuous while
in the Sobolev spaces setting this is the assertion of the Sobolev embedding theorem.
For this reason Proposition 1.2.1 does not provide the proof of the Sobolev inequality
from the theory of Sobolev spaces.
In case ρ = q, under assumptions of Proposition 1.2.1 we get the existence of the
first eigenvalue for the problem (1.1) which is equal to SPiP = I and from now on it
will be denoted be λι.
Proposition 1.2.3. Suppose that A is strongly monotone, hemicontinuous and homo-

geneous potential operator of degree ρ — 1 and that Β is strongly continuous, positive
and homogeneous potential operator of degree ρ — 1. Then problem (I) has a solution
(k\,u), with u φ 0, that is,
λ ι = / = a(u) — min{ä(«); b{u) = 1}
and the eigenvector u satisfies the equation
{A{u), v) — ki(B(u), υ) = 0
for all υ G X.

Authenticated
Remark 1.2.3. Let Β be a hemicontinuous positive potential operator of degree q — 1.

Then sup||tt||_j b(u) < oo is equivalent to the continuity of b at 0.
Indeed, if supj|M||=i b(u) < oo, then the continuity of b at 0 follows from the
inequality b(u) < sup||Mn=i b(u). Conversely, given e > 0, there exists 8 > 0
such that ||u || < <5 implies b(u) < €. Hence, for ||u|| = 1 wehaveb(u) = S~qb(8u) <
€
As an application of the Sobolev inequality we give a simple result on localization
of nontrivial solutions of (1.1).
Lemma 1.2.1. Suppose that A is a strongly monotone, hemicontinuous and homo-

geneous potential operator of degree ρ — 1 and that Β is a positive hemicontinuous
homogeneous potential operator of degree q — 1 whose potential b is continuous at 0.
If q < p, then there exists a ball B(0, R) containing all solutions of (1.1) corre-
sponding to λ.
If q > p, then there exists a ball 5(0, R) such that all solutions of {1.1) corre-
sponding to λ are contained in X — 5(0, R).
If ρ = q, then every eigenvalue of {1.1) is greater than SPiP.
Proof. It is clear that any λ for which there exists a nontrivial solution of (1.1) must
be positive. Then, if ρ > q we have by the Sobolev inequality that
(A(u), u) = X(B(u), u) < kS~L (A(u), U)P,
hence
p—q p—q — ί
\\U\\P-^k{\) Ρ 
and the claim follows.

If ρ < q, we have
K{1) < \\up-Pk(B(u\\u\rl,), iillKll"1) < k\\ur~P sup (B(u), u)

ll«ll=l
and the claim follows. Finally, if ρ = q, then by the Sobolev inequality
(Λ(μ),Κ) < λ £ - ; , < Λ ( Μ ) , Μ )
and hence Sp<p < λ. •
We observe that the strong monotonicity assumption on A can be replaced by by

the condition from Remark 1.2.2.
The argument used in the proof of Theorem 1.2.1 (i) shows that if u φ 0 is a
solution of (1.1), then ü = au, with σ = P satisfies equation (1.1) with λ = 1.

Henceforth, we assume that λ = 1 in case ρ φ q.

Authenticated
1.3 Dual method 13
1.3 Dual method

In this section we briefly discuss the existence of solutions of (1.1) by maximizing the
functional b subject to the constraint {w; a(u) = 1}, that is,
(Κ) Κ = max{b(u)\ u e D{b), a(u) = 1}.
We say that problem ( Κ ) has a solution if there exists u φ 0 in D(u) such that a (u) = 1
and b(u) = K. We assume as in Section 1.2, that b is defined on a set D(b) containing
a linear subspace Ε of X.
Theorem 1.3.1.
(i) Suppose that A is a hemicontinuous potential operator of degree ρ — 1 with a
potential a and that b is a positive functional on D(b) homegeneous of degree q
and suppose that problem (K) has a solution u φ 0 with 0 < Κ < oo. I f b has a
linear Gateaux derivative (B(u), v) at all directions υ € Ε, then
?-K(A(u),v) = (B(u),v)
Ρ
P 9
for each ν e E. The "scaled minimizer" ü — au, where σ = tf Ρ Φ 1
satisfies the equation
(A(U), v) = (B(ü,v)
for all υ € E.
(ii) Additionally, assume that A is strongly monotone operator, b is weakly continuous
and that D(b) contains all weak limit points of subsets of level set {a(u) = 1}.
Then problem (Κ) has α nontrivial solution.
Proof. The proof of part (i) is similar to the proof of part (i) of Theorem 1.2.1 and
therefore is omitted.
(ii) First, we observe that by the homogeneity and strong monotonicity of Λ, the
level set of [a(u) = 1} is bounded and nonempty. Thus by the weak continuity of b
we must have 0 < Κ < oo. Let [um} be a sequence such that b(um) —• Κ as m oo
and a(um) = 1. Since {um} is bounded we may assume that um —^ u in X and since
b(u m) —>• b(u) = Κ we see that u φ 0. Obviously, we must have 0 < a(u) < 1. If
a(u) < 1, then a(au) = 1 for some σ > 1. On the other hand aqK = b(au) < K,
that is σ < 1 and we arrive at the contradiction. •
We now compare both methods and show that basically both methods give rise to
the same result. For simplicity we assume that D(b) = Ε = X.
Proposition 1.3.1. Let ρ φ q. Suppose that A is a hemicontinuous, strongly monotone

and homogeneous potential operator of degree q — 1. Suppose further that Β is a

Authenticated
positive, strongly continuous and homogeneous potential operator of degree q — 1.

Then both problems (K) and ( / ) have nontrivial solutions and
'' = Λ·
κϊ
Moreover, ifu is a solution ofproblem (I), then ü = -j-w is a solution ofproblem (Κ).
IP
Similarly, ifu is a solution ofproblem (Κ), then ü = —η-u is a solution of problem (/).
κΐ
Proof Let u be solution of problem ( Κ ) , that is, Κ = b(u) and a(u) = 1. We choose
σ > 0 so that b(au) = 1 = aqK. Consequently, I < a(au) = apa{u) = σρ and
i , ι
σ > I ρ , that is, - η - > I ρ . Let us now assume that u is a solution of problem ( / ) ,
κ*
that is, a(u) = I and b(u) = 1. We choose ρ > 0 so that ppI = a{pu) = 1. Hence
, ι
b(pu) < K, and this implies that pq < Κ and - j < Ki and the first part of our
IP
assertion follows. The second part is routine and is omitted. •
1.4 Minimizers with the least energy

If μ is a nontrivial solution of (1.1), with ρ φ q, then μ must belong to the set V defined
by
V = {u 6 X - {0} : (A(u), u) - (B(u), u) = 0}.
Therefore, it is natural to consider the following minimizing problem
(m) m = inf F(u),
ueV
where a functional F : X - » R is defined by F(u) = a(u) - b(u). Assuming that A

and Β are homogeneous potential operators of degree ρ — 1 and q — 1, respectively,
we see that the set V is nonempty. Indeed, for every u φ 0 there exists t > 0 such that
{A(tu), tu) - (B(tu), tu) = 0.
In the literature on variational methods the minimizing problem (m) is often referred
to as the minimizing problem with artificial constraint (see [171]).
We show that a minimizer to problem ( / ) is also a minimizer of problem (m).
Proposition 1.4.1. Let ρ < q and suppose that A is a strongly monotone hemicontin-
uous and homogeneous potential operator of degree ρ — 1. Moreover, assume that Β
is a positive, strongly continuous and homogeneous potential operator of degree q — 1.
9 p
I f ü = öu, where σ = and u is a solution to problem (I), then
F(w) = inf F(u) > 0.

U€V

Authenticated
1.5 Application of dual method 15
Proof. Let υ e V,then aq = b(v) for some a > 0. Wesetu 0 = a~lv,thenb(v0) = 1.

Multiplying the equation pa(v) — qb(v) = O b y a - ' ' we obtain pa(v0) — qa~p+e} = 0
P
and consequently σ = • Hence
F(v) = (l - = (l - ?-)σρα(υ0) = (l - - ) (-a(Uo)V~P a(v0).
On the other hand, we have for ü
Since b(v0) = 1, we must have / < a(v0) and consequently
F(Ä) < (l - Qa(v0ή*'" a(v0) = F(v).
We now observe that μ as a solution of (1.1) must belong to V and the result follows.
•
Proposition 1.4.1 says that a solution to problem (/) is a solution with the least
energy among all nontrivial solutions to (1.1). In applications we call it a ground-state
solution (see [30] or [22]).
Finally, combining Propositions 1.3.1 and 1.4.1 we get
Corollary 1.4.1. Under the assumptions of Proposition 1.4.1, if u is a solution of
problem (K), then
——ί ι
ι q-p 1
W = I — / I j-u
v
« ' ΚΪ
is a solution of problem (m).
1.5 Application of dual method

The dual method described in Section 1.3 is particularly applicable to a minimization
subject to constraint V in case ρ > q.
Proposition 1.5.1. Let ρ > q. Suppose that Ais a hemicontinuous, strongly monotone
and homogeneous operator of degree ρ — 1 and that Β is a positive strongly continuous
ι
?
and homogeneous potential operator of degree q — 1. Ifü = du, where σ =
and u is a solution to problem (K), then
F{ü) = inf F(v) < 0.
ueV

Authenticated
Proof. Let ν e V, then a{v) = σρ for some σ > 0 and set υ0 = σ Obvi-
ously, a{v0) = 1 and multiplying equation pa(v) — qb{v) = 0 by a~q we obtain
ι
P
ρσ-ι+Ρα(ν0) - qb(v0) = 0. Hence σ = ~" and
On the other hand we have
and since Κ > b(v0) we get
Since ü e V, the result follows. •
To proceed further we observe that due to the homogeneity of A and Β we have the
following estimate for the functional F
-Hull« sup b(u)+K\\u\\P < F(u) < \\u\\P sup a(u)-\\u\\q inf b(u),
Nl=i ll«ll=i II« ||=1
where κ = /c(l). One can give examples of strongly continuous potential operators
Β with inf||tt||=i b(u) = 0. Therefore, if ρ < q F is in general neither bounded from
below nor from above. However if ρ > q, F is bounded from below and we can expect
the existence of an absolute minimum.
Proposition 1.5.2. Let ρ > q. Suppose that A is a continuous, strongly monotone

and homogeneous potential operator of degree ρ — 1 and that Β is a positive, strongly
continuous and homogeneous potential operator of degree q — 1. Then there exists
w φ 0 such that
F(w) = inf F(u) < 0
ueX
and w satisfies (1.1).
Proof By virtue of the Sobolev inequality we have
F(u) = a(u) - b(u) > —(A(u), u) --S~\ {A(u), u)p.

p q
Since ^ < 1, we see that F is bounded from below. Let u0 φ 0. Then for t > 0
sufficiently small,
F(tu0) = a(tu0) - b(tu0) = tpa(u0) - tqb{u0) < 0

Authenticated
1.6 Multiple solutions of nonhomogeneous equation 17
and h e n c e - c o < infuex F(u) < 0. By Theorem 1.1.2 there exists a sequence [um] C
X such that F(um) —»· inf„ e x F(u) and F'(um) 0 in X* as η oo. Under
our assumptions, the Palais-Smale condition holds (see Theorem 2.1.1 in Chapter 2).
This means that there exists a subsequence of {um} converging strongly to w and this
completes the proof. •
Let w be an absolute minimum obtained in Proposition 1.5.2. Since w g V, as a

solution of (1.1), we get the following inequalties
F(w) = inf F(u) < inf F(u) < F(w).

ueX ueV
Consequently, we deduce the following result
Corollary 1.5.1. Let ρ > q and suppose that A is a continuous, strongly monotone
and homogeneous potential operator of degree ρ — 1 and that Β is a positive strongly
continuous potential operator of degree q — 1. Then
inf F{u) = inf F(u)

U€X U&V
and both infima are attained.
1.6 Multiple solutions of nonhomogeneous equation

The methods of the preceding sections provide a surprisingly simple proof of the
existence of at least two solutions of the nonhomogeneous equation
A(u)-B(u) = f, (1.5)
with / G X* — {0}. One solution is obtained by a local minimization and a second

solution is a consequence of the mountain pass theorem without the Palais-Smale
condition (Theorem 1.1.4). In Chapter 2 we shall use the Lusternik-Schnirelman
theory of critical points to obtain the existence of multiple solutions of a homogeneous
equation.
We define a functional Ff : X R by Ff(u) = a(u) - b(u) - ( / , u).
Lemma 1.6.1. Let q > p. Suppose that A is a continuous strongly monotone and
homogeneous potential operator of degree ρ — 1 and that Β is a positive strongly
continuous potential operator of degree q — 1. If
(1,6)
/ **<*(!) ΓI7 Γ\ ϊΤ^
q - 1 \(q - l ) s u p , N t = 1 b(u))

Authenticated
and f φ 0, then there exist ρ > 0 and u0 e 5 ( 0 , p) such that
Ff{u0) = min Ff(u) < 0
and u0 is a solution of equation (1.5).
Proof. First, we show that there exists a constant ρ > 0 such that F/(u) > 0 for
u g 5(0, p). We have
Ff(u) > Μ Ι ^ ω ί Ν Ι * - 1 - N l * " 1 sup b(u) - II/H*,)

II« II=1
and setting ||u|| = t, we write this estimate as
Ff(u)>t(h(t)-\\f\\x*),
where h(t) = atp~l - ßtq~x with a = at(I) and β = s u p ^ ^ i b(u). We check that
( ρ — l)oi f^T (q —
max A ( r ) =h C [ i £ z ü : l = [ o i z i ü l ^ ( i z £ ) a >
0<f <oo U ( « - D i J J . ( 1 - w J V « - i /
Taking ρ = [ 'fß j ? P
our claim follows. Let i G X b e such that ( / , ν) > 0, then
Ff (vt) < 0 for t > 0 sufficiently small and consequently
inf Ff(u) < 0.

«€ß(0,p) 1
Also, the previous argument shows that there exists 0 < S < ρ such that
1
Ff(u) > - i n f { F f ( u ) · , u e 5 ( 0 , yo)} (1.7)
for all« £ {μ ; δ < ||u|| < p). Let {um} be a minimizing sequence for F f . By virtue of
(1.7) we may assume that {um) C 5 ( 0 , p). Applying Ekeland's variational principle
(see Theorem 1.1.1), we may assume that each um is a minimizer of
inf{F/(«) + «II; « e 5 ( 0 , p)}
with 8 m - > 0 as m —>• oo. This implies that
lim Ff(um)= inf Ff(u) and lim F'(um) = 0 in X*.

m-voo J ueB(0,p) m->-oo
The last two conditions yield that {wm} contains a strongly convergent subsequence
which we again denote by {um}. Therefore um u0, with u0 e 5 ( 0 , p). Here,
we have used the fact that the Palais-Smale condition holds (see Theorem 2.1.1 in
Chapter 2). •
We are now in a position to establish the existence of a second solution.

Authenticated
Theorem 1.6.1. Let q > p. Suppose that A is a continuous strongly monotone and
homogeneous potential operator of degree ρ — 1 and that Β is a positive strongly
continuous homogeneous potential operator of degree q — 1. If (1.6) holds then
equation (1.5) has at least two nontrivial solutions.
Proof Let u0 be a solution constructed in Lemma 1.6.1. According to (1.6) we may

assume that
Ff(u)>c for all ||u\\ = ρ
for some constant c > 0 and obviously w e B(0, p). We take «ι # 0 and choose ta
so that Ff{tu\) < 0 for all t > t0. We may choose t0 so that ||ί 0 "ι II > Ρ· We set for a
fixed t > t0
Γ = {g e C([0,1], X); s(0) = 0, g( 1) = tux),
then
0 < c < «ο = inf max Ff(g(t)).
£€Γί€[0,1]
By Theorem 1.1.3 there exists ü such that Ff(ü) = c and F'^(ü) = 0. Since Ff(ü) =
c > 0, μ is distinct from the solution uQ constructed in Lemma 1.6.1. •
1.7 Sets of constraints

In this section we investigate a set of constraints for the nonhomogeneous equation
(1.15). By examining the second order derivative of F f , we obtain some information
about the localization of critical points of (1.5).
Throughout this section we assume that the potential operator A : X X*
satisfies assumptions of Lemma 1.6.1 and that potential operator Β : X -»· X* is
positive, continuous and homogeneous of degree q — 1. Its potential is denoted by
b : X —^ K. Moreover, we assume that q > p, where ρ is the degree of the potential
a : X E. If u satisfies (1.5), then (A(m), u) - (B(u), u) - (/, u) = 0. Therefore,
we introduce a natural set of constraints Λ given by
A = {u g X; {A(u), u) - (B(u), u) - (/, u> = 0}.
We aim to show that there exists u0 g X such that
Ff(u0) = inf Ff(u),

Κ€Λ
and that uQ is a local minimum of F. From Section 1.6 it is clear that this is true under
some restrictions on ||/||χ».
Suppose that μ is a local minimum of F. Then h"{t) | i = i > 0,where/i(0 = Ffitu).
This yields that
p(p - I M « ) - q(q - \)b(u) = (Ρ - 1)(Λ(μ), U) - (q - 1 )(B(u), u) > 0.

Authenticated
Consequently, we can split Λ into three parts:
Λ+ = {u e A; (p - l){A(u), u) - (q - 1 )(B(u), u) > 0},
Λ„ = ( « 6 Λ; ( ρ - 1 )(A(u), u) — (q — 1 )(B(u), u) = 0},

Λ_ = {u G Λ; (p - 1)(A(m), U) - (q - 1 )(B(u), u) < 0}.
We now impose an assumption on / :
( f , u ) <cpq(A(u),u)S=rt (1.8)
p-l
? P
for all u satisfying (B(u), u) = 1, where cpq = (f^r) ' ^'s eas to
^ see
(1.8) is equivalent to the following condition

4=1
(A(U),U)I~P
( f , u ) < cpq -j-
(B(U),U)«-P
for all u e X - {0}.

We shall also need a stronger condition:
{/,") <c*(A(u),u)& (1.9)
for all u satisfying (B(u),u) = 1 and some constant 0 < c* < cpq.
Assumption (1.8) holds if
, gCP-D
WfWx* < CPQK(l)P SPG~P),
where SPQ is the best Sobolev constant (see (1.4) in Section 1.2).
Indeed, it follows from the Sobolev inequality that (see Proposition 1.2.2)
ι
</,«> < l l / M N I < \ \ f \ \ x * { A ( u ) , " ) P
k{\)P
a(p-1)
, {A(u),u) ia/ N i
< cpq Τ Ι ")p
, (B(u), u)i /
£zI
_ {A{U),U)I-P
— cpq ρ-1 ·
(B(u), U)I~P
We now define a function ψ : X -> Κ by
izl
(A(U),U)I-P
= CPQ - ( / , U)
{B(U),U)«-P

Authenticated
and set
inf { c p q { A ( u ) , u ) & - ( / , « ) } = μ 0 . (1.10)
(ß(u),«)=l
It is easy to check that μ 0 is always finite.
Proposition 1.7.1.
(i) I f f satisfies (1.9), then
3
=r
ßo > (Cpq ~ C * ) S p q P > 0,
(ii) I f f satisfies (1.8) and Β is strongly continuous, then the inf in (1.10) is achieved
and μ 0 > 0.
(iii) Suppose that μ 0 > 0 and { B ( u ) , u) > γ > 0, then
i
i/r(u) > γ ΐ μ 0 ·
Proof, (i) This part follows from the Sobolev inequality.

(ii) Let {um} be a minimizing sequence for (1.10). It is easy to see that {um} is
bounded and we may assume that u u and hence { B ( u ) , u ) = 1. By the weak m
lower semicontinuity of a we get
0 < c p q ( A ( u ) , u ) i ~ p - ( f , u )
< lim ( c p q { A ( u m ) , u m ) ^ p - ( / , u m ) ) = μ 0 .
m-*oo \ J
(iii) Finally, to show (iii) we observe that ψ is homogeneous of degree 1 and we

have
f ( u ) = f ( u ( B ( u ) , u ) ~ t ) ( B ( u ) , u ) t >Mo(5(w),w)» > μ 0 γ ϊ .
We now show that the sets of constraints Λ+ and A_ are nonempty.
Proposition 1.7.2. Suppose that f satisfies (1.8). Then f o r every u 6 X — {0}, there
+ + +
exists a unique t = t ( u ) > 0 such that t u € Λ _ and
,+ , * , ,
r ( u ) > W = W O, Oχ = If (7p - \ ) ( A ( u ) , u ) \ ^ ~ P
—
\ ( q - 1) { B ( u ) , u ) J
and F ( t +
u ) = rnax,>imax F ( t u ) . Further, i f { f ,u) > 0, then there there exists a unique
t ~ ( u ) > 0 such that t~ u £ A . I n particular, t < imax and F { t ~ u ) < F { t u ) f o r

+
t G [0, t +
l

Authenticated
Proof. For a fixed u G X — {0} we introduce a function
0 ( 0 = ptP-xa(u) - qtq~lb(u) = tp~l (A(w), U) - tq~x (B(u), u).
This function is concave and attains its maximum at

ι
q-p
'max
V(<7 - 1) (B(u),u)J
First, let us assume that {/, u) < 0, then there exists a unique t+ = t+(u) such that
<f>(t+) = {/,«), that is,
(t+)p~l (A(u), u) - (t+)q~l (B(u), u) = ( / , u)
and consequently t+u 6 Λ and φ'(ί+) < 0. This means that t+u G Λ_. Since
Φ(ί) ~ ( f , u) > 0 for t < t+ and φ(ί) - {/, u) < 0 for t > t+ we see that
jtFf(tu) |i=/+= φ(ί+) — (/, μ) = 0
and
Ff(t+u) = maxFy(i«) = max Ff{tu).
t> 0 ' ä'max
Finally, let us assume that (/, «) > 0. Then
{A{U),U)i~P
{ f , u) < cpq = Φ(imax).
(B{U\U)i~P
So there exist 0 < r _ < imax < such that
0 ( O = </,«) = 0 ( i + )
and
> 0 > φ\ι+),
which means that t+u g Λ_ and t~u e Λ + . To complete the proof we observe
that jjFf(tu) = 0 ( 0 - {/, m) < 0 for t+ < t or t < t~ and Ff(tu) > 0 for
+ +
t~ < t < t . This implies that Ff(t u) > Ff(tu) f o r i > /+, Ff(t~u) < F/(rn) for
/ G [0, r + ] and also Ff(t+u) = max,>fmax Ff(tu). •
Lemma 1.7.1. Suppose that μ0 > 0, then A0 = {0}, that is, for each u G Λ — {0} we
have

Authenticated
Proof. Suppose that for some u € X — {0} we have
(p - 1)(A(m), U) - (q - 1 )(B(u), u) =0. (1.11)
By the Sobolev inequality we get from (1.11) that
( p — 1
Τ ^ ϊ S p q
\ Φρ
) = y '
Consequently, by Proposition 1.7.1 we have

ι
\fr(u) > yi μ0 > 0.
On the other hand since u e Λ we get
( f l ( « ) , « ) = q—- ( ρ/ , « ) ,
hence
-1
(A(u),u)i~p q - ρ
Ψ (μ) = cpq ΤΓΓ —r{B(u),u)
(B(U),U)I-P P 1
ρ-1 q-1
g - ρ ( ρ - 1 \i-p (q - 1\ 9-P g - p
= (B(u), u) (B(u), u) = 0.
q - 1 \q - \) \p - \ ρ 1
•
We now establish a result which will be used in the next section to construct a
minimizing sequence of Ff subject to the constraint A.
Lemma 1.7.2. Suppose that μ0 > 0 and let u € Λ with u φ 0. Then there exist € > 0
and a differentiable function t : 5 ( 0 , e ) —>· ( 0 , o o ) such that
/(0) = 1, f(w)(u - w) e A for w e 2?(0, e )
and
. ,fQ) . = PiMu), w) - g{B(u), w) - (/, w)
1
(P ~ 1)(A(m), u ) - ( q - 1 )(B(u), u)
for w e ß(0, e)·
Proof F o r w e X a n d t > 0 let
G(t, w) — ptp la(u - w) - qtq lb(u - w) - (/, u - w)
= tp~l (A(u - w),u - w) - tq~x{B{u - w),u - w) - {/, u - w).

Authenticated
We have
G ( l , 0) = pa(u) - qb(u) - ( / , u) = <A(M), U) - (B(U), u) - </, u)

= (F'(u),u)= 0
and by Lemma 1.7.1
1,0) = (ρ - 1 )(A(u), u)-(q- 1 )(B(u), u) φ 0.

at
Hence the result follows from the implicit function theorem. •
1.8 Constrained minimization for Fj-

We minimize the functional Ff subject to the constraint Λ and show that a constrained
minimum is in fact a local minimum.
Theorem 1.8.1. Suppose that μ 0 > 0 and that A and Β are weakly continuous. Then
there exists u0 e A such that
F(u0) = inf F(u) < 0

ueA
and u0 satisfies (1.5).
Proof. Let us set Μ = inf u e y F/(u). We commence by finding a lower and upper
bound for M. Let u e A. Then by Schwarz's inequality we have
Ff(u) = (l - - (l - - ) ( / , « )
q/ \ q-
> - ^-II/IIχ.Ml > ^K(1)MI" - ^—^(1)11 u\\P
Λ
£_£_£_' ll/ll?'-- £. Ε. EL„- w f f x - ·
pp
- p) p * (Ο" ρ'ρp - p)p * 0)p
This means that
Ü ~
χ Ρ
)' „ ρ'
11711
2 Ζ Ζ **'
p'ppqiq - ρ)Ρ κ(\)ρ
To get an estimate from above we fix Μ € X — {0} an element in A + . Then
(q — 1 ){B(ü), ü) < (ρ — 1 )(A(ü), ü) and consequently
Ff(ü) = (1 - ΐ)(Λ(ΰ),ΰ) - (1 - \)(B(Ü),Ü) =

Authenticated
1.8 Minimization for Ff 25
1—ρ q —1 q — q2 + pq — ρ
= -{A(ü),ü) + - (B(u),u) < ^ ^ ~{B(u),u)
ρ q pq
(q-p)(\-q)
(B(ü),ü)< 0.
PI
Let
(q - p ) 0 ,τ,,-s -v M
Μ = (B(u), u} < 0.
pq
We see that Μ < M. By virtue of Ekeland's variational principle there exists a
sequence {um} C A such that
1
Ff(um) <M + -
m
and
Ff{w) > Ff(um) - - | | u m - w|| (1.12)
m
for each w e A. Taking m large and using the fact that {um} C A we get
Ff{um) = (l - £)a(um) - (l - i ) ( / , um) < Μ + i < Μ < 0,
that is,
—-ic(\)\\um\\P < —||/|ΙΛ:.||Μ«||
pq q
and
- 1 )p
ι\um I,II ^< /7J i n i—l
m x
\(q - ρ)* m · )
On the other hand, we have
q - 1
(f,um)>-M> 0, (1.13)
q
that is,
-Mq
llUmll >
(q ~ 1)11/11*·
We may assume that um u in X and by (1.13) we see that {/, u0) > 0. We now show
that F'{um) - > 0 in X*. To achieve this we apply Lemma 1.7.2 to each um. According
to this lemma for each m there exists e m > 0 and a function tm : 2?(0, € m ) —• (0, oo)
such that tm(8w)(um — 8w) € A for each 0 < 8 < e m and w e B(0, 1) and moreover
f m ( 0 ) = 1. It follows from (1.12) that
— I I t m ( 8w ) ( u m - Sw) - um\\ > Ff(um) - Ff(tm{8w){um - 8w)).

m

Authenticated
This implies that

1 8
-\$tm(8w) - l)um\\ + -tm(8w)
m m
> (Ff(tm(8w)(um -8w)),um)( 1 -tm(8w))
+ (F'f(tm{8w){um - 8w)), w)8tm(8w)
+ o(||w m (l - f m (Su;)) + <5u;UMII).
It is easy to check that
o(\\um(l - tm(8w)) + = o(S).
Dividing both sides of the last inequality by 8 and letting 8 0 we obtain
-||«mll!(C(0).W>| + - > (Ff(u

J m), w)
m m
for all w e B(0, 1). Here we have used the fact that f/n(0) = 1 and ( F ' ( u m ) , um) = 0
for each m. It is now sufficient to show that (t'm(0), w) is bounded on Z?(0, 1). Since
{um} is bounded and
/./ /m ν p{Mum), w) - q(B(um), w) - { f , w)
(tm (0), w) = ,
we only need to show that
I (ρ - 1 )(A(um), um) - { q - $(B(um), um)\ > a
for some or > 0 and all m. In the contrary case we may assume that
(ρ - 1 )(A(um), um) - ( q - 1 )(B(um), um) = o(l). (1.14)
Since {||«»,||} is bounded from below by a positive constant we may assume, using
(1.14), that
(B(um),um) > γ
for all m and some constant γ > 0. By Proposition 1.7.1 (iii) we see that
ι
ρ
^ ( " m ) >γ μο > ο
for all m. On the other hand by virtue of (1.14) we have

Ê-{B{um),um) + o(\) = {f,um)
ρ- 1
and consequently, taking a subsequence if necessary, we see that
<7-1
q — 1 \ i-p q —ρ
( (B(um),um) ~{B(um),um) +o(l) 0
p - \ ) ρ 1
Authenticated
as m —• oo and we get a contradiction. To complete the proof we observe that since

F'{um) 0 in X* we must have F'Au0, w) = 0 for all w e X and u0 e Λ. Hence,
by the weak lower semicontinuity or a we get
M<( 1 - - W o ) - ( l - - ) < / , «ο) < lim F(um) = M,

V q/ \ g/ m—too
that is, F/(m 0 ) = M. •
As an immediate consequence of Proposition 1.7.1 and Theorem 1.8.1 we obtain

the following existence result.
Corollary 1.8.1.
(i) If f satisfies (1.9), then there exists u0 € Λ such that
F(u0) = inf Ff(u)

ueA

(ii) If f satisfies (1.8) and Β is strongly continuous, then there exists u0 e A such
that
Ff(u0) = inf Ff(u)
ueA
We now show that a solution obtained in Theorem 1.8.1 is a local minimum.
Theorem 1.8.2. Suppose that f satisfies either (1.9) or (1.8) with Β strongly contin-
uous. Then a critical point u0from Theorem 1.8.1 is a local minimum for F.
Proof By Proposition 1.7.2 if u e X and ( / , u) > 0, then
17/ \ >
F(su) ^ F(t
|7/#— u)\ r 0η < s < ,i m a x
tor , vr - Ό
1) (B(u),u)
where t u e Λ+. It follows from the final part of Proposition 1.7.2 that a solution ua
obtained in Theorem 1.8.1 must belong to Λ+, so we have
\ 1 , ( ρ - 1 ) (A(M 0 ),M 0 )\?-P ( U 5 )

t = t (m0) = 1 < τ τ τ ^ τ — Λ — •
(q- 1) {B(u0),u0)J
Taking e > 0 sufficiently small we may also assume that
1 < ι (P ~ 1) (a(uq ~ w), u0-w)\*h

(q - 1) B(u0 - w), m0 - w)

Authenticated
for w e B(0, e). By Lemma 1.7.2 there exists a function t : B{0, e) -> (0, oo) such
that
t(w)(u0 - w) € A for w € B(0, e).
Since t(w) 1 as ||u»|| 0 we may also assume that
/ (ρ - 1) {A(u0 - w), U0-W)\I=P

t(w) < ( }
V {q - 1) (B(uο - w), u0 w))
Consequently, we have
Ff(s(u0 - w)) > Ff(t(w)(u0 - w)) > Ff(u0)

ι
for 0 < ί < " " · A c c o r d i n g t o (1-15) we can take s = 1 in the
last inequality to obtain
Ff(u0 - w) > Ff(u0).
•
Under assumption (1.8) the space X can be disconnected by A_ into the sum of
two connected components. Indeed, by Proposition 1.7.2 for every ||u|| = 1, there
exists t+(u) > 0 such that t+(u)u e Λ_ and Ff{t+(u)u) = max,> imax Ff{tu) and t+
is a continuous function of u. We now set
U\ = {m = 0 o r ||u|| <ί+( Μ ||Μ|Γ 1 )},
U2 = {u; ||M|| > ί + ( « | | Μ | Γ 1 ) }

and X — Λ_ = U\ U U2. We see that Λ+ c U\. It is clear that Λ_ is a closed set.
Proposition 1.8.1. Suppose that f satisfies either (1.9) or (1.8) with Β being strongly
continuous. Then
inf Ff(u) = inf Ff(u) < inf Ff{u).

utA ueΛ+ ueΛ_
Proof. In the contrary case infA Ff(u) — infA_ Ff(u). As in the proof of Theorem
1.8.1 we can construct a minimizing sequence {um} C A_ w i t h F / ( « m ) —> infA Ff <
0 and Ff(um) —> 0 in X*. Then {um} contains a subsequence , denoted again by {um},
such that um —> w in X. We necessarily have { f , w) > 0, so w G A-)-. On the other
hand, since A_ is a closed set we must have w e A_ and this gives a contradiction. •
The existence results in Sections 1.6-1.8 for equation (1.5) have been established
assuming that the potential operator Β is strongly continuous. This is the case for the
nonhomogeneous Dirichlet problem in Ψ 0 1,2 (Ω)
-Au = \u\p~2u +f in Ω,
u = 0 on 3Ω,

Authenticated
where Ω c Μ", η > 2, is a bounded domain and f e ΐ ^ _ 1 · 2 ( Ω ) with / φ 0. If

2 < ρ < then defining potential operators A : Ψ 0 ! · 2 (Ω) -»• W~l·2(Ω) and
Β : Wl' 2 ΐ ν " 1 · 2 ( Ω ) by,
(A(u),v) = / DuDvdx
JQ
and
(B(u),v)= I \u\p~2vdx
Jn
for u and υ in W 0 1,2 (fi), we see that A is continuous, strongly monotone and that Β
is strongly continuous. The strong continuity of Β is the consequence of the Sobolev
compact embedding theorem. Consequently we can apply results of Sections 1.6-1.8
to obtain the existence of at least two distinct solutions provided the norm of / in
W~1'2 is small enough. If ρ = then Β is not strongly continuous and the above
problem is characterized by the lack of compactness. In this case Tarantello [222]
established the existence of at least two distinct solutions by showing that μ0 > 0
using the intrinsic properties of the extremal function ([43], [44]) characterizing the
Sobolev inequality in W 1 , 2 (R' 1 ) (see Section 9.1 in Chapter 9).
1.9 Subcritical problem

We now consider a slightly more general equation than (1.1), namely,
A(u)-kB(u) = C(u) (1.16)
with 0 < λ < λ ι , where λ\ is the smallest eigenvalue for the homogeneous problem
(1.1). We assume that C : X X* is a strongly continuous potential operator. A
problem of this nature will be called the problem with a subcritical potential operator C
(or a problem with compactness).
We set
h = inf{a(u)-kb(u); c(u) = 1} (1.17)
Theorem 1.9.1. Suppose that A is a strongly monotone, hemicontinuous and homo-

geneous potential operator of degree ρ — 1. Further, we suppose that Β and C are
positive strongly continuous and homogeneous potential operators of degree ρ — 1 and
q — \, respectively. If0<k<k\, where λι is the smallest eigenvalue of the problem
(1.1), then the problem (1.16) has α nontrivial solution.

Authenticated
Proof. Let {uj} be a minimizing sequence for Ιχ. The assumption that 0 < λ < λι
yields that for sufficiently large j we have
λ
> —
/λ + 1 > a(uj) - kb(uj) > a(Uj)( 1 ~ γ ) > IM"(l - γ)·
λ]/ ρ Μ
Consequently, the sequence {uj} is bounded in X and we may assume that Uj u in
X. Since C is strongly continuous we have c(w) = 1. By the lower semicontinuity of
a and strong continuity of Β we get
a(u) - Xb(u) < h

and this implies that a(u) — Xb{u) = /χ. The fact that u satisfies (1.16) follows from
Theorem 1.2.1(i). •
Remark 1.9.1. For a functional Ff : X Μ given by
Ff{u) = a(u) - Xb(u) - c(u) - ( / , u)
associated with the equation
A(u) - XB(u) - C(u) = / ,
where / € X* — {0}, we have the following estimate from below
Ff(u)>\\u\ P-1 _ llwlli-1 sup c(u) - II/II a:*

ll«ll=l
Also, if μ φ 0, then Ff (tu) < 0 for t sufficiently large. Therefore, assuming that
q > ρ and additionally that A is continuous and using arguments from the proof of
Lemma 1.6.1 and Theorem 1.6.1 we can prove the existence of at least two distinct
solutions provided
Ei
X. < „ ( ! ) ( ! - A ) (q-p)
(q - 1 ) SUp||
tt||=l c(u) (q- 1)
and / e r - {0}.
1.10 Application to the /7-Laplacian

Our aim is to apply the methods described in this chapter to the problem
-ApU + C\U\P~2U = r(x)\u\«-2u in E"

(1.18)
u e WL-P(RN),

Authenticated
where — Δ^ is the p-Laplacian, that is,
-Apu = Di(\Vu\p-2Diu).
We assume that c > 0 is a constant and 2 < ρ < η. We write r ( x ) = r + (;c) — r_(x)
and assume that r g L ^ C K " ) and that
ϊ±ί
(αϊ) r+ e Llo* (R"), where p<q<q+e< for some constant e > 0, and
(£>l)
r
limîôo JQ^x
£+£
r+(;y) « dy = 0 for some l > 0, where
I
Q(x,l) = {y\ Iyt - χι \ < -, ι = 1, ..., n}
We define a potential operator A: W-]'p'(Rn), p' = ^ y , by

{A(u),v)= f (\Vu(x)\p-2Diu(x)Div(x) + c\u(x)\p-2u(x)v{x))dx (1.19)
J R"
for all u, ν € W ^ i R " ) . Let us set D(b) = {«; fRn lu(x)^r(x)dx < oo}, then we
define a potential b : £>(b) R, by
b(u) = b+(u) - b-(u) = - f r+CxOlMCx)!* dx - - f r-(x)\u(x)\q dx.

<7 J R" Q J R"
Obviously, C£°(R n ) C D(b) and b has Gateaux derivative Β at any point u e D(b) in
all directions ν in C£°(R") given by
(B(u),v)= f r(x)\u(x)\<<-2u(x)v(x)dx.
J R"
It follows from Theorem A.3.1 in the Appendix that b+ is weakly continuous and
by Fatou's lemma b_ is weakly lower semicontinuous. It is also well known that if
Uni —^ u in W 1 , p ( R " ) , then
I \Vu(x)\pdx I \Wum(x)\p dx
< liminf
JR" m-KX JRn
and
I \u(x)\p dx < liminf f \um(x)\pdx,
JR" m-too JRn
lp n
that is, a potential a: W ' (R ) -η» R defined by
a(u) = - f (\V(x)\p+ c\u(x)\p)dx

Ρ J R"
is weakly lower semicontinuous and its potential operator is given by (1.19).
We are now in a position to consider the minimization problem ( / ) corresponding
to (1.18)
(/) I = inf{a(w); b{u) = 1, u e D(b)}.

Authenticated
Theorem 1.10.1. Let ρ < η and suppose that r+ satisfies (a\) and (b\) and R_ G
L^CM"). Then problem (1.18) admits at least one nontrivial solution u G
Proof. It is obvious that D(b) is a linear subspace of Wl'p(Rn) containing C^

In view of Theorem 1.2.1 it suffices to show that weak limit points of every bounded
subset of {b(u) = 1} belong to D{b). Indeed, let [um} be a bounded sequence in
{b(u) = 1}. We may assume that um u in W ^ O R " ) and by Theorem A.3.1
um u in Lq+(W) (for the definition of a weighted Lebesgue space see Appendix
A.3) and hence
lim f \um(x)\«r+(x)dx= [ \u(x)\qr+(x) dx

m — J R" JRn
and
lim / \um{x)\qr-{x)dx = lim / \um(x)\gr+(x)dx - q
= / \u(x)\9r+(x)dx - q.
Jw
By Fatou's lemma we see that r-\u\g € L ^ R " ) and
I \u(x)\qr-(x)dx < lim I \um(x)\gr-(x) dx = I \u(x)\qr+(x)dx - q,

JR" m—KX> JRn JR"
hence u G D(b). Since b is Gateaux differentiable at u in every direction, the equation
(1.18) is satisfied in the distributional sense, that is,
f (\Vu(x)\p~2DuDv + c\u(x)\P-2u(x)v)dx = f \u(x)\q~2uvdx

Jw Jw
for every υ in C ^ R " ) . •
If c = 0, then the appropriate Sobolev space for problem (1.18) is ι

is defined as the closure of C£°(R") with respect to the norm Ώ ·Ρ(β. η ) which
\u\\PDUp= f \Wu(x)\pdx.
Jw
We can now state
Theorem 1.10.2. Let ρ < η and c = 0. We assume that r+ satisfies (a\) and that
r+ G L1 (R n ) and r_ G Lj1 (R n ), then problem (1.18) admits at least one nontrivial
solution in Dhp(W).
To prove this result we apply Theorem A.3.2 with
a(u) = — f \Vu(x)\pdx.
Ρ Jw

Authenticated
The weak continuity of b+ is a consequence of Theorem A.3.2.

If r{x) = 1 on R", then Theorem 1.2.1 is not applicable since is not
q n
compactly embedded into L (R ) (see Appendix A.5). This difficulty can be overcome
if we use instead of W 1,p (IR") the subspace of radially symmetric functions. To explain
this in more details we consider the following problem
-Au + cu = \u\p~2u inR"

,, (1-20)
u G Wl-2QBLH),u > 0 onR",
where c > 0 is a constant and 2 < ρ < Let H}{Rm) be a subspace of radially
symmetric functions equipped with norm from the space W1 ' 2 (R n ). The space H} (R n )
is compactly embedded in L p ( R n ) for 2 < ρ < ^ ^ (see Appendix, Theorem A.5.2).
Therefore, there exists a positive function ν e Η) (M") such that
f {\Vv(x)\2+ cv(xf)dx = inf{ f (|VM(JC)| 2 + cu(x)2) dx\ (1.21)

Jw I Jw
u e H* (R") and / \u(x)\p dx = 1}
JR" *
If {um} is any minimizing sequence in W1,2(R") such that
/ n
'R
(|V«m(x)|2 + cum(x)2) dx I as m o o ,
where
/ = inf I I n (\Vu(x)\2+ cu(x)2)dx\ u eWh2(Rn), I \u(x)\p dx = l|,

IJu JR" '
then using the Schwarz symmetrization (see Appendix, Section A.6) we have
f \u*m(x)\P dx = f \um(x)\p dx
J R" J R"
and
/ < / {\Vu*m(x)\2 + cu*m(x)2)dx< f (\Vum(x)\2 + cum(x)2)dx.

J R" J R"
Therefore, the infimum in (1.21) can be taken over W 1 , 2 (R n ) and is equal to I. This
discussion leads to the following existence result for problem (1.20).
Proposition 1.10.1. There exists a positive solution of problem (1.20) in Hrl (R n ).
This result will be used in Chapter 3. In Chapter 5 we consider a generalization of

problem (1.20).

Authenticated
Finally, let us consider the nonhomogeneous problem
— ApU + c\u\p~2u = r(x)\u\y~2u + f { x ) in

(1.22)
u G Wl'P(]R"),
where f £ Wl<P'(Rn), f φ 0, c > 0 is a constant, r(x) > 0 on R" and r satisfies

(a\) and (b\). By virtue of Theorem A.3.1 (see Appendix A.3) a functional b(u) =
q Iw r ( x ) \ u ( x ) \ q dx satisfies supu^jj^j p = 1 b(u) < oo. Also, in this case a function
appearing in the definition of the strong monotonicity of A is constant and equal to
1. It is easy to see that Theorem 1.6.1 continues to hold in this case. According to
Theorem 1.7.1, if
q - ρ ρ - 1 <7-1
11/11w'.p' -
q - 1 \{q - l)supMwhpSslfRnr(x)\u«\dx
then problem (1.22) admits at least two distinct solutions. Some extensions of this
result, without assumptions guaranteeing a weak continuity of the potential b can be
found in papers [244], [245] and [67].
A good illustration of a subcritical case is the following problem
-Apu = \u\v~2u +k\u\P~2u in Ω,

(1.23)
u > 0 on Ω, u(x) = 0 on 9Ω,
where Ω c 1 " is a bounded domain, 2 < q < 2 < ρ < η (if ρ > η we can
take 1 < q < oo). We apply Theorem 1.9.1 with potential operators A, Β and C from
W 0 1 , p (ß) into Η ' - , · ' ' ' ( Ω ) given by
(A(m), υ) = f \Vu(x)\p-2Du(x)Dv(x)dx,
Ja
(B(u),v)= I \u(x)\P~2u(x)v(x)dx
Jq
and
(C(u), ),V)=
Jn
ί
ιu(i{x)\q~2u(x)v{x)dx.
By standard compact embedding theorems (see Appendix, Section A.2) Β and C are
strongly continuous. If we set
l i v <
λι = inf
«ewj-'in)
then λι > 0 is the first eigenvalue of the problem
—Apu = k\u\p~2u in Ω,

Authenticated
1.11 Critical problem 35
u(x) = 0 on 3Ω.
The multiplicity of λι is 1 and the corresponding eigenfunction can be taken positive

(see [14] and [155]). Applying Theorem 1.9.1 to the minimization problem
(h) jnf {Un{\Vu(x)\P + X\u(x)\P)dx·, I /Ω \u{x)\* dx = 1}

νν0''ρ(Ω)
for 0 < λ < λι, we obtain the existence of a nontrivial solution u to problem (1.23).
Since |m| together with u is a minimizer of (/χ), we can assume that u is positive (see
[16]).
1.11 Critical problem

Our aim here is to consider problem (1.16) under a weaker assumption on C.
We say that problem (1.16) is critical (or a problem without compactness) if the
potential operator C : X X* is weakly continuous.
This problem is more complex than the problem discussed in Section (1.9) and has
attracted a lot of attention in recent years. We give here a simple existence result for
problem (1.16). We shall investigate this problem in more detail in Chapter 9.
We denote by Sp,q the best Sobolev constant for operators A and C, that is,
SPtg = inf{fl(w); c(u) = 1}
(see Proposition 1.2.2 and Remark 1.2.1).

Finally, let λι > 0 be the smallest eigenvalue for operator equation (1.1) (see
Proposition 1.2.3).
Theorem 1.11.1. Suppose that potential operators A and Β satisfy assumptions of

Theorem 1.9.1 and that A is a bounded potential operator. Moreover, we suppose that
C is a monotone, weakly continuous and homogeneous potential operator of degree
q — \, with q > p, where ρ — 1 is a degree of Β and A. Let {uj} be minimizing
sequence for problem (1.17), that is, a(uj) — kb(uj) —• Ιχ as j —>- oo, with c(uj) = 1
for every j. If Ιχ > 0, then either c(u) = 1 or u = 0. If Ιχ < Sp>q andO < λ < λ ι,
then c(u) = 1 and Ιχ = a(u) — kb(u).
Proof. It is easy to see that {uj} is bounded and we may assume that uj u. Suppose
that u φ 0. Let υ e X — {0} and t > 0. Since potential c is convex we have
c(uj + tv) - c{Uj) > t(C(Uj), v)
and hence
c(uj+tv) > 1 +t(C(uj), v).

Authenticated
For potentials a and b we have
fl d fl
a(uj + tv) — a(uj) = I —a(uj+stv)ds = I (A(uj + stv),tv) ds
Jo ds Jo
= / (A(uj + stv) - A(uj),tv)ds + t(A(uj), v)

Jo
and
b(u •j+tv) - b(uj) = [ (B(uj+stv) - B(uj), tv)ds + t(B(uj), υ).

Jo
We also have
£
a(uj + tv) - Xbiuj + tv) > hc(uj + tv)» .
Therefore,
a(uj) - kb(uj) + t ({A(uj), v) - k(B(uj), v}) + Aj(t) - kBj(t) (1.24)
> /λ(ΐ + (C(uj),b))i ,
where
Aj(t)=l (A(uj + stv) - A(uj), tv) ds
Jo
and
Bj(t) = I (B(uj + stv) - B(uj), tv) ds.
Jo
The strong continuity of Β implies that
lim Bj(t) = t f (B(u + stv) - B(u), v) ds.

j^-oo Jo
Since A is bounded on bounded sets, using the dominated convergence theorem we

obtain that
lim Aj(t) = t I (A(u +stv) - A(u), v)ds.
j-> oo Jo
Letting j -»· oo in (1.24) we get
h + t ((A(M), v) - k(B(u),v)) -tk

- tk fI i{B(u + stv) - B(u)) ds
!o
Jo
+ t I (A(u + stv) - A(u), v) ds > Ιλ ( 1 + t{C(u), v))*

Jo

Authenticated
We write this in the form
<A(u), v) - k(B(u), υ) - λ f (B(u + stv) - B(u), v) ds

Jo
+ jf (A(u + stv)~ A(u),v))ds > {(1 +i<C(«), υ))» - l j .
As before, we check that both integrals tend to 0 with t —• 0. Since the inequality
holds also for —v, we see, letting t —• 0, that
(A(u), u) - k(B(u), u) = ?-Ik(C(u), u).

q
Since we have assumed that « ^ O w e must have
a{u) - kb(u) > I\c(u)i.

£
Hence c(u) > c(u)i. Since 0 < c(u) < 1 and ρ < q, we see that c{u) = 1.
To prove the second assertion we observe that if {uj} is a minimizing sequence,
then
a(uj) - kb(uj) > Sptqc(uj) - kb(uj) = Sp<q - kb(uj)
and letting j oo we get
h > Sp<q - kb(u).
This inequality implies that u φ 0. If l\ = 0, then by the lower semicontinuity a we
get that
a(u) - kb{u) < 0.
Since 0 < λ < λι, we get a contradiction. Therefore, Ιχ > 0 and by the previous part
of the proof we must have c(u) = 1 and this completes the proof. •
1.12 Bibliographical notes

Results presented in Section 1.1 are standard and can be found in the monographs by
Vainberg [231], Chow-Hale [75], Deimling [95], Aubin-Ekeland [19], Ambrosetti-
Prodi [9] and Schwarz [203], The example of the p-Laplacian as a potential operator
is taken from Lions' monograph [155]. The algebraic inequalities used to show the
monotonicity of A can be found in Glowinski-Marrocco [128] (see also [210]). The
proof of Theorem 1.1.1 is taken from Ekeland's paper [110] and it also appeared
in a similar form in Penot's paper (see also Ekeland [109] and monographs [164]
and [212]). Theorem 1.1.1 can also be derived from a more general result due to
Brezis and Browder [39]. Extensions of Theorem 1.1.1, and variations in the method,

Authenticated
were given by Danes [54], Penot [176], Georgiev [123] and Deville-Godefroy-Zizler
[98], [99]. In papers [54], [176] and [123], it is proved, among other things, that the
Ekeland's variational principle is equivalent to the Drop Theorem. The paper [123]
contains a strengthened version of Theorem 1.1.1 also based on the Drop Theorem.
The papers [176], [98] (see also a monograph [99]) offer a quite different approach
based on properties of Banach spaces admitting a smooth Lipschitzian bump function.
Theorem 1.1.3 is taken from Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz's paper [10]. Theorem 1.1.4 can
be traced in Brezis-Nirenberg's paper [42]. Proofs of Theorems 1.1.1-1.1.4 can be
found in the monographs by Struwe [212] and Mawhin-Willem [164], Proposition
1.1.1 appears in Calkovic, Shujie and Willem [51] and Goeleven [129]. Constrained
minimization methods, as well as relations among them described in Sections 1.2-1.5,
are scattered throughout the literature and have been used in many different problems in
variational calculus and in boundary value problems for nonlinear ordinary and partial
differential equations. In particular, the constrained minimization subject to constraint
V (Proposition 1.4.1) originates in Nehari's paper [171]. We have attempted to provide
a unified approach based on the use of potential operator equations in Banach spaces.
For further aspects of the dual method we refer to the papers [8], [9], [11], [12] and
[87]. To prove Theorems 1.2.1 and 1.3.1 and Proposition 1.4.1 we have used some ideas
from Briining's paper [48]. Theorem 1.6.1 is an abstract version of results obtained by
Xi Ping Zhu [244] and Xi Ping Zhu and Huan Song Zhou [245]. Results of Sections
1.7 and 1.8 are patterned after Tarantello's paper [222]. A different approach to the
nonhomogeneous elliptic equation involving a critical Sobolev exponent can be found
in [161], [246] and [60]. Theorems 1.10.1 and 1.10.2 are due to Chabrowski [65], [66].

Authenticated
Chapter 2
Applications of Lusternik-Schnirelman theory
The main purpose of this chapter is to study the existence of critical points via the
Lusternik-Schnirelman theory of critical points. The essential advantage of this ap-
proach is that it requires a C 1 -smoothness of a given functional. We distinguish
constrained and unconstrained cases. The latter case is described on some selected
situations. The two essential ingredients in the Lusternik-Schnirelman theory are the
(PS) condition and the existence of a deformation mapping. This mapping allows to
deform the set {F(u) < c + e} into (F(m) < c — e} for small e > 0 provided the level
set {F(u) = c} does not contain any critical point. This chapter contains a deforma-
tion lemma for C 1 functionals. Variants of this lemma are presented in Chapters 5, 6
and 7. In particular, in Chapter 7 we present a deformation lemma for C 1 -functionals
perturbed by a lower semicontinuous convex functional.
2.1 Palais-Smale condition, case ρ Φ q

Throughout this chapter we assume that X is a reflexive Banach space. Let F : X -> Μ
be a functional defined in Section 1.5. We know that under some regularity assumptions
on potential operators A and B, any critical point of F is a solution of equation (1.1). In
this chapter we examine the existence of critical points via the Lusternik-Schnirelman
theory of critical points. The fundamental step in applying this theory is to show that
the Palais-Smale condition holds, that is, if for a sequence {um} in X, F{um) c
and F'(um) —• 0 in X* as m oo, then {um} has a strongly convergent subsequence
in X (see [174]). If the degrees of A and Β are distinct, it is not difficult to show
that F satisfies the (PS) condition. However, if the degrees of A and Β are the same,
the situation is more complex. In this case we use the variant of the (PS) condition
established by Amann [13] (see also [243]) which holds for sequences {um} along
which b{um) > const > 0. It turns out that this is sufficient to establish the existence
of infinitely many critical points. We point out here that in Amann's original version
of the Palais-Smale condition, the homogeneity of operators A and Β is not needed.
Theorem 2.1.1. Suppose that A is a hemicontinuous, strongly monotone and homo-

geneous potential operator of degree ρ — 1 and that Β is a strongly continuous po-
tential operator of degree q — 1, with ρ φ q. Let {um} be a sequence in X such

Authenticated
40 2 Applications of Lusternik-Schnirelman theory
that F(um) c for some constant c and F'(um) —>• 0 in X* as m —> oo, then the
sequence {um} contains a subsequence strongly convergent in X.
Proof. According to the homogeneity of A and Β, F takes the form
Ρ <1
Given e > 0, we can find m0 such that
-€ < {A(um), Um) - (B(um), U / f f ) < €
for all m > m 0 . Moreover, we have

1 1
-M < —(A(um), um) - —(B(um), um) < Μ
Ρ q
for all m and some constant Μ > 0. These two inequalities yield
- M - - < ( - - - ) (B(um), um) < Μ + —

ρ \p qJ ρ
for m > m0. This means that the sequence {(B(um), um)} is bounded. Hence,
m)i u m)} is also bounded. By the strong monotonicity of A we have
l|KmllPK(l|K«ll) < (Mum), Um) < € + -^—M +

q - ρ q - ρ
for all m > m 0 . Since l i m ^ o o κ(ί) = oo, we see that the sequence {um} is bounded.
Therefore,
we may assume that um —u in X. Since Β is strongly continuous and
F'(um) —> 0 in X* we see that {A(um)} is convergent in X*. We now observe that A
satisfies condition (S)i, hence {um} converges strongly in X. •
Remark 2.1.1. Theorem 2.1.1 remains true, if F is replaced by Ff(u) = a(u)—b(u) —
( / , u), with / 6 X*. This fact has already been used in Lemma 1.6.1.
2.2 Duality mapping

In this section we recall some properties of a duality mapping that will be needed in
this chapter.
Let X be a Banach space. A set-valued map J : X 2X defined by
J(u) = {«* € X*; ||K*|| = ||u|| and (u*, u) = ||«||2}
is called the duality mapping.

Authenticated
2.2 Duality mapping 41
Proposition 2.2.1. Let J be a duality mapping, then

(a) J is a map if and only ifX* is strictly convex; in particular, J = I (identity map),
ifX is α Hilbert space.
(b) X* is uniformly convex if and only if J : Χ —»· X* is uniformly continuous on
bounded sets.
(c) X* is uniformly convex if and only if || · || is Frechet differentiate (uniformly on a
unit sphere). Consequently, J can be viewed as Frechet derivative of a functional
j(u) = J || u ||2. The norm is Gateaux differentiable on X — {0} if and only if X*
is strictly convex.
For the proof we refer to [95] (Chapter 3).
Let Φ : [0, oo) —• [0, oo) be a continuous strictly increasing function with Φ (0) =
0 and linv-yoo ΦΟ) = oo.
Following J. L. Lions (see [156], Chapter 2) we say that a mapping Jφ : X —> X*
is a duality mapping relative to Φ if
(7Φ(Μ), U) = ||/Φ (Μ) || || Μ || f o r all Μ e X
and
||/Φ(Μ)|| = Φ(|Μ).
Proposition 2.2.2. Every duality mapping 7φ is monotone.
Indeed, by a straightforward computation, using the above definition, we easily

check that
</Φ(Μ) - / φ ( υ ) , u - v ) > ( Φ ( | Μ ) - Φ(ΙΜ|))(||η|| - Ν | ) > 0.
Proposition 2.2.3. I f X is strictly convex, J is strictly monotone, that is,
{J<t>(u) — J<p(v), u — v) = 0 implies u — v.
The existence of 7φ is a consequence of the Hahn-Banach theorem and we have
Proposition 2.2.4. If X* is strictly convex, then there exists a duality mapping JΦ

relative to Φ.
Proof. Let ||u|| = 1. According to the Hahn-Banach theorem there exists a unique
u* G X* such that
||w*|| = 1 and (u*,u) = 1.
We define : X X* by 7 Φ (λ«) = Φ(λ)«* for ||u|| = 1 and the result follows. •

Authenticated
42 2 Applications of Lustemik-Schnirelman theory
/ φ is obviously an odd potential operator with a potential 7'φ : X —> Μ defined by
f\\u II
Jo
Due to the specific form of J<p, obtained in Proposition 2.2.4, we have
f i f i r\\u\\
7 Φ ( Μ ) = / ( 7 Φ (tu),u)dt = (t\\u\\)(u*,u)dt= / Φ(Τ) άτ

Jo Jo Jo
and for the validity of that integral representation we do not need the hemicontinuity
of J.
However, we have
Proposition 2.2.5. If X is a reflexive Banach space with X* strictly convex, then Jφ

is hemicontinuous.
We observe that, applying Proposition 2.2.4 with Φ(Γ) = r, we obtain the duality
mapping from Proposition 2.2.1.
Example 2.2.1. The Sobolev space where Ω is a bounded domain in R"

and 1 < ρ < oo, equipped with norm
\\Du\\p = ^\DU(X)\p d x y
is uniformly convex and if Φ(Γ) = r p _ 1 , then
(7Φ(u),v)= I \Du\p~2DuDvdx
Ja
for all u, υ e Wo' p (tt) and
;'Φ(") = - f \Du\Pdx.
Ρ JQ
On the other hand
(J(u),v) = \\Du\\2p~p [ \Du\p~2DuDvdx

Ja
and
j(u) = ^\\Du\\2p.

Authenticated
2.3 Palais-Smale condition, case ρ = q

Incase ρ = q we follow Amann's approach [13]. For the sake of completness we repeat
it in some detail. In this approach we do not assume the homogeneity of operators A
and B.
The potential operator A : X X* is supposed to satisfy:
(α) A : X —• X* is odd, positive and uniformly continuous on bounded sets and
satisfies the condition (S)i (see Chapter 1, Section 1.1). For each a > 0 the level
set
Ma = {u; a(u) = a}
is bounded and each ray passing through the origin intersects Ma. Moreover,
there exists ρ = p(a) > 0 such that {A(u), u) > ρ for all u € Ma.
A mapping A satisfying (a) must be bounded. Moreover, we can define a mapping
ρ : X — {0} (0, oo) by a(p{u)u) = a. This mapping is well defined. Indeed,
suppose that for some 0 < t\ < t j we have a(t\u) = a f a u ) = a. Then by assumption
(a) we have
f" dt
0 = a(t2u) — a{t\u) = I (A(tu),tu}—> 0,
Jt\ t
which is impossible.
Lemma 2.3.1. The fiinctional ρ has the following properties:

(i) ρ is bounded on sets bounded away from zero.
(ii) ρ has Frechet derivative ρ' : X —> X* which is odd and uniformly continuous
on bounded sets which are bounded away from zero.
(iii) If for u G Ma, (A(u), v) = 0 for all ν € X, then ( p ' ( u ) , v) = 0 for all ν € X.
Proof. It follows from (a), that Ma is symmetric, bounded and bounded away from
zero. It is easy to see that ρ inherits these properties; that is, ρ is even and bounded on
sets which are bounded away from zero and (i) holds. Since Λ is a continuous potential
operator, its potential a is Frechet differentiable. For every u e X — {0} and every
t > 0 we have
d _,
—a(tu) = {A(tu), u) = t 1 (A{tu), tu) > 0.
dt
The implicit function theorem yields that ρ is continuously differentiable and
0 = ( a ( p ( u ) u ) ) ' = (A(p(u)u), u)p'(u) + p(u)A(p(u)u),
that is,
P(uΫ
Ρ (") = Λ , , A(p(u)u). (2.1)
(A(p(u)u, p(u)u)

Authenticated
This representation for p' implies that p' is bounded on sets which are bounded away
from zero because ρ and A have this property. Finally, using the relation
p(u)-p(v)= f (p'(v + t(u-v)),u-v)dt

Jο
which holds for u, ν e X and with 0 £ {v + t(u — ν), 0 < t < 1}, we see that ρ
is uniformly continuous on bounded sets which are bounded away from zero. Conse-
quently, by virtue of (2.1) p' satisfies (ii). Property (iii) follows from (2.1) and from
the fact that p(u) = 1 for all u e Ma. •
To proceed further we assume that X is uniformly convex Banach space. Hence

X is reflexive Banach space. Let 7 : X* —> X be a duality mapping, that is, for each
u € X* we have
(u,J(u)) = \\u\\2 and ||7(||)|| = ||«||.
By Proposition 2.2.1(b) 7 is uniformly continuous on bounded sets. Suppose that

Β : X —> X* is an odd potential operator which is uniformly continuous on bounded
sets. We define mappings D : Ma —• X* and Τ : Ma —• X by
Diu) = B(u) -
{A(u), u)
and
{Mu) /(D(m)))
TV λ = Junt
T{u) (D(u))* >——— u.
(A(u), «)
By a straightforward computation we check that
(B(u),T(u)) = \\D(u)\\2 for u € Ma (2.2)
and
(A(u), T(u)) =0 for u G Ma. (2.3)
Moreover, Τ is odd and uniformly continuous and hence is bounded. Consequently,

there exist constants τ 0 > 0 and y0 > 0 such that
\\u + TT(U)\\ > Vo
for all u g Ma and r € [—r 0 , r 0 ]. We now define a mapping Η : Ma χ [—τ0, r 0 ] —>

M a by
H(u, R) = ρ (μ + τΤ(μ))(μ + ΤΓ(Μ)).
We now formulate and prove Lemma 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 which will be used in Chapter 3.
Lemma 2.3.2. Let X be a uniformly convex Banach space. Suppose that A : X —»· X*
satisfies (a) and that Β : X X* is an odd potential operator which is uniformly

Authenticated
continuous on bounded sets. Then there exists a mapping r : Ma χ [—τσ, τ0] —• Μ,

with limr_>o r(u, r) = 0 uniformly in u £ Ma, such that
b(H(u, t)) ~ b(u) 4- f {\\D(u)\\2 + r(u,x))dx (2.4)

Jo
for all u e Ma and t e [—r0, r0]. (Here, b denotes the potential of B).
Proof Let («, t) e Ma χ [-r0, τ0], then
b(H(u, 0) = b(u) + f (B(H(u, τ)), H(u, r)> dx.

Jo 9τ
It follows from Lemma 2.3.1 and (2.3) that
τ) = {p\u + xT(u)), T(u))(u + τΤ(τ)) + p(u + τT(u))T(u)

3r
= T(U) + R(U,T),
where
R(U,T) = (P(U + TT(U))~ P(U))T(U) + (P'(U + TT(U))~ P'(U),T(U))(U + TT(U)).

We see that limr_>.o r ) = 0 uniformly in Ma. Therefore, we write b(H(u, t)) in
the following form
b(H(u, t)) = b(u) + f ((B(u), T(u)) + r(u, τ)) dx,

Jo
where
r(u, r) = (B(u), R(u, x)) + {B(H(u, τ)) - £(u), ^ - / / ( « , τ » ,

dx
and this implies that limr_>.o r(u, r ) = 0 uniformly in Ma. Now, by (2.2) we have
(B(u), T(u)) = (Diu), J(D(u))} = ||D(m)||2
and this completes the proof. •
For every β > 0 w set
Nß = {ueMa: \b(u)\ > β).

Using Lemma 2.3.2 we can prove the deformation lemma:
Lemma 2.3.3. Let the assumptions of Lemma 2.3.2 hold. Suppose that for β > 0
there exist an open set U C Ma and constants δ > 0 and 0 < ρ < β such that
||D(«)|| > δ for Vp = {ue M a ; u#U,\\b(u)\ - β\ < ρ}.

Then, there exists an e > 0 and an odd continuous mapping H€ : Nß-€ — U^-Nß+€.

Authenticated
Proof. Since limr_,.o Κ", τ) = 0 uniformly in u e Ma, we can find τ\ e (0, rQ] such
[2
that Ir(u, r)| < y for (w, τ) e Ma χ [—ri, ri]. We now set t(u, r) = r · sgnfo(u)
and by Lemma 2.3.2 we have
«52τ
\b(H(u,t(u,T))\>\b(u)\ + —
for all (Η, τ) e VP χ [0, rj]. Setting e = min(p, we see that this inequality
becomes
Ib(H(u, t(u, r))| > \b(u)\ +2t>ß +€
for u g Vp Π Nß- e . It follows from (2.4) that for every fixed u e Vp \b(H(u, t(u, ·))|
is strictly increasing on some interval [0, σ] D [0, τι]. Therefore, for every u e VP,
the functional
t€(u) = min{r > 0; \b(H(u, t(u, τ))| = β + e} sgnb(u)
is well-defined, continuous on Vp and 0 < |i e («)| < τ\ for u e Vp. To complete the
proof we define a mapping H€ : Nß-€ — U —• Nß+e by
H(u, t€(u)) for u e Vp,

Hf(u) =
u for u e Nß-c - (U U Vp).
•
We are now in a position to formulate Amann's version of the (PS) condition.
Theorem 2.3.1. Suppose that X is uniformly convex real Banach space, A: X —• X*

satisfies (a) and that Β : X —• X* is an odd potential operator which is uniformly
continuous on bounded sets. Further, we suppose that b(u) φ 0 implies B(u) φ 0.
Let β > 0 be fixed and let {uj} be a sequence in Ma such that b(uj) > β for all j and
D(uj) —• 0 in X* as j —• oo. Then {Uj} contains a strongly convergent subsequence
whose limit is an eigenfunction u e Ma of( 1.1).
Proof Let ß j = . Since Ma is bounded and X is reflexive we may assume

that uj —^ u in X and ßj —> μ as j —• oo. It follows from the weak continuity of b
that \b(uj)\ \b(u)\ > β. Hence u Φ 0 and B(u) φ 0. Since D(uj) 0, we see
that
ßjA(uj) = B(uj) - D(uj) B(u) φ 0.
Hence μ φ 0 and A(uj) μ~{B(u). Now, by condition (S)ι Uj u. Therefore,
A(u) = XB{u), where
—1 ( A ( M ) , u)
λ =μ = .
(B(u),u)
•

Authenticated
2.4 The Lusternik-Schnirelman theory

We establish the existence of infinitely many solutions of equation (1.1) using the
Lusternik-Schnirelman theory of critical points.
Let Σ ( Χ ) be the family of sets A C X — {0} such that A is closed in X and
symmetric with respect to 0, i.e., χ e A implies — χ € A.
For A e Σ (X), we define the genus of A to be n, denoted by γ (A) = n, if there is
a continuous and odd map φ : A - » R " — {0} and η is the smallest integer with this
property. If such η does not exist we set γ {A) = oo and moreover y ( 0 ) = 0.
The following properties of genus are well known (see [10], [185], [184] or [86]).
Lemma 2.4.1. Let A and Β be in Σ(Χ). Then:

(a) I f f e C(A, B) is odd, then y(A) < y{B).
(b) If Α dB, then γ (A) <y(B).
(c) Ifh is an odd homeomorphism of A onto B, then γ (A) = γ{Β).
(d) IfU C R", is an open and symmetric neighbourhood of 0, then y(dU) = n. In
particular, ifdB(0, 1) is a unit sphere, then γ(35(0, 1)) = η.
(e) y(AUB)<y(A) + y(B).
(f) Ify(B) <oo,theny(T=~B)>y(A)-y(B).
(g) If A is compact, then γ {A) < oo.
(h) If A is compact, there exists 8 > 0 such that for N&(A) = {dist(jc, A) < 3} we
have y(A) = y(N$(A)). Here dist(jc, A) denotes the distance of χ to the set A.
(i) If γ {A) > k, Ε is a k-dimensional subspace ofX and Ε1 is an algebraically and
topologically complementary subspace ofX, then Α Π Ε1 φ 0.
Proof (a), (b) and (c) easily follow from the definition of genus.
(d) It is obvious that y(dU) < n. To get the equality we use the following variant of
the Borsuk-Ulam theorem: there is no odd continuous mapping from 3 U to R " - 1 — {0}.
Hence, y(dU) = n.
(e) We may assume that y(A) = k and y(B) = m < oo, since otherwise the
conclusion is trivial. Let / : A Rk - {0} and g : Β R m - {0} be odd
continuous mappings. By virtue of Tietze's theorem there exist continuous mappings
/ : X -»• Rk and g : R m such that f = f \A and g = g |β. These extensions can
be chosen as odd mappings, for otherwise we could take f\ = ^ (/(u) — f (—«)) and
g! (u) = J (g(u) — g(—u)). We now define an odd mapping h : A U Β ->• R * χ R m by
h(u) = ( / ( « ) , £ ( « ) ) . Since h{u) φ Ofor« e AUB, we must have y{A\JB) < k+m.
(f) Since A C A - BUB, it follows from (b) and (e) that γ (A) < y(A - B)+y(B).
(g) For jc G X , we set C = B{x, r) U B{-x, r) with r < ψ·. Then B(x, r) Π
B(—x, r) = 0 and y (C) = 1. Since finitely many such sets covers A, it follows from
(c) that y(A) < oo.

Authenticated
(h) Suppose that γ (A) = handlet Λ : A —• IR*—{0} be an odd continuous mapping.

Using Tietze's theorem we extend h to an odd continuous mapping h : X —> IR" — {0}.
Since h φ 0 in A, the compactness of A implies that h φ 0 on Ng(A) for some δ > 0.
Consequently, γ (Ng(A)) < k = γ {A). The reverse inequality follows from (b).
(i) Let Ρ be a projection of X onto Ε along E 1 . If Λ Π = 0 , then Ρ is an odd
continuous mapping on A with Ρ (Α) φ 0 on A. Therefore, by (c) γ (A) < k, which is
impossible. •
We note that if A e Σ ( Χ ) and γ (A) > 1, then A contains infinitely many distinct
points.
If A e Σ ( Χ ) and Ω is a bounded neighbourhood of 0 in R" and there exists a
mapping h e C(A, 3Ω), where h is an odd homemorphism, then γ (A) = n.
The proof of the existence of infinitely many critical points of a functional F ( u ) =
a(u) — b(u), introduced in Section 1, will be based on theorems of min-max type.
The simplest result from the Lusternik-Schnirelman theory of critical points is the
following result (due to Lusternik):
Let / e C ^ R " , R) be an even function. Then / = /|s(o,i) possesses at least η
distinct pair of critical points.
To explain the main idea of the proof, which we will follow in the proof of the
unconstrained case, we set
η = { A C 5(0, 1); y ( A ) > * } .
The critical points are obtained by the min-max characterization
bk = inf max f(x).

A€yk X€A
By Lemma 2.4.1 γk Φ 0 for k = 1 , . . . , η and it is easy to check that the sequence

{bk} is nondecreasing. Since A = —x) e γ\, b\ = infs(o.i) f ( x ) . On the other
hand y„ = {5(0, 1)}, so bn = maxô.i) f ( x ) . The proof consists of two steps. First,
using a deformation mapping we show that each bk is a critical value. In the next step
we prove that if b = bk = • • • — bk+p~\ for some ρ > 1, then γ (Kb) > p, where
Kb = {*; f'(x) = 0, f ( x ) = b}.
This result, as well as the method, has an extension to a real infinite dimensional
Hilbert space H. If / € CX(H, R) is even, satisfies the (PS) condition and is bounded
from below, then for each r > 0 /|s(o,r) has infinitely many distinct pairs of critical
points.
We now turn our attention to a deformation lemma, the proof of which is straightfor-
ward for C 2 -functionals. The deformation mapping is then obtained by considering a
gradient flow of F which in the case of C 1 -functionals is only continuous. To overcome
this difficulty we replace a gradient by a pseudogradient.
Let U be a subset of a Banach space X and let F e C 1 (X, M). We say that a vector
υ is a pseudogradient of F at u £ U, if

Authenticated
2.4 The Lustemik-Schnirelman theory 49
(i) ||f|| < 2||F / (m)|| x .,

(ii) (F'(U),V)>\\F'(U)\\2X..
If F g Cl(X, R) and Y = {u e X\ F'(u) φ 0}, then υ : Y X is apseudogradi-

ent vector field on Y if υ is locally Lipschitz continuous and υ(.χ) is a pseudogradient
vector of F at χ for all χ e Y.
It is easy to check that if F € C2(X, M), where X is a Hilbert space, then F' is a
pseudogradient vector field of F on Y. On the other hand, if F G Cl(X, R), then F'
in general is not a pseudogradient vector field of F.
Lemma 2.4.2. Let X be a Banach space and F G Cl (X, R). Then there exists a
locally Lipschitz pseudogradient g : Y —> X.
Proof. In what follows we use || · || to denote norms in X and X*. Let ü e Y,

then there exists w G X such that ||w|| = 1 and (F'(w), W) > | | | F ' ( u ) | | . Letting
ν — 11|F'(ü) II w we get
INI < 2 | | f " ( S ) | | and <F'(Ü), υ) > | | ^ ( μ ) | | 2 .
Since F' is continuous there exists a neighbourhood NQ of ü such that
Hull < 2||F'(m)|| and (F'(u), υ) > ||^(«)||2 (2.5)
for u g NÜ. The collection of of neighbourhoods Μ — {NQ\ Ü g Y} forms an open

covering of Y. Since Y is a metric space it is also a paracompact space. Consequently,
the open covering Ν has a locally finite open refinement Μ = {A/, ; i G /}. This
means that for each i g / , there exists ü e Y such that M, c NQ. This also implies
that there exists a vector υ = υ, such that inequalities (2.5) are satisfied on M,·. We
now define
ρ,(μ) = dist(«, X - Mi)
and
It is easy to check that g is a pseudogradient of F on Y. •
To formulate a deformation lemma we need the following notation
FA = {«; F(m) < a] and Ka = {m; F'{U) = 0 and F(u) = a}.
Lemma 2.4.3 (Deformation lemma). Let e e l and F G C 1 (X, M). Then for every
0 < 8 < I there exists a continuous mapping (deformation) η : [0, 1] χ Χ —» X such
that

Authenticated
(i) η(0, u) = ufor all u £ X,

(ii) η(ί, ·) is a homeomorphism ofX onto X for each t e [0, 1],
(iii) τ](t,u) = uforallt € [0, 1] ifu & F _ 1 ( ( c — 2S,c + 28)) Π {u; | F » | > VS},
(iv) 0 < F(u) - F(n(t,u)) < 48 for all u e X and all t e [0,1],
(ν) \\η(ί, u) — u\\ < leVSforallu € X andt G [0, 1].
(vi) Ifu G Fc+S, then either (a.) η(1, u) e Fc~s, or (b) for some t\ € [0, 1], we have
\\F'(ji{t\, u)|| < 2\f&. More generally, let τ e [0, 1] and
Ν = {utX\\F{u)-c\<8 and ||F'(u)|| > 2^8),
and suppose that η(ί, u) € Ν for each t € [0, τ], then F{r\{τ, u)) < F(w) —
Finally, if F is even η is odd in u.
Proof We define a set Ν by

Ν = {ueX, u 6 F _ 1 ( ( c - 25, c + 2δ)) Π {«; ||F'(h)|| > V & }.
The sets Ν and X — Ν are disjoint and closed. Let g : X —> [ 0 , 1 ] be a locally
Lipschitz continuous function defined by
dist(«, X — N )
g(u) =
dist(w, X - N ) + dist(w, N )
Let φ be a pseudogradient of F defined on a set {m; F'(m) φ 0} and set
V(«) =
0 ifueX-N.
It follows from the definition of the pseudogradient that ||0(«)|| > ||F'(m)|| > *Jh for
u e Ν and hence || VC")II < A deformation mapping η is defined as a solution of
the initial value problem
^Ί- = ν(η), η(0 ,u)=u.

dt
A solution η(ί, u) is defined for t e [0,1], It is obvious that η satisfies (i), (ii) and (iii)
and moreover
u)) = {F'init, u), V(r](t, u))) < -\g{nit, u))

dt 4
for all u e X and t e [0,1]. This implies that
f g(V(s, u)) ds < 4(F(u) - F(n(t, u)) (2.6)

Jo

Authenticated
(iv) If |F(w) - c| > 28, then η{ί, u) = u for all t e [0,1] and (iv) holds. We
may therefore assume that |F(m) - c\ < 28. If F{q(t, u)) > c — 28, then (iv) easily
follows from the fact that F(q(t, u)) is decreasing on [0,1]. Consequently, suppose
that F(ij(l, «)) < c-28. Then, there exists t\ € [0, 1] suchthat F{r)(t\, u)) = c-28.
Since η(ί, u) = η{ί\, u) for t > t\, we have
F(u) - F(V(t, u)) = F(u) - F(j)(t\,u))<c + 28-(c- 28) = 48.
(v) It follows from (2.6) and (iv) that
' u)
Mt,u)-u\\ < [ II as
|| ds
Jo ds
<-f ds
J[ o,t]n(i;ij(j,u)€W)
f Sitfi —))—^ f g^(s>u^ds
€N] ||F'(»?(J,ii))|| " ^8 Jo
< -j={F(u) - F^(t,u))) < 16VS.
(vi) If η(ΐ, u) € Ν for 0 < t < τ, then g{ri(t, u)) = 1 and (vi) follows from (2.6).
Finally, if F is even, then g is also even and the flow generated by V must be odd. •
Corollary 2.4.1. Suppose that F satisfies the (PS)C condition. Then for every e > 0
there exists 8 < e and a deformation η from Lemma 2.4.3 such that: ifu€ Fc+S and
F(?7(l, m)) > c — 8, then
\\Ρ'(η(ί, h))|| < e for all t e [0, 1].
Proof Given e > 0, there exists 8 > 0 such that | F(u) - c\ < 8, || F'(u) || < 2λ/S and
|| μ — υ || < 3 2 i m p l y that ||F'(i;)|| < €. In the contrary case, there exists e 0 > 0
and sequences {um}, {um} such that F(um) ->· c, F'(um) ->· 0, ||« m - vm\\ and
l|F'(i» m )|| > €0 which is impossible. We now choose δ < | and 8 < € for a given
€ > 0 such that the above implications hold. Then part (b) of the alternative of Lemma
2.4.3 holds and our assertion follows from (v). •
Corollary 2.4.2. Suppose that F satisfies the (PS)C condition. Then for every e > 0
and a neighbourhood Ό of Kc, there corresponds 8 < € and a deformation from
Lemma 2.4.3 satisfying Ty(Fc+i — ö) C Fc~s (that is, part (a) of the alternative from
Lemma 2.4.3 holds).
Proof. Since (PS)C condition holds, then there exists a > 0 such that
U = {ueX; IF(w) - c\ < a and ||F'(m)|| < a} C O.

Authenticated
Taking e < a we apply Corollary 2.4.1 and let S and η be as in this Corollary. If
u € Fc+S — Ö and part (a) of the alternative does not hold, then c —8 < F(^(1,m)) <
F(w) < c + <5 and ||F'(u)|| < €. This implies that u € U C Ο which is impossible. •
To illustrate this corollary let us consider F(x, y) = 0 for (x, y) e E 2 . The only
critical point is (0,0). If U is a neighbourhood of (0,0) and e > 0 sufficiently small
then F€ — U can be deformed to F~€. However, if we replace F€ — U by Fe, then
this is no longer true.
To proceed further we introduce some notation. Let F e Cl(X, R), we denote by
Γ* the set of all homeomorphisms h e C(X, X) such that h(0) = 0 and h{B{0, 1)) C
(F(h) > 0}, and set
Γ* = {h 6 Γ*; h is odd}.
We denote by Tm the set of all compact subsets of X which are symmetric with respect
to the origin and such that γ(Κ Π h(dB(0,1)) > m for all h e Γ*.
Lemma 2.4.4. Suppose that F satisfies (i) of Theorem 1.1.3 and that for any finite
dimensional subspace Ε C X the set Ε Π F - 1 ( [ 0 , oo)) is bounded. Then
(i) Tm#0,
(ii) r m + i C r m ,
(iii) Κ G Tm and Υ e Σ(Χ) with y(Y) < r < m implies Κ - Υ e rm-r,
(iv) if φ is an odd homeomorphism of X onto X and
(t>~\F~x ([0, oo)) C F~l([0, oo)),
then <j>(K) e Tm whenever Κ G Tm.
Proof. Since (ii) is obvious, we only prove (i), (iii) and (iv).
(i) Let Em be an m-dimensional subspace of X and let KR = Em Π B(0, R).
Obviously, KR is a compact set in Em. According to our assumption F - 1 ( [ 0 , oo)) Π
Em C KR for R sufficiently large. If h e Γ*, then h{B{0, 1)) ΓΊ Em C F~{ ([0, oo)) Π
Em and hence h(B(0, 1)) η Em c KR. Consequently, KR Π h(3B(0, 1)) = Em Π
h((dB(0, 1)). We now observe that h (B(0, 1)) Π Em is an open, symmetric and bounded
neighbourhood of 0 in Em with the boundary Em Γ) h(dΒ(0,1)). It follows from (d)
of Lemma 2.4.1 that y(Em Π h(dB(0, 1))) = y(KR Π h(dB(0, 1))) = m, that is,
K R Gr v
(iii) First of all, Κ — Υ is a compact and symmetric set. If h € Γ*, then Κ — Υ Π
h(dB(0, 1)) = (KOh(dB(0, 1))) - Υ and applying (f) of Lemma 2.4.1 we get
γ(Κ -YDh(dB(0, 1))) = y((ATn/i(3B(0, l ) ) - 7 )

> γ (Κ Π h(dB(0, 1))) -y(Y)>m-r.
(iv) If Κ e r m , then φ(Κ) is compact and symmetric. Let h e Γ*, since

</) _1 (F _1 ([0, oo)) C F - 1 ( [ 0 , oo)) and φ~λ ο h is odd, φ~{ ο h e Γ*. Consequently,

Authenticated
if Κ e r m , then by(c) of Lemma 2.4.1 we have
γ(φ(Κ) Π h(dB(0, 1))) = y(K Π φ~ι(Η(8Β(0, 1))) > m,
that is, φ(Κ) e rm. •
Theorem 2.4.1. Let F e Cl(X,W). Suppose that (i) of Theorem 1.1.3 holds, F
satisfies the Palais-Smale condition, F is even and that for any finite dimensional
subspace Ε C X the set Ε Π F - 1 ( [ 0 , oo)) is bounded. Let
bm = inf maxF(w).
Kerm ueK
Then 0 < a < bm < bm+\ and bm is a critical value of F. Moreover, if bm = • · · =

bm+r = b, then y(Kb) > r.
Here and in Theorem 2.4.2 below a 0 denotes a positive constant from the mountain
pass theorem (see Theorem 1.1.3).
Proof Since h(u) = pu is in Γ* and Κ Π 5(0, ρ) φ 0 for all Κ € T m , we have

bm > a0. It follows from (ii) of Lemma 2.4.4 that bm+1 > bm. The fact that bm is
a critical point is a consequence of the latter assertion of the theorem. Therefore, we
confine ourselves to the latter assertion. If γ (Kb) < r, then by (h) of Lemma 2.4.1 there
exists a neighbourhood of Nß(Kb), for some β > 0, of Kb such that γ (Νβ (Kb)) < r.
By Corollary 2.4.2 with € = ct0, there exists δ < € and an odd homeomorphism η of
X onto X such that
n(Fb+s - Nß(Kb)) C Fb-s.
We now choose Κ e V m + r such that
max F(u) < b + S.

ueK
By (iii) of Lemma 2.4.4 we see that
Κ — Nß(Kb) = K- IntNß(Kb) = Q e Tm+1.
According to (iv) of Lemma 2.4.3 ^ _ 1 ( F _ 1 ( [ 0 , oo)) C F - 1 ( [ 0 , oo)) and by (iv) of

Lemma 2.4.4 η(Ο) e r m + i . On the other hand b < max u e ^(ß) F(u) 1 we set
cm = sup inf F(h(u)).
her*
ThenO < of < Cffi < bm < oo, cm < cm-|-i and cm is a critical value of F.

Authenticated
Proof. As in the proof of Theorem 2.4.1 we show that cm > a. Since 35(0, 1) Π E^
is a subset of 35(0, 1) Π we see that cm < cm+\. We now show that cm < bm.
Let Κ e Tm and h e Γ*. If £ Π /i(3ß(0, 1) Π φ 0 for all such Κ and h
we show as in Theorem 2.4.1 that cm < bm. Since h(dB(0, 1)) is the boundary of a
neighbourhood of 0 in Ε,
κ η h(dB(ο, ι » = ( κ - 5(0, ο ) η h(dB(o, ι »
for € > 0 sufficiently small. From this we deduce that
y(K- 5(0, Ο) > Υ {(K - 5(0, e)) Π A0B(O, 1))) > m.
It then follows from (c) of Lemma 2.4.1 that
y(h~l(K - 5(0,e)) Π 35(0, 1)) > m.
Consequently, by (i) of Lemma 2.4.1 we get that
/ r 1 (K - 5(0, Ο) Π 35(0, 1) Π ^ 0,
which means that
(κ - 5 ( 0 , 0 ) Π h(dB(0, l) η E ^ ) Φ 0,
We can again use the argument of Theorem 2.4.1 to show that cm is a critical point. •
The assumption that for every finite dimensional subspace Ε C X the set Ε Π
F - 1 ( [ 0 , oo)) is bounded, has been used to show that Tm φ 0. We now replace this
assumption by:
(a) there exists a _/'-dimensional subspace Ε c X and a compact set A c Ε with
F(u) < 0 for u e A such that 0 lies in a bounded component (in Ε ) of Ε — A.
Using this assumption we can show that φ 0 for 1 < m < j . Indeed, let
Em be an m-dimensional subspace of Ε and let KR = Em Π 5(0, R). We show that
KR g r m . By assumption (a) Α Π Em c KR for R sufficiently large. Consequently
the component Q of F _ 1 ([0, oo)) Π Em containing 0 lies in KR. Therefore, if h G Γ*,
then QC\h{BB(Q, 1)) contains the boundary of symmetric and bounded neighbourhood
of 0 in Em and using (b) and (d) of Lemma 2.4.1 we see that
Y{KR η h(dB(0, 1))) > γ(Q Π A(35(0, 1))) > m.
We can now formulate the following variant of Theorems 2.4.1 and 2.4.2.
Theorem 2.4.3. Let F € C 1 (X, R). Suppose that assumption (i) of Theorem 1.1.3
holds that F satisfies the Palais-Smale condition, F is even and that (a) holds. Then

Authenticated
2.5 Case ρ > q 55
the conclusions of Theorems 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 hold for bm and cm with 1 < m < j.
Moreover, if F is bounded from below and satisfies the Palais—Smale condition, then
—oo < inf max F(u) = dm < 0, 1 < m < j

Κ€Έ{Χ) ueK
Y(K)>m
and dm is a critical value of F. Ifdm+\ = dm+2 =•···= dm+r — d, then y(Kj) > r.
It follows from (b) and (d) of Lemma 2.4.1 that γ (A) = j and consequently dm < 0
for 1 < m < j . The proof of the multiplicity part of our assertion is similar to the
corresponding part of Theorem 2.4.1 and therefore is omitted.
2.5 Case ρ > q

We define a subset Σ„ of Σ(Χ) by
Σ„ = {Λ e Σ(Χ); y(A) > n}
and set q = i n f ^ E * sup ueA F(u). We show that c* are critical values of F(u) =
a(u) — b(u).
Theorem 2.5.1. Let A and Β be odd potential operators. Suppose that A is strongly
monotone, continuous and homogeneous of degree ρ — 1. Moreover, we suppose that
Β is strongly continuous, positive and homogeneous of degree q — 1 with ρ > q. Then
each Ck is a critical value of F. If c = c* = 1 = · · · = C£+r and Kc — {u e
X; F'(u) = 0, F(u) = c}, then y(Kc) > r.
Proof It follows from the Sobolev inequality that
1 1 - i £
F{u) > ~(A(u),u)
p - q -SpZ(A(u),u)p.
Since ^ < 1, this estimate shows that F is bounded from below. Let Em be an m-
dimensional subspace of X and let u € Em with \\u || = 1. Then there exists € > 0 and
η > 0 such that
ηΡ rf
F{f)u) < — sup ( A ( u ) , u ) inf ( B ( u ) , u ) < —€.
Ρ ||u||=i q MM
Here the infimum is taken over unit sphere in Em and since Β is positive we must have
0 < inf|| u n = i (B(u), u) < 00. On the other hand B(0, η) Π Em C {m; F(u) < —€},
hence y({«; F(u) < —e}) > m. This shows that Σ* Φ 0 for each/: > 1 and the result
follows from Theorem 2.4.3. •

Authenticated
Corollary 2.5.1. Under the assumptions of Theorem 2.5.1 the set

Κ = {ueX\ F'(u) = 0}
is compact.
Proof. Let u £ K, then

0 = (F'(u),u) = (A(u),u) - (B(u),u)
and since q < p, we have
F(u)<-{F'(u),u}= 0.
q
Since F is also bounded from below and the (PS) condition holds, the compactness of
Κ easily follows. •
2.6 Case ρ < q

We commence with the following lemma.
Lemma 2.6.1. Suppose that A is strongly monotone, continuous and homogeneous
potential operator of degree ρ — 1. Further, we assume that Β is a strongly continuous,
positive and homogeneous potential operator of degree q — 1, with ρ < q. Then
(i) there exist constants c > 0 and r > 0 such that F(u) > 0 for 0 < ||u|| < r and
F(u) > cfor || u || = r,
(ii) there exists u0 € X such that ||w0|| > f and F(u0) < 0,
(iii) if Em is an m-dimensional subspace ofX, then the set defined by
Pm = Em Π (« 6 I ; 0 < F(u) < oo}
is bounded.
Proof, (i) Assuming that

I j £ I I £
s~S {A(u), w)*" 1 = ||«||^(Λ(Μ||Μ|Γ,)1 « ν γ 1
)^ 1
> ο,
Ρ q Ρ q
it follows from the Sobolev inequality that
F(u) = —(A(w), u) - ~{B(u), u) > -<A(u), u) - -S~f (A(u), U)P

p q p q
= (A(u), u) ( j - X-S~\ (A(u), u) ρ"1)
> \\U\\PK{\)[ - - - S ~ L \ \ U R - P sup (At«),«))^1 ).

\P q ll«ll=l /

Authenticated
2.6 Case ρ < q 57
It is clear that for 0 < ||w|| < r, with r small, this inequality implies (i).
(ii) Let u φ 0, then
fP t?
F(tu) =—(A(u),u) {B(u),u)<0 and ||ίκ|| > r
p q
for t > 0 sufficiently large.
(iii) Suppose that Pm is unbounded; that is, there exists a sequence {üj} in Pm such
that || üj || —• oo as j —> oo and that
üj = t{u\ + --- + tJmum,
where ui,... ,um are linearly independent vectors spanning Em.

Setting t j = (t{ t}m) and \tj\ = y j ( t ( ) 2 Η + (ιt J m ) 2 t we have oo as
j —>· oo. We may also assume that ^ -*• τ* as j -> oo with ^Jxf 4- • · · + τ 2 = 1.
We now observe that
(%'!«) · ΣΉ * ~P(A (f>) · ΣΉ
for some constant Κ > 0. The last inequality follows from the fact that A is bounded
on bounded subsets of Em.
This inequality yields that
1/ / m \ m \
Letting j —> oo, we get
(b
which is impossible, since ΣΤ=ι xf = 1 implies that ΣΤ=\ τ ' M « Φ Ο anc ^ # is a positive
potential operator. •
To proceed further we set
F 0 = {u € X\ 0 < F(u) < oo},
and denote by Γ the set of all odd homeomorphisms h in C(X, X) with h(0) = 0 and
h(B(0, 1)) C F0. As a consequence of Lemma 2.6.1 and Theorem 2.4.1 we obtain

Authenticated
Theorem 2.6.1. Suppose that A and Β are odd potential operators and that the as-
sumptions of Lemma 2.6.1 hold. Let Tm be the set of all compact and symmetric subsets
Κ of X with γ(Κ Π h(dB( 0, 1))) > m for each he Γ, then
bm = inf sup F(w)

K&V
m u£K
is a critical value of F such that
0 <c <bm < bm+\.
Moreover, if b = bm = bm+\ = · · · = bm+r, then γ {Kb) > r, where Kb = [u €

X; F'{u) = 0 , F(u) = b}.
Here c denotes a constant from Lemma 2.6.1 (i).

If X is a separable Banach space, then there exists a sequence of linear subspaces
{E m } with the following properties:
(i) dim Em — m,
(ii) Em C Em+1,
(iii) the linear space generated by (JmLi Εm is dense is X.
By Ε η we denote the topological and algebraic complement of Em. As a conse-
quence of Theorem 2.4.2 we get
Theorem 2.6.2. Let X be a separable Banach space. Suppose that A and Β are odd
potential operators and that the assumptions of Lemma 2.6.1 hold. Then
cm = sup inf F(h(u))

«er* aB(o,i)n£^_,
is a critical value of F. Moreover, cm < cm+\ and 0 < c < cm <bm.
In the next result we examine the behaviour of critical values of bm and cm.
Theorem 2.6.3. Suppose that the assumptions of Theorem 2.6.2 hold. Then
l i m ^ o o c m = oo.
Proof. We set
M = \ueX- {0}; -<A(u), u) < ~{B{u), m) j.

ρ q
First, we show that there exists r > 0 such that (B(u), u) > r for all u e M.. Indeed,
it follows from the Sobolev inequality that
1 £ 1 1
-Sp,q(B(u),u)* < ~(A(u),u) < ~(B(u),u)
ρ p q

Authenticated
2.6 Case ρ < q 59
for all u G M. Since ρ < q the claim easily follows. We now set
dm = inf{||u||; u G Μ Π E^}.
We claim that lim,„_(.00 dm = oo. In the contrary case there exists 0 < d < oo and a
sequence {um } with um G Μ Π Em for each m such that ||u m || < d for all m. Hence
um 0 in X and consequently
(B(um),um) (5(0), 0) = 0 as m — o o ,
which contradicts the previous claim.

For R > 1 we define the mapping hm : Ε£ E^ by hm{u) = R~ldmu for
u G ΕWe now check that hm can be extended to an application belonging to Γ*.
It is easy to see that for each u G X — {0} there exists a unique ß(u) > 0 such that
ß(u)u G Μ and F(tu) > 0 for all 0 < / < ß(u). This ß(u) can be found as a unique
positive root of the equation
-(A(tu),tu) = —(B(tu), tu),

Ρ 1.1
which is equivalent to
tp tq
— (A(u),u) = —(B(u),u).
p q
Therefore, for an arbitrary u0 G E^ Π B(0, 1) — {0} we have
R~ldm <dm= INF{|1 Μ||; u G Μ Π E^} < ß(u0)\\u0\\.
Consequently, this implies that
hM{EI Π B(0, 1)) C {u G X; F(u) > 0}. (2.7)
For every E we define Ze as a set of all sums u + ν with u G R^ldm(E^ Π 5(0, 1))
and ν G €{Em Π 5 ( 0 , 1 ) ) . We now show that
Z€C{X-{0}-M} (2.8)
for sufficiently small € > 0. In the contrary case there exists a sequence
{.R~xdmUj + €jVj} C Μ with €j 0
as j oo. Since {wy} and {i>;·} are bounded in X, ejνj ->· 0 in X and R~xdmUj
l
R~ dmu in X. By the previous step of the proof we must have
r < (B(R~ldmUj +€jVj), R~ldmUj +€jVj).
Also, R~ldmu G M. On the other hand we have 0 < R~ldm < ß(u), and therefore
F(R~ldmu) > 0, that is,
~(A(u),u) > -(B(u),u)(R-1dm)q-p

Ρ <1

Authenticated
and we arrive at a contradiction. We define the extension of hm by
hm(u) for ueE±.

hm(u) =
eu for u e E,m·
It follows from (2.7) that hm(B( 0, 1)) C ( « e X ; F(u) > 0}. To complete the proof
we show that
inf F(hm(u)) -»• oo as m oo.
Let« e dB(0,1) Π E^.then
F(hm(u)) = — (A(R~ldmu), R~ldmu) — —(B(R~ldmu, R~ldmu)

> (R~ldm) ~{A(u),u) - ~{R-ldm) p
(B(R~ldmu), R~xdmu>1 .
.p q J
On the other hand
-Rp~Uqm p
(B(u),u) < Rp-qßq~p-(B(u),u) = -Rp~q{A(u),u)
q I P
and therefore
F(hm{u))>R~ldp\^ (A(u),u)--Rp-*(A(u)
q
Taking R sufficiently large the result follows •
2.7 Case ρ = q
The case ρ = q is based on a general result due to Amann (see [13]).
Theorem 2.7.1. Let X be a uniformly convex Banach space with dim X = oo. Suppose
that the potential operator A : X —> X* satisfies assumption (a) and that the potential
operator Β : X -» X* (with potential b : X M) is strongly continuous, odd and
such that b(u) φ 0 implies B(u) φ 0. Then:
(a) The eigenvalue problem (1.1) has infinitely many distinct solutions (eigenfunctions
belonging to Ma) provided
y(u G Ma\ b(u) Φ 0) = oo. (2.9)
(b) For every integer k > 1 we set
Ck = (C C Ma, symmetric, compact, y(C) > k)

Authenticated
2.7 Case ρ = q 61
and define
ßk = sup inf \b(u)\. (2.10)
CeC*
If ßk > 0, then there exists an eigenfunction Uk G Ma of (1.1) with \b(uk)\ = ßk-
(c) Suppose that for some integers j and m we have
ßj = ßj+1 = · · · = ßj+m > 0
and denote by Ej all eigenfunctions ο/(1.1) in Ma satisfying \b(u)\ = ßj. Then

y(Ej) >m + 1.
Proof (b) Let [um} be a sequence in Ma such that \b(um)\ —• ßk. We show that
D ( u m ) -»· 0. In the contrary case we can find constant 8 > 0 and ρ > 0 such that
||D(w)|| > 8 for all u g Vp = {u g Ma; ||fc(w) - ßk\ < ρ}. We may assume that
ρ < ßk. We now apply Lemma 2.3.3 with U = 0, to obtain for some € > 0 an odd
continuous mapping H€ : Nßk-€ -*· Nßk+e. It follows from the definition of ßk that
there exists Ce e C* such that \b(u)\ > ßk - e for all u g C€t that is, C€ c Nßk—€.
Hence \b(u)\ > ^jt + e f o r a l l « e He(Ce). According to Lemma 2.4.1 (a) H€(C€) e Ck
and this contradicts the definition of ßk. Hence, D(um) 0 as m oo. By virtue
of Theorem 2.3.1 the (PS) condition holds and we can find a strongly convergent
subsequence um? —> u, as s — o o , with u g Ma and obviously |fc(u)| = ßk·
(c) We denote by Ε the set of all eigenfunctions of (1.1) with b(u) φ 0, that is,
Ε = {u G Ma\ b(u) φ 0, D(u) = 0}.
By Ek we denote the set of all eigenfuctions on the level set ßk, that is, Ek = {u g
Ma\ D(u) = 0, \b(u)\ = ßk). First of all, Ej is compact, this is a consequence of
the (PS) condition (see Theorem 2.3.1). By part (b) Ej φ 0 and and we can find
an open symmetric neighbourhood Uj of Ej in Ma such that y(Üj) = y(Ej) < oo.
We now improve the choice of Uj by showing that there exists an open symmetric
neighbourhood U of Ej in Ma and constants ρ > 0 and 8 > 0 such that
Y(0) = Y(Ej) (2.11)
and
u g {u g Ma - U, \b(u)\ - ßj\<p} => ||D(m)|| > 8. (2.12)
To show this we observe that there exists a constant ρ > 0 such that
F = Ε Π [u G Ma\ ||b(u) -ßj\<p}C Uj.
In the contrary case we could find a sequence {um} C Ma — Uj such that |£>(«m)| —> ßj
and {um} C E. It follows from Theorem 2.3.1 that {um} has strongly convergent
subsequence to u G Ε — Uj which is impossible. We can always assume that ρ < ßj
and by Theorem 2.3.1 F is compact. Hence the distance of F to the closed set Ma — Uj

Authenticated
must be positive and set σ = dist(F, Ma — Uj). Let U be |-neighbourhood of F.

Applying again Theorem 2.3.1 we see that there exists 8 > 0 such that (2.12) holds.
Since Ej C U C Ü CUj, we see that
Y(Ej)<y(Ü)<Y(Üj) = y(Ej)
and (2.11) holds. According to Lemma 2.3.3 there exists an e > 0 and an odd contin-
uous mapping He such that He(Nß-€ — U) C Nßj+e. It follows from the definition of
ßj+m, that there exists C€ e Cj+m such that
\b(u)\ > ßj+m - € = ßj -€ for all u e C € .
Suppose that y(Ej) < m. Then using Lemma 2.4.1 we get
Y(Nßj+t) > Y(Nßj-e ~ U) > y(Nßj-e - U)

> y(Nßj-( U Ü) - γ φ ) > y(Nßj-€) - y(Ej).
Consequently,
y(C€) < y(Nßj-e) < y{Nßj+e) + m
By the definition of ßj we have y(Nßj+e) < j, so y(Ce) < j +m. Since Ce
we have also that y(C€) > j +m, which is impossible, so we must have y(Ej) > m+1.
(a) It follows from (2.9) that ßk > 0 and by part (b) Ε φ 0. Suppose that £ is a
finite set. Since {ßk} is a decreasing sequence there exists j such that ßk = ßj for all
k > j and part (c) implies y (Ej) = oo. On the other hand Ej c E, so we also have
y(E) = oo, which is impossible. •
We now return to homogeneous potential operators of the same degree.
Theorem 2.7.2. Suppose that A is an odd strongly monotone potential operator, uni-
formly continuous on bounded sets and homogeneous of degree ρ — 1. Further, assume
that Β is an odd, strongly continuous, positive and homogeneous of degree ρ — 1. For
each integer k > 1 we set
ßk = sup min b(u), (2.13)
CeC* " e C
where Ck = {C G Ma \ C-symmetric, compact and y(C) > k). Then there exists an
eigenvector u e Ma of (1.1) such that b(uk) = ßk-
It is easy to check that y(Ma) = oo, so Ck φ 0 for each k > 1. Also, assumption (a)
holds. Since b is positive we must have ßk > 0 for each k > 1 and the result follows
from Theorem 2.7.1.
According to Theorem 2.7.2 for each integer k > 1 there exists Uk such that
b(uk) = ßk and D(uk) = 0, that is,
Οί
M"k) = λ k B ( u k ) with λk = — .
ßk

Authenticated
Part (c) of Theorem 2.7.1 implies the following multiplicity result for the level
b(u) = ßk.
Proposition 2.7.1. Suppose that the assumptions of Theorem 2.7.2 hold. Let
Ek = {ue Ma; D{u) = 0, b(u) = ßk}.
If for some positive integers j and m we have
=
ßj ßj+1 = • · · = ßj+m > 0,
then y(Ej) > m + 1.
The next result is concerned with the behaviour of eigenvalues.
Proposition 2.7.2. Let X be a separable Banach space. Suppose that the assumptions
of Theorem 2.7.1 hold and let {ßk} be a sequence defined by (2.13). Then
lim ßk — 0, that is, lim = oo.

• oo k-*· oo
Proof We follow the proof of Proposition 5.4 in Azorero- Alonso [16]. Let {Em},
m > 1, be a sequence of linear vector subspaces of X having properties (i), (ii) and
(iii) (see the paragraph preceeding Theorem 2.6.2). We set
ßk = sup inf b(u),

CeCjt
w h e r e i s ^ j is the topological complement of Ek-\. It is clear that ßk > ßk > 0. Now

if ßk > γ > 0, there exists C eCk such that
ßk > inf b(u).

«ecn£^_ j
and there exists uk G C Π such that ßk(uk) > γ. Consequently, the fact that
{«it} C Ma implies that we may assume that uk —^ u in X, but uk G Ε^·_j, therefore
u = 0 and this contradicts the fact that b(uk) > γ. •
2.8 The p-Laplacian in bounded domain

In the last decade the Lusternik-Schnirelman theory of critical points has been exten-
sively applied to obtain the existence of multiple solutions of boundary value problems
for nonlinear partial differential equations. In this section we concentrate on applica-
tions of the results of this chapter to the Dirichlet problem for the p-Laplacian.

Authenticated
We consider the Dirichlet problem
- Di(\Vu{x)\p~2Diu) = X\u\q~2u in Ω, (2.14)
μ(λ)=0 on 3Ω, (2.15)
where Ω is a bounded domain in R " , 1 < p, q < η and λ > 0 is a parameter.

We introduce functionals α : Ψο'ρ(Ώ) R and b : ^ 0 1 , ρ ( Ω ) ^ R defined by
a(u) = - [ \Vu(x)\pdx
Ρ Jq
and
b(u) = - f \u(x)\idx.
9 Ja
The functionals a and b have continuous Gateaux derivatives
A : \ν ο 1,ρ (Ω) ΐν-1'ρ'(Ω) and Β : ^ ( Ω ) -* Ψ~]'Ρ'(Ω)
given by
(A(u), ν) = I \Vu(x)\p-2Diu(x)Div(x)dx
Ja
and
(B(u),v)= [ \u(x)\i-2u(x)v(x)dx
Jn
for all u and ν in W 0 1 , p (ß). Here (·, ·> denotes the duality pairing between spaces
^ ' ^ ( Ω ) and Ψ~ι,ρ'(Ώ), with ρ' = The potentials operators A and Β are
homogeneous of degree ρ — 1 and q — 1, respectively.
If ρ < q < then according to the Sobolev embedding theorem Β is weakly
continuous. If q = -j^, then Β is only continuous and in both cases we have
siH (ja\uwäXy < ^\D(u(x)\p dxy
for all μ G Ψ 0 1 , ρ (Ω).

We now define
Σ = {A C ^ 0 1 > Ρ ( Ω ) - {0}; A closed, symmetric}
and for every integer k > 1 we set
Σ* = { Α ε Σ , Y(A)>k)
where y is a genus. In the sequel we shall always assume that 1 < p,q <
Applying Theorem 2.5.1 and Corollary 2.5.1 (case ρ > q), Theorems 2.6.1 and 2.6.2
(case ρ < q) and Theorem 2.7.1 (case ρ = q) we obtain the following result.

Authenticated
Theorem 2.8.1. Let ρ > q and for every integer k > 1 we set
Ck = inf sup
U€A
F(m),
then for each c* is a critical value of F. If c = c* = · · · = c*+r and Kc = {u G
W0 (Ω); F(u) = c], then y(Kc) > r + 1. Moreover, the set of critical values is
compact.
To formulate the next result we need some notation:
F0 = {u g 0 < F(u) < oo}
and the set of all odd homeomorphisms h in C f W o ' ^ ) ; W0 (Ω)) such that Λ (0) = 0
and h(B(0, 1)) C Fa is denoted by Γ.
Theorem 2.8.2. Let ρ < q and for each integer m > 1 let Tm be a family of all
compact and symmetric subsets of ^ ' ^ ( Ω ) such that γ(Κ Π h(dB(0, 1))) > m for
each h € Γ. Then
bm = inf sup F(u)
ueK
is a critical value of F such that
0 < c < bm < bm+1.
I f b = bm= bm+1 = · • · = bm+r, then y(Kb) > r + 1.
The fact that in this case there exist infinitely many critical values is consequence
of Theorem 2.6.3 which takes the following form
Theorem 2.8.3. Let {Em} be an increasing sequence of subspaces of W0''Ρ(Ω) such

that dim Em = m and
U Em = Ψ*·Ρ(Ω).
m> 1
Let Εbe the topological and algebraic complement of Em and let
cm = sup inf F{h{u)).

ΛεΓ* «69ΰ(0,ΐ)η£^_[
Then cm is a critical value of F, the sequence {cm} is nondecreasing, 0 < cm < bm

for each m > 1 and limm_».oo cm — oo.
Finally, the case ρ = q is a typical eigenvalue problem. Following the notation of
Section 2.1 we set
Ma = {n G ^ ( Ω ) ; - f \Vu(x)\Pdx = a}
Ρ Ja
for a > 0 and by Ck we denote a collection of all compact and symmetric subsets C
of Ma with y(C) > k.

Authenticated
66 2 Applications of Lustemik-Schnirelman theory
Theorem 2.8.4. Let ρ = q and set for every integer k > 1
ßk = sup min£(w).
CeC*
Then ßk > 0 for each k and there exists Uk € Ma such that /Ω \uk(x)\p dx = ßkp
and Uk is a solution of the problem (2.14), (2.15) with λ = λ* = j^. Moreover,
limôo ßk = 0 (limôo λ* = oo).
Theorems 2.8.1-2.8.4 were obtained by Garcia Azorero and Peral Alonso [16].
Combining Theorems A.3.1 and 2.7.1 we can now establish the existence of a
sequence of eigenvalues for a problem corresponding to (1.18).
For each a > 0 we set
Ma = {ue W1·^); - f (|Vu(x)\p + c\u(x)\p dx = a}

Ρ JRn
and by Ck we denote the collection of all compact and symmetric subsets Κ of Ma
with y(C) > k.
Theorem 2.8.5. Let ρ = q and let r > 0 on R" with r φ 0. If η > ρ, we assume that
£±1
r 6 (IR"), with 1 < ρ < ρ + € < j ^ f o r some € > 0 and
-p
I y ι c
lim I r(y)
r(y * dy=0 for some I > 0.
\x\->°°JQ(x,l)
Jo
If η — ρ, we assume that L^ oc (M")/or some s > 1 and
lim I /
x|->oo .ln( r /)
r(y)s dy = 0 for some I > 0.
If η < ρ, we assume that r e L|'oc(R") and
lim I r(y)dy= 0 for some I > 0.

\x\-+°°JQ(x,[)
Jo
For each integer k > 1 we set
ßk = sup min I r(x)\u(x)\p dx.

CeCti
CeCt " e C JlV
Then there exists a sequence of eigenfunctions [uk] and corresponding sequence of
eigenvalues {λ^} of the problem
-Apu + c\u\p~2u = Xr{x)\u\p~2u in R",
such that
a
r{x)\u{x)\p dx = ßk and λ* = —.
q IR"
Jw ßk
Moreover, limôo λ* = oo.

Authenticated
In an obvious way one can formulate the existence results for problem (1.18) using
Theorem 2.5.1 if ρ > q and Theorems 2.6.1, 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 if ρ < q. According to
Theorem A.3.1 and Proposition A.3.1 one has to distinguish cases: ρ < η, ρ = η and
ρ > η.
2.9 Iterative construction of eigenvectors

We shift our attention from a general existence theory to numerical methods of approx-
imating eigenvectors obtained via min-max theory of critical points (see [150], [141],
[142], [171] and [170]).
We describe here a method due to Lehtonen [150], which can be applied to an
eigenvalue problem in a uniformly convex Banach space. For eigenvalue problems in
Hilbert spaces we refer to Kratochvfl-Necas' papers [141] and [142].
Let
ßj(u) = B(u) in X,
where μ e R and X is a uniformly convex Banach space equipped with norm || · ||. A
mapping J : X —> X* is a duality mapping of X, which has the properties ||./(u)|| =
||w|| and {J(u), u) = ||m||2 for all u e X. J can be interpreted as the Gateaux derivative
of the functional j { u ) = ^ |Μ || 2 .
Throughout this section we assume that Β : X X* is a strongly continuous
potential operator with a potential b : X -*• R.
We assume that 6(0) = 0, B(0) = 0, if b(u) φ 0 and ||m|| < 1, then B(u) φ 0.
Moreover,
(B(u) - Β (υ), u-v)> —h(\\u - υ||) (2.16)
for all ||u|| < 1 and ||u|| < 1, where h : [0, oo) —• [0, oo) is a continuous function.
Following Lehtonen [150], we define a measure of uniform convexity in X by
Sr(€) = inf{/? - λ-\\u + υ||; ||u - υ|| >e,u,ve B(0,R)},
where e > 0 and R > 0 are constants.

Similarly, <5^(e) denotes a corresponding quantity for the dual space X*.
We set δ = Si and δ* = <5J\ One can check that <5Λ(<0 = fl<$(-|).
Proposition 2.9.1. Ifu, ν e X, with ||u|| = ||i>|| = R, then
2RδR(\\u-v\\)<(J(u),u-v) (2.17)
and
4Ä5 Ä (||u - υ II) < (J(u) - J {υ), u - v). (2.18)

Authenticated
Proof. Let € = ||w — i>||, then from the definition o f 8r we easily get
2R(R - SR(e)) > /?!!« + v|| > (J(μ), u + ν)
= 2(J(u), u) + (J(u), ν - u) = 2R2 + (J(u), ν - u).
To obtain ( 2 . 1 8 ) we change roles o f u and υ in ( 2 . 1 7 ) and adding the two resulting

inequalities we get (2.18). •
From now we always assume that the function h appearing in assumption ( 2 . 1 6 )

satisfies
I h(s)s~l ds < C08(€) (2.19)
Jo
for some constant c0 > 0 and for all 0 < e < 2.
Example 2 . 9 . 1 . If X is a Hilbert space then the parallelogram law yields that 8(e) =
I - Y I - D ) 2 ·
To compute 5 for Lp-spaces we use Clarkson's inequalities, namely,
if 2 < ρ < oo, then
for all Μ , υ G Ζ ^ ( Ω ) ,
if 1 < ρ < 2, then
for all w, ν € LP(Q), where Ω is a domain in R " and p' = (see [1]). We get
= if Ρ > 2
and ^
= if 1 < ρ <2.
We are now in a position to formulate a result which allows us to compute the first
eigenvector.

Authenticated
Theorem 2.9.1. L e t u \ e 5(0, 1) w i t h b ( u \ ) > 0 and let
n Λ ί 1 4 1
0 < 0 < mini , 1.
U ( l ) c 0 + 2h{\) J
W? d e f i n e a sequence { u m } by
J ( u m ) + 9 B ( u m )
J(um+1) = — — ——. (2.20)
||7(« m ) + 0fi(w m )||
77ien there e x i s t s a subsequence o f { u m } , r e l a b e l l e d a g a i n by { u m } , and a number μ € R

such t h a t u m —• u 0 , with u 0 e 5 ( 0 , 1 ) , and ß J ( u 0 ) = B ( u 0 ) .
P r o o f . Since J is the duality mapping, we have 1 = ||/(w m +i)ll = ll"m+ill. so

{ u
m ) C 5. Setting r = || J ( u ) + 9 B ( u ) II, we get
m m m
m > { / ( « m ) + ö ß ( H m ) , « m ) = ||«ml|2+ö(B(um),«m) > 1 - 0 A ( 1 ) .

r
Since c
5 ( 0 , 1 ) , we may assume that um —" u0. Obviously, we have that
b ( u ) —• b ( u ) . T o s h o w t h a t u 0 φ Owe prove that { b ( u
m 0 m ) } is an increasing sequence.
Since Β is a potential operator it follows from (2.16) that
b ( u m + \ ) - b { u m ) = I { B ( u m + t ( u m + \ — u m ) ) , um-i-i — u m ) dt
Jo
> ( B ( u m ) ,M m + i - u m ) - f d t ,
Jo t
where e = \\um+i — u m ||. According to Proposition 2.9.1 and (2.20) w have
e ( B ( u m ) ,u m + 1 - u m ) = r m ( J ( u m + 1 ) , u m + i - u m )
+ ( J ( u m ) , u m - um+1> > 2 ( r m + 1)Ä(€).
Combining the last two inequalities we get
2 Γ A(f)
σ Jo t
It follows from assumption (2.19) and the restriction on θ that { b ( u ) } is an increasing m
sequence. Moreover, due to the reflexivity of X* we can assume that J(um) —- u*

in X * . Since {|| J ( u m
) + 9 B ( u m)II} is bounded we may also assume that r —> r . m 0
Consequently, the iterative formula (2.20) yields that

( r 0 - \ ) u * = 9 B ( u 0 ) .
On the other hand b{uQ) > b{um) > 0 and consequently B(u0) φ 0. This implies that
u0 φ 0, u* φ 0 and r0 φ 1. It remains to show that um —> u0. To achieve this we
write
(1 - r ) J ( u ) = r ( J ( u ) - J ( u ) ) - 6 B { u )
m (2.21) m m m + l m m

Authenticated
and show that J(um+1) — J(um) —• 0. Indeed, applying Proposition 2.9.1 to u =

J(um+1) and ν = J(um) on X* we have for η > 0 sufficiently small that
G(b{um+1) - b(um)) > r m (7(M m + i), u m +i - n m ) + (J(u m)ι um ~ um+1

> 4T7<5*(||M - υ||) + (8(1 - ι;) - 4ÖA(1) - θο0)δ*(€).
It follows from this estimate that there exists a constant C' > 0 such that
4<S*(||H - v\\) <(u-v, J~\u) - J~l(v)) < C'0(b(um+1 - &(««.))·

We now observe that by the uniform convexity of X* we must have <5*(e) > 0 for all
e > 0 and by the previous part of the proof we know that b(um+1) — b{um) 0.
Consequently, J(um+\) — J{um) 0. Now the strong convergence of {um} to uQ
follows from (2.21) and from the fact that rm ->• rQ Φ 1, B{um) —• B(u0) and the
continuity of the mapping : X* —• X. •
In case when X = Η is a Hilbert space and assuming that condition (2.16) has the
form
(B(u) - B(v), u-v)> -c\\u - v\\2
for some constant c > 0, the iterative sequence can be determined by
= um+0B(um)
m+1
" \\um + 0B{um)\\
for some constant 0 < θ < £ (see Necas-Lehtonen-Neittaanmaki [170] and Necas-
Kratochvil [141]).
2.10 Critical points of higher order

To iterate higher order critical points we use Amann's approach described in Section
2.7. We additionally assume that b{u) > 0 for u φ 0 and that Β is odd on S. It follows
from Theorem 2.7.1 that critical values {ßk} are given by formula (2.10). According
to that theorem, for an eigenvalue ßk and the corresponding eigenvector w*, we have
b{uk) = ßk with ßk —• 0 and Uk 0 in X (see Proposition 2.7.2).
Let ß\ and ß2 be the first and the second critical values of b and suppose that there
exists a constant € > 0 such that there are no critical values in the interval (#2 — e, βι)·
Let us choose a compact set K\ G CI such that
ßl — € < min b(u) < βι
and define a mapping ψ : S S by

Authenticated
2.10 Critical points of higher order 71
We see that φ is an odd continuous function. We now select a point u g Κ ι and form
the η-fold composition φ^ = φο · • · ο φ. For each integer m > 1 let u°m be a vector
in AT] such that
min b(<p(m\u)) = b(<p(m\u°)). (2.22)
ueKi
We have
Theorem 2.10.1. The sequences and {φ^} have the following properties:
(i) limm^00b(<pW(u0m)) = ß2,
(ii) there exists u° e K\ such that
lim b^m\u0)) = ß2,

m—>·οο
(iii) there exists a subsequence of{u°m} converging strongly to u°,

(iv) for each u° satisfying (ii) there exists a subsequence of {(p(m\u0)} converging
strongly to some ü such that
B{ü) = ßJ(ü).
Proof Inspection of the proof of Theorem 2.9.1 shows that
b{(p{m\u)) < b(<p{m+x\u)) (2.23)
for each u e K\. Since φ : S(0, 1) ->· S(0, 1) is continuous and odd it follows from
Lemma 2.4.1 that γ(φ{·ηι){Κ\)) > γ{Κ\) > 2. Consequently, it follows from (2.22)
and (2.23) that
lim min b(p(m)(u)) < ß2.
môoueK\
Let us set
κ = lim min b(<p(m)(u))= lim b{(p{m\u°)).
m—yoo ueK\ m—yoo
By compactness of K\, we may assume that u° u°, with u° e K\. By virtue of
Theorem 2.9.1 limm_>oo u°)) is a critical value of b. Since, by our assumption,
there are no critical values in (ß2 — €, ß2), we obtain
lim > ß2.

m-»oo
Given η > 0, there exist m0 and mι such that
b{<p{m°\u°m))>ß2-n
for all m >m\. This and (2.23) implies that
b{<p(m\u°m)) > b(<plm°\u°m)) >β2~η

Authenticated
for all m > max (mi, m 0 ). This means that
κ = lim b^m\u°m))>ß 2-η

m-yoo
and assertion (i) follows. The proofs of remaining assertions (ii), (iii) and (iv) are
patterned after the proof of Theorem 2.9.1. •
We now formulate a parallel result for higher order critical values.
Theorem 2.10.2. Suppose that
ßl > · • • > ßk > ßk+1 = · · · = ßk+l > ßk+l+l
are eigenvalues ofb restricted to 5(0, 1) and moreover assume that there are no critical
values in the interval (ßk+l — ßk+l)· Let K\ be a compact set in Ck+\ such that
ßk+ι - e < min b(u) < ßk+t

u&Ki
and let {u^} be a sequence defined by (2.22).
Then
lim b(<p<mHu°m)) = ßk+t
m-*oo
and there exists a point u° e K\ such that
lim b(<p(m)(u°)) = ßk+l.

m—κχ
The proof of this theorem is similar to that of Theorem 2.10.1 and therefore is
omitted.
To illustrate the iterative method we consider the eigenvalue problem
-Di(\Vu\p~2Diu) = XG(u) in Ω,
w(jc) = 0 on 3Ω,
where Ω c K" is a bounded domain and 1 < ρ < oo. We assume that there exists
a continuously differentiable function g : Μ -»• Μ such that G(r) = g'(r) on M,
g(0) = G(0) = 0, moreover G is strictly increasing and G(r) < C( 1 + |r|^ + 1 ) for
some constant C > 0. Let Φ(γ) = rp~x for r > 0, then the duality mapping of
νν 0 1ρ (Ω) relative to Φ is given by
(7φ(κ), υ) = Y\ f \Vu{x)\p~2DiuDivdx.
/ φ is the derivative of the functional ψ : ^ 0 1 , ρ (Ω) R given by
1,(u) = -\\Vu\\pLP

Authenticated
(see [156], p. 174-175). Since Φ(1) = 1 we can use Theorem 2.9.1 with J® in place of
J and potential operator Β : W 0 1 , p (n) and its potential b : Wo'p(tt)
R are given by
and
By the Sobolev embedding theorem Β is strongly continuous and we can use Theorem
2.9.1 with formula (2.20) to approximate eigenfunctions.

The definition of the Palais-Smale condition adopted in this book has been frequently
used by many authors and slightly differs from the original definition introduced in the
work of Palais-Smale [ 174]. Extensive historical notes can be found in books by Chow-
Hale [75], Mahwin-Willem [164], Ekeland-Szulkin [111] and Fucik-Necas-Souceks
[121]. We also refer to the papers by Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz [10] and Rabinowitz
[185]. Results on duality mappings in Section 2.2 are taken from the monographs of
J.L. Lions [156], Deimling [95] and Phelps [177]. The genus γ (A) defined in Section
2.3 is often called the Krasnoselski genus [140]. The definition of γ given here was
introduced by Coffman [86]. Rabinowitz [184] proved the equivalence of Coffman's
definition with the Krasnoselski original definition of the genus. Theorems 2.4.1,
2.4.2 and 2.4.3 are taken from the work of Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz [10]. The proof of
Lemma 2.4.3 is taken from Brezis-Nirenberg [44]. Earlier versions of a deformation
lemma can be found in works of Clark [90] and Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz [10] (see also
[204]). Results of Sections 2.5 and 2.6 are an abstract version of the results obtained
by Azorero and Alonso [16] for the p-Laplacian (see also [120]). In the exposition
of the case ρ = q we followed the work of Amann [13]. The existence results for
the Dirichlet problem discussed in Section 2.8 are due to Azorero-Alonso [16]. A
natural solution space for the p-Laplacian is a Sobolev space Wl,p. The results on
C -regularity of solutions for the p-Laplacian can be found in the work of Tolksdorf
1 + a
[226], [227] and Di Benedetto [100]. Iterative methods of construction of eigenvalues

discussed in Sections 2.9 and 2.10 are due to Lehtonen [150]. We also refer to related
papers by Kratochvfl-Necas [141], [142] and Necas-Lehtonen-Neittaanmäki [170].

Authenticated
Chapter 3
Nonhomogeneous potentials
In this chapter we investigate the existence result for the equation (1.1) assuming that
Λ is a homogeneous potential operator; however we drop the homogeneity assumption
for the operator Β. We show that under suitable assumptions the minimization problem
(m) has a solution. For homogeneous operator Β we have obtained the existence of
a solution to problem (m), with ρ < q, as a by-product of the existence result for
the problem ( / ) and in the case ρ > q we deduced the solvability of problem (m)
from the solvability of problem (Κ). In both cases our argument essentially depended
on the homogeneity of B. The main difficulty in solving problem (m) without the
homogeneity assumption on Β lies in the construction of a minimizing sequence. We
distinguish two cases: constrained minimization with and without compactness. The
case without compactness is more complex and we obtain the existence of minimizers
by perturbating potentials a and b. This leads to a majorizing minimization problem.
The interesting feature of a majorizing problem is that it does not require the existence
of a minimizer. The only assumption is that a minimum of a majorizing problem is
strictly greater than the minimum of a given problem. A similar idea will be used in
Chapter 8 giving rise to a "minimization problem at infinity" which gives a sufficient
condition for the existence of a minimizer.
3.1 Preliminaries and assumptions

We follow here the approach due to Stuart [215] (see also related papers [216] and
[217]), who studied the same problem in a Hilbert space with A(w) = wonX. Through-
out this chapter we assume that X is a reflexive Banach space and we make the following
assumptions on A and B.
(Α ι) The mapping A : X -*· X* is strongly monotone, continuous and homogeneous
potential operator of degree ρ — 1, with ρ > 1, with a potential a : X —• M.
Moreover, we assume that sup||M||=i tf (") < oc.
This assumption implies that
ki\\u\\P < a(u) = \\u\\Pa(u\\u\rl) < \\u\\Pk2, (3.1)
with k\ = ^ ^ and kj = sup|| u || =1 a(u).

Authenticated
3.1 Preliminaries and assumptions 75
(A2) The functional b : X ->• R belongs to C 1 (X, R) and its potential operator
Β : X X* satisfies
(B(u), u) > qb(u) > 0 on X — {0} with ρ < q.
(A3) Let b(u) = (B(u), u) — pb(u) and we assume that

*(")< * ( N I ? + ll«f)
for all u G X and some constants ρ < q < r and Κ > 0.
(A4) The functional <5(h), m) belongs to C 1 (X, R). Let B\ : Χ X* be a Frechet

derivative (potential operator) of the potential b\(u) = (B(u), u). We assume
that ß and B\ are bounded mappings.
Finally, we assume that
(As) (B(u), u) > qb(u) for all u e X - {0}, where Β : X X* is the Frechet
derivative of b.
We now list the consequences of the hypotheses (Αι) (A5) that will be needed
later.
It follows from (A2) that
b(u) = (B(u), u) - pb(u) >{q- p)b(u) > 0 (3.2)
for all u e X — {0}. Hence by (A3) we have
b(u) < —^—(\\u\\q + ||h|D (3.3)

q - ρ
for all μ € X. Now combining (3.2), (3.3) and (A3) we get
0 < (B(u), u) < — ( Ι Μ Ι * + Μ Γ ) (3.4)

q - ρ
for all u G X — {0}. Moreover, it follows from (A5) and (A2) that
(Bx(u),u) = (B(u),u) +p{B(u),u) (3.5)

> qb(u) + qpb(u) = q{B(u), u) = qb\(u).
Let us now set for a fixed u G X — {0}
k(t) = {B(tu), tu)t~q for all t > 0.
Then
{B\{tu), tu) - q(B(tu), tu)

Authenticated
76 3 Nonhomogeneous potentials
for all t > 0 and (B(tu), tu)t~p is strictly increasing function on (0, oo). Hence
\im(B(tu), tu)t~p = 0 and lim {B(tu), tu)t~p = oo.

t-> 0 f->oo
A similar statement can be derived for b.

Let us now set for a fixed u G X — {0}
h{t) = b{tu)t~q for all t > 0.
Since
(B(tu), tu) — qbjtu)
h (t) = >- 0 for all t > 0,
tq+1
we see that
b(tu) < tqb(u) for 0 < ί < 1,
and
b(tu) > tqb{u) f o r i > 1. (3.6)
Also, we have 5(0) = 0 and fc(0) = 0.
3.2 Constrained minimization

We minimize the functional F(u) = a(u) — b(u) subject to the constraint
V = {« 6 X - {0}; (A(u), u) - (B(u), u) = 0}.
It will be shown in Lemma 3.1 that V φ 0. Setting
g(u)=(A(u),u)-(B(u),u),
we have
pF(u) = (A(u), u) - {B(u), u) + b(u) = g(u) + b(u)
and
p(Ff(u), u) = p(A(u), u) - p(B(u), u) = p((A(u), u) - (B(u), «>)

= pg(u) = (gf(u),u) + (B(u),u)
for all μ e X. Therefore, for ν e V we have
PF(u) = b(u) and (g'(u), u) = ~(B(u), u) (3.7)
and moreover
(Μ) Μ = inf{F( M ); « e V ) = inf{^fc(u); u e V}.

Authenticated
L e m m a 3.2.1.
(i) There exists 8 > 0 such that
{B(u),u) > pk\ ||μ ||p > 5 for all u e V,
(ii) infueVF(u)>S^R,
(iii) -^F{u)>kMpforue V,
(iv) If u e V and F(u) = M, then u satisfies (1.1) and
pq q
Proof (i) If ν e V, then
pkiM? < (A(u),u) = (B(u),u) < -^-{\\u\\q + ΙΙ«ΙΓ)·

q-p
Since u φ 0 and ρ < q < r, ||«|| > const > 0 for u e V and (i) follows,
(ii) If ueV, then by (3.7), pF(u) = b{u) and
(B(u), u) = b(u) + pb(u) < b(u) + —£—b(u) = -2—b(u).

q-p q-p
Consequently, according to (i) we have
1- q — ρ q — ρ
F(u) = -b(u) > -—~(B(u), u) > -——8
Ρ pq q
and this implies (ii). The estimate (iii) follows from the last inequality and step (i).
(iv) If u e V and F(u) = M, then there exists λ e R such that
(F'(u), v) = k(g'(u), v)
for all υ 6 X. It follows from (3.7) and ( A 5 ) that (g'(u), u) < 0. Since (F'(u), u) = 0,
we must have λ = 0, that is ( F ' ( u ) , υ) = 0 for all υ € X and u satisfies (1.1). •
Lemma 3.2.2. There exists a unique s : X — {0} —• (0, oo) in Cl(X — {0}, R) with
the following property: ifu e X — {0} and t > 0 then tu e V if and only if t = s(u).
The gradient of s satisfies the estimate
, „ ^ (p||A(^(M)«)|| + ||gi(.y(M)»)||>(«)2
I Vj(M) I <
(q - p)(B(s(u)u), s(u)u)
for all u e X — {0}.

Authenticated
Proof. The proof is similar to that of Lemma 3.2 in [212]. We give only an outline.
We introduce a function ψ : (0, oo) χ R - > R defined by
f ( t , u) = pa(u) - (B(tu), tu)t~p = (A(u), u) - (B(tu), tu)t~p.
According to (3.5) we have
(Bi(tu),tu) - p(B(tu),tu) (q - p)(B(tu),tu)

= ^n ^ ^Ti ·
also
(B\(tu), υ)
{ f u { t , u), v) = p{A(u), ν) — .
Since a(u) is homogeneous of degree p, it is clear that for u e X — {0}, tu 6 V if and

only if ψ{ί, u) = 0. Since { B ( t u ) , tu)t~p is strictly increasing function, there exists a
unique value t = j(m) such that \(r(s(u), u) = 0. We also have
, f , \ \ -- (q - p){B(s(u)u),s(u)u)
ft(s(u), u) < < 0
and the result follows from the implicit function theorem. •
To show that the constrained minimization problem (M) leads to a solution of (1.1),
we must construct a suitable minimizing sequence.
Lemma 3.2.3. There exists a sequence {um} such that F(um) —> M, um —^ u in X
and F'(um) -»· 0 in X* as m oo.
Proof. The proof is identical to that of Lemma 3.4 in [215]. Therefore, we only give
an outline of the proof. It follows from Ekeland's variational principle (see Theorem
1.1.1) that there exists a sequence {um} C V such that F(um) < Μ + m~l and
F(w) > F(um) - m _ 1 1| w - um ||
for all if g V. Since by Lemma 3.2.1, {um} is bounded, it follows from assumption
(A4) that {B1 (um)} is also bounded. We now write for each ν € X — {0}
F(v) - F{um) = F ( v ) - F(s(v)v)) + F(s(v)v) - F{um) (3.8)

1
> F(u)-F(i(u)u)-w- ||i(M)i;-£iin||.
Since s(um) = 1, applying Lemma 3.2.2 we get
| | i ( i 0 u - u m | | < Ci\\v-um\\ and \s(v) - 1| < Ci||v - um\\ (3.9)
f o r s o m e C i > 0, provided || v — um\\ is sufficiently small. To estimate F(v) —F(s(v)v)

we observe that
|F(v) - < \s(v) - l||(F'(0(w)v), υ)|,

Authenticated
3.3 Application — compact case 79
where θ (ν) lies between 1 and s(v). On the other hand (F'(u m ), um) = 0 , since
um e V and consequently
| F ( v ) - F ( i ( i ; ) i ; ) | <-\\v - um\\ (3.10)

m
for some constant D > 0, provided ||υ — um\\ is sufficiently small. Combining (3.8),
(3.9) and (3.10) we obtain
rp / \ - F(u ) V> ^- C ^
F(v) Ik-"mil
m 2
m
for some constant C2 > 0. Taking ||z|| = 1 we get for t > 0 small
F(um+tz)~ F(um) > C2
t ~ m'
which implies that {F'(u m ), z) > — ^ and replacing ζ by — ζ we derive that
\(F'(um),z)\< —
m
and the result follows. •
To obtain the existence results we distinguish, as in Chapter 1, between compact

and noncompact cases. We commence with the compact case. The noncompact case
will be discussed in Sections 3.5 and 3.6.
Theorem 3.2.1. Suppose that Β is strongly continuous. Let {um} be a sequence con-
structed in Lemma 3.2.2. Then um u in X and u is α nontrivial solution of (1.1).
Proof. Since {um} is bounded, we may assume that um u in X. Since F'(um) =

A(um) - B{um) -> 0 in X* and B(um) B(u) in X* we see that {A(um)} is
convergent in X*. According to condition (S)i,um —• u in X and the result follows.
The fact that u φ 0 follows from Lemma 3.2.1 (i). •
We point out here that the strong continuity of Β implies that Β is a bounded
mapping, so part of assumption (A4) is automatically satisfied.
3.3 Application — compact case

A typical problem where Theorem 3.2.1 is applicable is the following:
-Apu + c\u\p~2u = Γ,·(Χ)|Μ|«_2Μ in

(3.11)
u G Wl'P(Rn), u > 0 on

Authenticated
where 1 < ρ < oo, c > 0 is a constant, ρ < qi < if η > ρ and ρ < qi if ρ > η.
We assume that q\ < qi < · ·· < qN· T h e functions r, (i = I,... ,N) satisfy the
following hypotheses:
Case ρ < n:
(αϊ) η G ( R n ) , where ρ < qi < qi + e,· < ^ (i = 1 , . . . , N )

and
ii+iL
(fci) l i m ^ i ^ o o Jq(xJ) n(y) E
< <fy = 0 (i = 1 Λ0 for some I > 0.
Case ρ — n :
(a2) η e L g ^ R " ) f o r some st > \ (i = 1,..., N)

and
l i m b e c fQ(xJ) n(y)Si dy = 0 (i = \ N ) for some I > 0.
Case ρ > n:
( f l 3 ) r,· e L ; o c ( R " ) (i = l,...,W)
and
(&3) l i m ^ i ^ o o fQ(x l) n(y)dy = 0 (i = 1 , . . . , N) for some I > 0.
We define functionals a : R and b : Wl-P(Rn) R by
a(u) = — f (\Vu(x)\p +c\u(x)\p)dx

Ρ J R"
and
Ν ,
,
b(u) = T - n(x)\u(x)\*'dx.
qi Jw>
By virtue of Theorem A.3.1 the functional b is well defined. T h e potential operator
Β : Ψ ι · Ρ φ » ) - * W - 1 ^ ^ " ) is given by
Ν f
2
(B(u), v) = T ri(x)\u(x)\n- u(xMx)dx.
i=l J®·"
H e n c e the potential b : W ^ ^ R " ) Μ is given by
ν / f D \ N
a - D C
b{u) = Σ ( 1 - - ) / n(x)\u(x)\* dx = Y / n(x)\u(x)\«< dx.
fbt V J Jr" <H JR"
By Theorem A.3.1, under hypotheses (a\,b\), (02,^2) and (03,63), 5 is strongly
continuous.
Theorem 3.2.1 yields the following existence result.

Authenticated
Theorem 3.3.1. Suppose that hypotheses (a\,b\), («2, bj) anJ (£3, <23) hold. Then
the problem (3.11) has at least one positive solution.
Since a solution is obtained as a critical point of F(u) = a(u) — b(u), which has
the property F(u) — F(|M|), we may assume that u > 0 on The strict positivity
follows from the Harnack inequality.
3.4 Perturbation theorems — noncompact case

Suppose that we are given another potential operator Β* : X X* and its potential
b* : X —• R satisfying (Ai) (As). As in the case of Β and b we define
F*(u) = a(u) - b*(u), g*(u) = (A(u), u) - (B*(u), u),
b*(u) = (B*(u), u), V* = {ueX- {0}; g*(u) = 0},

and
b*(u) = (B*(u), u) - pb*(u), M* = inf{F*(«); u e V*}.
A starting point for the noncompact case is the following lemma.
Lemma 3.4.1. Suppose that A and Β are weakly continuous and that b is weakly lower
semicontinuous. Let {um} be a sequence from Lemma 3.2.3. Then either
(i) u = 0, or
(ii) u e V, F(u) = Μ and u is a solution of (1.1).
Proof For an arbitrary ν G X we have
<Α(κ),υ)= lim {A(um), v) (3.12)

m-> 00
= lim (F'(u m ), υ) + lim ( B ( u m ) , υ)
m—κχ m—κχ>
= (B(u),v).
Suppose that u Φ 0, then (3.12) shows that u e V. We now have that
F(u) = — b(u) < — liminf£>(wm) = liminf F(um) = M,

ρ ρ m—KX) m-+ 00
so F(u) = Μ and the result follows. •
Theorem 3.4.1. Suppose A and Β are weakly continuous, b is weakly lower semi-
continuous and that Β* : X —> X* andb* : X —> R. satisfy (Ai)-(As). Moreover,
assume that b — b* and b\ — b* are weakly continuous at 0. Then if Μ < Μ*, there
exists u G V such that F(u) = Μ and u is a solution of (1.1).

Authenticated
Proof. Let {um} be a sequence from Lemma 3.2.3. Suppose that u = 0. Applying
Lemma 3.2.2 to B* and b* we see that there exists s e Cl(X—{0}) such that j(wm)Mm e
V*. Setting sm = s(um), we show that it suffices to prove that
lim [b*(s u ) - b*(um)] = 0 (3.13)

m—>-oo m m
and
lim [b*(um)-b(um)] = 0 (3.14)
m—>-oo
Assuming that (3.13) and (3.14) hold we have
M* < F*(smum) = -b*(smum)

Ρ
= ~[b*(smum) - b*(um) + b*(um) - b(um) + b(um)]
Ρ
and limm_>.oo jb(um) = limm_>.oo F{um) = M. Therefore, Μ* < Μ and we arrive
at a contradiction and the result follows from Lemma 3.4.1. To prove (3.13) we show
that sm -> 1. We have
|£*(*mWm) - £*("m)l < km " l||{Ä*(0m«»), "m>l,
where 9m lies between 1 and sm. We also have
(A(um),um) = (B(um),um)
and
(A(u m)i um) — sm mum)i s
mum/·
If sm > 1 we have ( B * ( s m u m ) , Jm«m) > s^{B*(um), um) and consequently
t^- v-p ^ (Mum),um) (B(um),um)
1 < Sm < = (3.15)
m m) - (B*(u m ml
(B(um), um) + [{B*(um), um) - {B(um), um)]
If sm < 1 then { B * ( s m u m ) , smum) < s%,(B*(um), um) and we get
q-p ^ {B(um),um)
1 >s*m"> / Λ, (3.16)
(B*(um),um)
m m m ), U ml
(B(um), um) + [(ß*(Mm), um) - (B(um), Mm>]
It follows from Lemma 3.2.1(i) that (B(u m ), um) > 8 > 0 for some constant δ and all
m. Since u m 0 and bi —fr*is weakly continuous at 0, we deduce from (3.15) and
(3.16) that sm 1.

Authenticated
Since
5 * ( u ) - b ( u ) = b \ { u ) - b x ( u ) - p ( b * ( u ) - b ( u ) ) ,
the relation (3.14) easily follows. •
In the case where Β and B* are homogeneous of degree q — 1, it is convenient in

applications to write Theorem 3.4.1 in the following form:
Theorem 3.4.2. Let Β : X —• X* and Β : X —> X* be homogeneous o f degree q — 1

and s u p p o s e that assumptions o f Theorem 3.4.1 hold. Then, if
. . a { u ) i ~ p . a ( u ) i ~ p
inf - j - < inf -ρ-, (3.17)
U
b { u ) " - p * ° b * ( u ) ^
the equation ( 1 . 1 ) has α nontrivial solution.
First of all, if u φ 0 then there exists a unique t > 0 such that
p a ( t u ) - q b ( t u ) = 0.
This unique t is given by * = ( j j |(Π)) ? P

· Then
q - p
a ( u ) 9
F ( t u ) = a ( t u ) - b ( t u ) = ( ^ ( l - ? ) -
\ p j \ q J bh( u ) i ~ p
and the inequality Μ < Μ* relating the constrained minima from Theorem 3.4.1 is
equivalent to (3.17).
To apply Theorem 3.4.2 we consider two problems
- A u + u = Q(X)\U\P~2U in R \
(3.18)
u € u > 0 on M",
and
p 2
- A u + u = Q * ( x ) \ u \ ~ u in M \
(3.19)
u G W 1 · 2 ^ " ) , μ > 0 on R",
where Q and Q* are positive functions in L°°(M n ) and 2 < ρ < -^zj.
We put
ι
P
M Q . P = ( J Q t o W d x ) ' a n d M < r . P = ( J Q - W \ u \ > d x )
Applying Theorem 3.4.2 to problems (3.18) and (3.19) we get

Authenticated
Proposition 3.4.1. Suppose l i m ^ ^ o o Q(x) = limî-»^ Q*(x). Then (3Λ&) pos-

sesses a solution if
Μ
inf
2
< inf
2
(3.20)
«eW'. (K")-{0} II«||Q,p ΗεΗ^· (Κ")-{0} II"II Q*,p
where ||u || is a norm of u in
Indeed, in our situation, condition (3.17) can be written as
&
inf < inf
tteW'îR")—{0} Iß.P κ€νν'·2(Κη)-{0} Μ Λ*
Q*.P
and the result follows.
Proposition 3.4.2. If lim| J C |_>. 0 0 Q(x) = infjteR" Q(x), then problem (3.18) admits a
solution.
Proof Let infm* Q(x) = m. If Q(x) = m, then by Proposition 1.10.1 problem (3.18)
has a radial solution. So we can assume that Q φ m and we then have
ä = sup I Q(x)\u(x)\p dx > am = sup I m\u(x)\p dx

||u||=l JW ||u|| = l JR"
= f m\v{x)\p dx,
Jr"
since am is attained by a positive radial function v, which is a solution of (3.19) "modulo

rescalling" with Q*(x) ξ m. It is now clear that (3.20) holds with Q*(x) = m and
problem (3.18) has a solution. •
If lim iri —voo Q(x) > Q(x) f ° r € R", the problem (3.18) does not have a
solution. Indeed, we have
Proposition 3.4.3. Let lim|x|_>.oo Q{x) > Q{x)forallx G R". Then F(u) > Μ for
all u satisfying
f (\Vu\2 + u2)dx = f Q(x)\u\p dx.

J R« J R"
Proof Suppose that there exists u G V such that
Μ = inf F{u) = inf U(u) = ( ] - - - ) [ Q{x)\u\pdx.

U€V uev 2 \2 ρ/ Jw

Authenticated
Since F{u) = F(|w|), we may assume that u(x) > 0 on R w . Let t e R and e\ =
( 1 , 0 , . . . , 0 ) and set ut(x) = u(x - te i). Then ||u,|| = \\u\\ for all t € R and
b(jut) = ( l - ~ ) [ Q(x)\u(x - tei)\P dx

\ Ρ J J R"
= (1--)/" Q(x + tei)\u(x)\Pdx.

Ρ J R"
By the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem we get
lim b(u t ) = ( 1 - - ) f lim Q(y)\u(x)\p dx > b(u).

t-too \ ρ) JRn |>|->00
This means that there exists t > 0 such that b(ut) > b(u) and setting s(t) = s(ut), we
get that s(t)ut e V with < 1. Hence
X
Μ < F(s(t)u{) = -b(s{t)ut)
= 2
QM\mut(x)\pdx
Κ· Ρ J Jw
- G - ä||s(,)"'»2 < G - i)Ι|ϋ»2'

which is impossible. •
The above observation is due to Stuart (see [215]).
3.5 Perturbation of the functional a — noncompact case

In Theorem 3.4.1 we have obtained the existence result by perturbating the functional b.
We now derive the existence theorem by perturbating the functional a.
Given a potential operator A* : X —• X* and its potential a* : X - > I w e set
V* = {u € X - {0}; (A*(u), u) - (B{u), u) = 0}, F*(u) = (a*(u) - b(u))
and
M* = inf{F*(u); " e V*}.
Theorem 3.5.1. Suppose that A and Β are weakly continuous and b is weakly lower
semicontinuous. Let A* : X —> X* be strongly monotone operator satisfying (Ai)
and such that a — a* is weakly continuous. If Μ < Μ*, then there exists u Ε V such
that F(u) = Μ and u is a solution of (1.1).

Authenticated
Proof. The proof is similar to that of Theorem 3.4.1. Let {um} be a minimizing
sequence for F constructed in Lemma 3.2.3. We now apply Lemma 3.2.2 to F*
and obtain a function s € Cl(X — {0}, (0, oo)) such that s(um)um e V*. Setting
sm — s (um) we show that
lim [b(smum)-b(um)]= 0. (3.21)
To prove this we show that sm -*• 1 as m —• oo. If sm > 1, then the relations
{A(um),um) = (B(um),um}
and
(A*(um), um) = SmP(B(smum), smum)) > s%~p{B(um), um)
imply that
q-P ^ (A*(um),Um) (A*(um),um) - {A(um),um)

1< Sm < = 1Η .
- (B(u m)ι um ) (B(u m)> u m)
Similarly, if sm < 1 we get
q - p (A*(um), um) (A*(um),um) - (A(um),um)

1> st, > = 1Η .
- {B(u m)ι um ) (B{u ), um)
By Lemma 3.2.1 {B(um), um) > 8 for some constant 8 > 0 and all m and consequently
in both cases we get that sm ->• 1 as m -*• oo. Having established that sm 1, we
get (3.21) from the mean value theorem
Ib(SmUm) - H"m)I < \sm ~ 1| (B(ßmUm), Um),
where 1 < θη < sm. Finally, we have
M* < F*(smum) = -b(smum) = - \b(smum) - b(um)] + -b(um)

Ρ Ρ Ρ
and letting m - > oo we see that Μ* < M, which is impossible and this completes the
proof. •
We reformulate Theorem 3.5.1 in a way which is more suitable for applications.
Theorem 3.5.2. Suppose that assumptions of Theorem 3.5Λ hold. If
inf ' < inf ' , (3.22)

U^°b(u)i~p b(u)i~p
then equation (1.1) has α nontrivial solution.

Authenticated
The proof is identical to that of Theorem 3.4.2.
As an application we consider the following problems
-Au+q(x)u = \u\P~2u in R "

(3.23)
u e Wu(Rn), u > 0,
and
-Au + qoou = \u\P~2u in R\
(3.24)
1 2
u e W ' ^"), u > 0,
where q is a nonnegative function in L°°(R") and <?οο > 0 is a constant.
We set
a(u) = l f (\Vu(x)\2 + q(x)u(x)2)dx,
^ J R"
«·(«) = \f
1
J R"
R
(\Vu(x)\2 + qoou(x)
2
dx,
and
b(u) = - f \u(x)\pdx.
Ρ Jw>
Let um —^ u in W 1 , 2 (R"), then we may assume that um —• u in L2{Q) for each
bounded domain Q and that {um} is bounded in W 1 , 2 (R n ). Using this, it is easy to
show that if lim|x|_>.oo <7CO = <?oo, then
lim (a(um) -a*(um)) = 0.

m—>·οο
Condition (3.22) is equivalent to
.nf [f^{\û(x)\2 + q(x)u(x)2dx) άχγ
ueW™W)-m (fRn \u(x)\P dx)r
[fRn{\Vu(x)\2 + qoou(x)2) dxf

<u€H
"'"rH0) (jw\u{x)\Pdx)Lp
By Proposition 1.10.1, problem (3.24) has a positive radially symmetric solution ν €

Η} ( W ) such that
[f w {\Wv(x)\2 + qoov(x)
2
) dxf = (3 26)
(fun\v(x)\Pdx)p
[/Rn(|V«U)|2 + gooUU)2) dx]

Authenticated
Assuming that q{x) < qoo on R" and that q(x) < <700 on a set of positive measure,
it is easy to derive inequality (3.25) from (3.26). Therefore, Theorem 3.5.2 yields the
following existence result for problem (3.23).
Theorem 3.5.3. Suppose that q e L°°(lRrt), limîôo q(x) = loo > 0, 0 < q(x) <
qoo in M" with q(x) < qoo on a set of positive measure. Then problem (3.24) admits a
solution.
3.6 Existence of infinitely many solutions

The existence of infinitely many solutions follows from Theorems 2.4.1, 2.6.1 and
2.6.2. To apply these theorems we need the following lemma.
Lemma 3.6.1. We have

(i) there exist constants c > 0 and ρ > 0 such that F(u) > 0 for ||u|| < ρ and
F{u) > cfor II«|| = p,
(ii) there exists u0 e X such that ||m0|| > ρ and F(u0) < c,
(iii) if Em is an m-dimensional subspace o f X , then the set
Pm = Em (Ί {u e X\ 0 < F{u) < oo}
is bounded.
Proof, (i) It follows from (3.1) and (A 3 ) that
F(.u)>ki\\u\\P-C(\\u\\* + \\u\\r)
and the claim (i) follows if we choose ρ sufficiently small.

(ii) We have for u0 # 0
F(tu0) <k2tp\\u0\\p -b{u0)tq <c
for t sufficiently large.

(iii) The proof is similar to that of Lemma 2.6.1. Using the notation of this lemma
we get
m ι tti m
*(Σ</«,) s ^ ( Σ ' / » < ) . Σ'/«.}
(=1 " 1=1 i'=l
m m
11 J\ Ρ I V
λ
= ^ ( ( Σ I'Vf/*/). Σ 1
r '!»*) * \p

Authenticated
3.6 Existence of infinitely many solutions 89
for some constant Κ > 0 and with \t*\ = yj(tf)2 Η 1- ( f / ) 2 oo as j ->· oo,
1
f/ Ι ^ ' Γ -> r, as j -> oo and = 1· Since oo we have by (3.6)
m m
i=l /=1
Combining the last two estimates we obtain
m
b(£\*J\-lt!»i)<K\tJ\p-*
and letting j oo we get &(Σ/=ι τ ι"ί) = 0, which is impossible since Σ™=ι ruti Φ
0. •
With notation as in Theorems 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 we have
Theorem 3.6.1. Let X be a separable Banach space. Suppose A and Β are odd
potential operators and that Β is strongly continuous. Then
bm = inf sup F(u)

K€r
m ueK
and
cm = sup inf F{h{u))
Aer* ueaßiO.l)!"!^,
are critical values, c < bm < bm+\, cm < cm+\ and cm < bm. Moreover,
limm-,.00 cm = oo.
Proof. It remains only to show that limm_>.00 c m = oo. We set
Μ = {u € X - {0}; a(u) < b(u)}.
First, we show that there exists ρ > 0 such that
b(u) > ρ for all u € M.
In the case where b was homogeneous (see Theorem 2.6.3) we proved this claim using
the Sobolev inequality, which is not available in our situation and we have to modify
this part of the proof. If μ 6 Μ , we have for ||u|| < 1
* i l l « r < b(u) < ||m||9 sup b(v). (3.27)

IMI=i
Hence there exists C > 0 such that
C<||m|| for all u e M.

Authenticated
Using (3.27) again we see that b(u) > k\Cp and the claim follows. As in the proof of
Theorem 2.6.3 we show that
dm = inf{||«||; u e Μ Π Ε—> oo as —• oo.
It follows from our assumption on Β : X —• X* that for each u e X — {0} there exists
a unique ß(u) > 0 such that ß(u)u 6 Μ and F(tu) > 0 for all 0 < t < ß(u). The
proof of this fact is similar to that of Lemma 3.2.2. This ß(u) can be found as a unique
positive root of the equation
a(u) = t~pb(tu).
This observation allows us to show that a mapping hm : E^ E^ defined by
hm(u) = R~^dmu, with R > 1, can be extended to a mapping hm belonging to Γ*,
that is, hm has the property hm(B(0, 1)) c {« G X\ F(u) > 0}. To complete the proof
we have to show that
inf F(hm(u)) —> oo as m — o o .
Let u e dB{0, 1) Π Εsince R~ldm ->· oo we may also assume that R~xdm > 1 and
we have
D-pjP
F(hm (")) = (A(u),u)-b(R~ldmu)
Ρ
> kiR-PdP - b(R~ldmu) = ( R - ^ Y ^ i - ^R-ldmyPb(R~ldmu^.
b(R~ldmu) < R~qb(dmu) < R~qa(dmu) < R~qk2d
Hence
F(hm(u)) > [R~xdmy (Jfei - Rp~qk2) oo as m oo
provided R is sufficiently large and this completes the proof. •
3.7 General minimization — case ρ > q

The minimization problem (M) considered in preceding sections of this chapter cor-
responds in the case of a homogeneous potential operator to the case ρ < q. In this
section we investigate the same problem which in the case of homogeneous operator
Β corresponds to the case ρ > q.
Throughout this section we make the following assumptions on A : X X* and
Β : X X*.

Authenticated
(Z?i) The mapping A : X X* is a bounded linear operator such that (Aw, v) =

(Av, u) for all u and ν in X and there exists u0 e X such that {Au 0 , u0) > 0.
(Z?2) The functional b is in C 1 (X, R) and there exist constants a > 0 and q e (a, 2)
such that
(i) (B(u), u) < qb(u) on X - {0}.
(ii) The functional bi(u) = (B(u),u) is of class C l ( X , R) whose poten-
tial operator B\ : X -> X* is a bounded mapping and satisfies
(Bi(u),u) < qbi(u) on X — {0}.
(iii) K\\u\\« < bi(u) for ||u|| < 1 and K\|«||α < b\{u) for ||u|| > 1
for some constant Κ > 0.
(Bs) b is weakly continuous in the sense that is um —^ u in X and F'(um) —> 0 in
Xthen b(um) b(u), where
F(u) = -^(Au,u) +b(u).
It follows from (B2) (i), (ii) that for each u φ 0, ^ ^ and are decreasing for
t > 0. These relations show that the nonlinear part of the functional F has subquadratic
growth. Critical points of the functional F are solutions of the equation
Au = B(u).
As in Section 3.2 we set
g(u) = (F'{u), u) = -(Au, u) + (B(u), u)
and we minimize the functional F subject to the constraint
V = {u € X — {0}; g(u) = 0}.
Since (B(u), u) has subquadratic growth it is easy to check that V φ 0.

Lemma 3.7.1. There exist constants Ki > 0, i = 1, 2, 3, such that for all u ε V we
have
(i) INI>*i,
(ii) F(u)>K2\\u\\a,
(iii) (g'(u),u) <-K2\\u\\a.
Proof, (i) It is sufficient to check part (i) for ||u || < 1. Since A is bounded we deduce
from (B 2 ) (iii) that
||A||||m|| 2 > (Au, u) = bx(u) > K\\u\\q
and (i) follows with Kx = ( p ^ ) ^ ·

Authenticated
(ii) Since u € V, we have by {B{) (i)
F(u) = -\bi(u) + b(u) > + bi(u)

V 2 q )
and part (ii) follows with K2 = ( - 5 + Κ

(iii) As in part (i), using (B2) (ii), (iii), we get
{g'(u),u) = -2 (Au,u) + (Bi(u),u)

= -2{B(u), u) + (B\(u), u) < ( - 2 + q){B(u), u)
< (-2 + q)K\\u\\aa
and the result follows with Κ2 = (2 — q)K. •

According to this lemma, every minimizing sequence of F restricted to V is
bounded. The set of constraints V is bounded away from 0 in X. Since (g'(u), u) < 0
for u € V, repeating the argument of Lemma 3.2.1 (iv), we show that every critical
point of F restricted to V is also an unconstrained critical point of F. We set
Μ = inf F(u)
and call this constrained minimizing problem by (Μ). It follows from Lemma 3.7.1
that Μ > 0. To establish the existence of a minimizer of problem (M) we need to
analyse minimizing sequences in V.
Lemma 3.7.2.
(i) Let {um} C V be a sequence suchthat F(um) M. Then for every subsequence
of{u m}, denoted again by [um}, such that um u we have F'(u) — 0.
(ii) There exists {κ* } C V such that F{u*m) M,u*m^ u* and F'(u*m) 0 in X*
as m —y 00.
Proof. Let {um} be a minimizing sequence of problem (Μ). Since {um} is bounded
we may assume that um u. This sequence will be used to construct via the Ekeland
variational principle a sequence {«* } C V such that u and F'(m* ) -> 0 in X*.
By Theorem 1.1.1 for each m > 1 there exists u* € V such that
(1) F(u*m) < F(um),
(2) ||n m - Μ* II <
(3) F(u*m) < F(u) + i l l « - <11 for each u e V .
It is obvious that F(m* ) —• M,u^ u. For each u e X — {0} we define
Tu = {zeX; (g'(u),z)= 0}.

Authenticated
We now fix m > 1 and ζ e ΓΜ* — {0}. We show that there exists a function s e
( ^ ( ( - M ) , ^ ) satisfying s(t)u*m+tz <= V for all |/| < S w i t h s ( 0 ) = l a n d j ' ( 0 ) = 0.
The existence of s follows from the implicit function thorem applied to g(su* + tz).
Indeed,
g(su*m + tz) = o and —g(su*m + tz) = (g\u*m), «* > < 0

as
when (s,t) = (1,0). Therefore there exists 5 e ^ ( ( - Μ ) , Κ ) with j(0) = 1 for

8 > 0 sufficiently small such that g(s(t)u* + tz) = 0 for t € (-<5, 5). Since for t = 0
0 = lfg(s(t)u*m + tz) = s'(ß)(g'(u*m), u*m),
hence λ·'(0) = 0. We now write the inequality (3) as
F{u*m) < F(s{t)u*m + tz) + -Ik(0< +tz-u*J,

tn
from which we deduce that
(F (um),z> = lirn
t—>0 t
1 s(t)u* + tz - u* = 1
> 1| lim m II Ikll·
m m-*·oo t m
Replacing ζ by — ζ we deduce from this inequality that

Ι<ηθ,ζ)|<-||ζ||.
m
For an arbitrary w e X we, have
ί 0 ? ' K ) , u>) *
1w M™
and hence
" m" («'(<),<) ""
Since {||w* ||} is bounded we deduce from ( 5 i ) and (B2) (ii) that
I(g'(u%), ιυ)| = I - 2{A«;, w) + ( ß i « ) , w)\ < C\\w\

Authenticated
for some constant C > 0 independent of m. Using Lemma 3.7.1 (iii) and the fact that
V is bounded away from 0 we obtain
'^••»'Φ'+'ί^''"·-')
< -m (iMI
\
+ ΙA3- Ι Κ Ι Ι ^ Ί μ )J < —
m
Nil
for some constant C\ > 0 independent of m and w. This estimate shows that F'(m^) ->
0 in X*. Finally, we deduce from assumption (£3) that
0 = l i m (F'(u*m), w) = l i m (-Au*m + B(u*m), w)

m—*oo m—>oo
= (~Au + B(u),w) = (F'(u),w).
This means that μ is a critical point of F. •
The sequence {um} constructed in the proof of Lemma 3.7.2 converges weakly to
a critical point u of F. We now introduce a condition guaranteeing that u Φ 0. This
condition will be obtained by modifying the approach from Section 3.4.
We define an additional functional b* satisfying assumptions (#2) and (#3). Its
potential operator is denoted by B* and we set b\(u) = {B*(u), u) and let B* be a
potential operator of b*.
We set
X
F \ u ) = - - ( A u , u) + b*(u),
V* = { x e X - { 0 } , (F*,(«),u)=0}
and
M* = inf F*(u).
ueV*
If u € V, then ( A u , u) > 0 and by Lemma 3.7.1 (iii) there exists a unique λ e R

such that ku e V*. In this way we define a functional t : V -> [0, 00) such that
t{u)u g V*. In a similar manner we define a functional t* : V* [0, 00) such that
t*(u)u g V.
Lemma 3.7.3. If{u m ] C V and F(um) ->- M, then { r ( w m ) } is bounded.
Proof. We can always assume that t(um) > 1 for all m > 1. Since js
decreasing for t > 0 we have
m) •
Using the fact that t(um)um g V*, we obtain
t(um)2bi(um) = t(um)2{Aum,um) = b*(i(um),um)
< t { u m f b \ { u m ) .

Authenticated
This implies
t(um)2-«b i(um)<b\{um). (3.28)
Since {||Mm||} is bounded, {b*(um)} is bounded. Suppose that t(um) —• oo. It then
follows from (3.28) that b\ (u m ) ^ 0 and by ( B 2 ) (iii) || Um || —> 0. This is impossible
because V is bounded away from 0. •
We now impose the following conditions on b*:
(ß4) b(u) < b*(u) for all u e X*.
(Bs) For each bounded sequence { i m } C R with um 0 and F'(um) —• 0 in X*,

we have b*(smum) - b(smum) 0.
Theorem 3.7.1. If there exists a sequence { « * } C V* such that
F*(u*m)^M* and u*mu* φ 0,
then there exists u φ 0 such that F'(u) = 0.
Proof. Let { « * } C V* be such that F * ( w * ) -»· M*. By virtue of (£4) we have
= F(t*(u*m)u*m) + b*(t*(u*m)u*m) - b(t*{u*m)u*m)

> F(t*(u*m)u*m) > M.
This yields Μ < Μ * . We now distinguish two cases: (a) Μ = Μ * and Μ < Μ * . If (a)
holds, there exists a minimizing sequence {u* } c V * for F* such that m* —^ u* Φ 0.
Since
Μ < liminf F(t*(u*m)u*m) < lim sup F(t*(u*m)u*m)

m->- 00 m->oo
< lim F*(u*m) = M,
m-+ 00
we see that F ( f * ( w ^ ) M * ) —• M . According to Lemma 3.7.3 { t * ( u ^ ) } is bounded.

Consequently we may assume that t * ( u ^ ) u ^ is weakly convergent. On the other hand
by Lemma 3.7.1, t*(u*m) > γ > 0 for all m and for some constant y. This shows that
a weak limit of f*(w* )«£, is non zero and the result follows from Lemma 3.7.2 (i).
We now consider case (b). Let { u ^ } be a minimizing sequence constructed in Lemma
3.7.2 (ii). We then have
F(u*J > F(t(u*m)u*m) = F*(t(u*m)u*m) + Ht(u*m)u*m) - b*(tm(u*m)u*m).
Assuming that u* = 0, we obtain from assumption (B$) that
* * ( ; ( « > ; ) - w o o ^0.

Authenticated
This implies that
lim F(u*m)>lirninfF*(t(u*m)u*m)>M*,
m-KX> m-KX>
that is Μ > Μ* which is impossible. •
To illustrate the abstract approach of Theorem 3.7.1 we consider the Schrödinger

equation
- Au +p(x)u-f(x,u)=ku inR", (3.29)
where ρ e C(R") is a periodic function and λ € R. Our aim is to find conditions
on the nonlinearity / : R" χ R R guaranteeing the existence of a solution in
2 2 N
W - (R ).
The linearized periodic Schrödinger equation
-Au + p(x)u=ku inR"
defines the self-adjoint operator S = -A + ρ : W 2 - 2 (R") L 2 (R"). The spectrum

σ(5) is purely continuous, bounded below and consists of a union of closed disjoint
intervals ([104], [186], [235]).
In the sequel we always assume that the self-adjoint operator Dx = — A + ρ — λ :
W - (R n ) C L 2 (R")
2 2
L 2 (R") has a bounded inverse Λ λ = ( - Δ + ρ - λ ) - ' . We
impose the following conditions on the nonlinearity / : Κ" χ R ->• R:
(A) / satisfies the Caratheodory condition.
(Β) f ( x , s) is an odd function in s.
(C) There exist constants 1 < a < β < 2 satisfying or > ^ ^ if η > 3 and a > 1 if
η = 1,2, such that
1
. / ( χ , ( ) <,ίί%ο<_!_/ ( Ι , 0
j8 - Γ dt of — 1
for all t e [0, oo) and a.e. on R n . Moreover, for a.e. x e R f{x, ·) g C 1 !
and / is strictly increasing in s.
(D) For each t e Μ there exists
/(0= lim f(x,t),
where / e C ^ R , R) is strictly increasing and satisfies
1 - d - 1 -
f(t)<t-f(t)< -f{t)
β- \ dt a - 1
and
m<f(x,t)<B(x)f(t)

Authenticated
for all t G [0, oo), where b e L°°Qla) and lim w _>oo B(x) = 1.
A typical example of the nonlinerity / satisfying (Α), (Β), (C) and (Z)) is given
by
1=1
where
(i) η € L°°(]Rn), limîôo »·,·(*) = r f (oo), n(x) > r,(oo) > 0 a.e. on R", i =
Ι,.,.,Ν.
(ii) 0 < σ < if η >3 and σ > 2 if η = 1,2.
Solutions in W 2 ' 2 (R") of equation (3.29) will be found as critical points of a
functional 7λ : W2·2 Μ defined by
h(u) = \ f (\Wu\ + (p(x)-k)u2)dx- f F(x, u)dx,

L J^n \ / Jjp
where (
F(x, t) = I f(x,s)dx.
The main difficulty in finding critical points of /χ arises from the fact that /χ, under our
assumptions, does not satisfy the Palais-Smale condition. To overcome this difficulty
we consider the dual equation to (3.29).
We set
g(x,-) = f~l(x,·) and G(x,•,0=
t) = If g(x
Jo
Ξ(·) = Γ \ · ) and G(t) = I
J0
-f g(s)ds
and let
Lq = {u : I G(v)dx < oo} and LP = {κ; I F(u)dx<oo).

JR" Jll"
It turns out that L g and Lρ are Orlicz spaces equipped with the norms (see [1])
||M||g = supj / uvdx; / F(M)JJC<1|
and
= supj I uvdx; / G(U)</JC < L | .
||W||/R
1
Jw> JR" '
The dual equation corresponding to (3.29) has the form
Akv = g(x, v) inR". (3.30)

Authenticated
Solutions of equation (3.30) will be found as critical points of a functional Jx : L q —•

R given by
Jk(v) = - - I v(A),v)dx+ I G{v)dx.
2 Jßn JW
To find critical points of J\ we consider a constrained minimization problem
Μλ = M{v e L G - {0}; ( / » , υ) = 0}.
We now formulate two main existence results for equations (3.29) and (3.30).
Theorem 3.7.2. Suppose that (Α), (B), (C) and (D) hold and that the self-adjoint
operator —A + ρ — λ : W 2 , 2 (R") —> L 2 ( R " ) has a bounded inverse. Then if
ν e LoiW1) satisfies equation (3.30), then the function u = g( χ, υ) is a solution in
W2-2(]r) of equation (3.29).
Theorem 3.7.3. Suppose that (A), (Β), (C) and (D) hold and that the self-adjoint
operator-Δ + ρ-λ : W2,2(Rn) C L2(R") L2{W) has a bounded inverse. Then
equation (3.30) admits α nontrivial solution in the space Lc(IR").
To prove these theorems we apply Theorem 3.7.1 with
b(v)= I G(x,v)dx, b*(v)= I G(v)dx

Jw> JR"
and
b\{v)= I g(x,v)vdx, b*(v)= / g(v)vdx.
J R" J R"
These functionals are Cl(Lc (M n ), R) and the Frechet derivatives of b and b\ are given
by
(β(υ), w) - g(x, v)wdx
J R"
and
(Bi(v),w)= J R" (gs(x, v)v + g(x,v))wdx
for all L g ( R " ) and L p ( R n ) . Similar formulae hold for potential operators B* and B*.
The proof that assumptions (Bi),..., (Βζ) are satisfied are based on the fact that
the operator (—Δ + ρ — λ ) - 1 is in fact an integral operator whose kernel a(x, y) is
continuous on {(*, j ) ; \x — > d j f o r e a c h d > 0 and satisfies the following estimates
K\x-y\2~n if η > 3
-Κ log I* - y\ if η = 2
Κ if η = 1

Authenticated
3.8 Set of constraints V 99
for \x — y\ < 5 and for \x — ;y| > 1, \a{x, >>)l < Κ exp(—— >>|), where Κ > 0
and γ > 0 are constants (see [209]).
The verification that conditions (B\),..., (Βζ) are met is tedious and is omitted.
For details we refer to papers [6] and [137].
3.8 Set of constraints V

In our general approach to the constrained minimization described in Sections 3.1 and
3.2, we have imposed some structural conditions on a functional B. These conditions
guarantee that the functionals b, b\ and b have the same growth for large || u || controlled
by the functional const(||«||? + ||μ|Γ).
We now significantly weaken the assumptions of Sections 3.1 and 3.2 and show
that the set V is always nonempty, inf{F(w); u G V} is positive and that points where
inf is attained are critical points of F.
Proposition 3.8.1. Let V φ 0 and let A be a hemicontinuous, strongly monotone and

homogeneous potential operator of degree ρ — 1, with ρ > 1. Further, we assume that
b is positive and weakly lower semicontinuous, b is weakly continuous at 0 and that
(B(u),u) < K + Kib(u) (3.31)
for all u G X and for some constants Κ > 0 and Κ ι > 0 and that
limsup— (B(tu),u) < ρκ(\) (3.32)

tP
r->-0
uniformly in u € S(0, 1). Then
Μ = inf{F(w); u g V} > 0.
Proof. Suppose that Μ = 0. Hence, there exists a sequence {«*} c V such that
l i m ^ o o F(ufc) = 0. Since pF(uk) = b{uk) for all k, we see that l i m ^ o o b(u,t) = 0.
Consequently, by (3.31) the sequence {{B(uk), uk)} is bounded. Using again the fact
that b(uk) -» 0, we deduce that {b(uk)} is bounded. The strong monotonicity of
A implies that {«*} is bounded. We may assume that uk u in X. By the lower
semicontinuity of b we get
b(u) < lim inf b(uk) = ρ lim F(uk) = 0.

k—yoo koo
Since b is a positive potential, u = 0. We now observe that
lim a{uk)= lim [F(uk) + b(uk)]

k-*· 00 00

Authenticated
and this implies that Uk -»· 0 in X. We set υ* = Μ*||Μ*|| _ 1 , then by (3.32) we have
κ( 1) < lim — V k \ \ u k \ \ ) < κ( 1)

00 | | Μ * | | Ρ
and we have arrived at a contradiction. •
Proposition 3.8.2. Suppose that A is strongly monotone, hemicontinuous and ho-

mogeneous potential operator of degree ρ — 1, with ρ > 1. Further, we assume
that Β is a hemicontinuous potential operator with a potential b such that for ev-
ery u φ 0 the function t —> t~p(B(tu), u) is strictly increasing for t G (0, oo),
lim/ôo t~p{B{tu), tu) = oo and such that (3.32) holds. Then V φ 0 and for every
M0 € V such that F'(u0) φ 0, we have
F(u0) > inf{F(«); u € V).
Proof. Let w φ 0, then the function \J/(t) = pa(w) — t~p(B(tw), tw) is decreasing
for t 6 (0, oo) and such that
lim \fr{t) > pa(w) - p\\w\\pic(l) > 0

f->0
and limôo ψ(ί) = — oo. Hence there exists t0 such that ψ(ί0) = 0, that is t0w e V.
To prove the second part we choose h0 e X so that (F'(u 0 ), hQ) = 1. Setting
at(a) = au0 — th0 we get
lim F(at(a)) = ~(F'(u0), h0) = - 1 .

/—>·0,α->· 1 dt
We can find e > 0 and 8 > 0 such that for all a e [1 — e, 1 + e] and t e (0, <5] we have
F(at(a)) < F(a0(a)) = F(au0). (3.33)
We set
Ht(a) = pa{at(a)) - (β(σ,(α)), σ,(α)).
Since u0 e V, we have
// 0 (1) = pa(u0) - (B(u0), Mo) = 0.
On the other hand, observing that t~p{B(tu0, tu0) is an increasing function for t 6
(0, oo), and taking e > 0 and 8 > 0 smaller if necessary, we may assume that for
0 < t < 8,
Ht(l — e) < 0 and ff,(l+O>0.
Hence, for each t e (0, δ], there exists at > 0 such that Ht{at) = 0. This means that
σ,(α,) e V.

Authenticated
3.9 Application to a critical case ρ — η 101
Consequently, by (3.33)
inf{F(w) : u e V } < F(at(at)) < F(a,u0) < sup F(tu0) = F(u0)
•
In Sections 3.9,3.10 and 3.11 we use the results of this section to solve the Dirichlet
problem for the p-Laplacian involving a critical Sobolev exponent with ρ = n.
3.9 Application to a critical case ρ = η

Let Q
C M" be a bounded domain with a cone property. According to Trudinger's
embedding theorem (see [229]) there is a continuous embedding of W^'n(Q) into the
Orlicz space LA(Q), with
A(t) = e ^ -1.
We refer to the monograph by Adams [1] for definitions and basic properties of the
Orlicz spaces LA(Q)· In what follows we do not use the definitions of LA in an explicit
way. A function with a critical growth has the form
for some b > 0.
Following Adimurthi (see [2]) we introduce the class A(Q) of functions with critical
growth at infinity in the case ρ = n.
We say that a function g : Q χ R Μ belongs to the class A(Q) if there exists a

C -function h : ß x R - ^ M and a constant b > 0 such that
1
and moreover for every (x, t) € Q χ R the following conditions are satisfied:
(Λι) g(x, 0 ) = 0 , g(x, t) > 0 , g(x, t)tn~l = g(x, -t)(-t)n~l,
(A2)
(Λ 3 ) G(X, t) < M ( 1+ g(x, t) tn~2+a) for some Μ > 0 and σ e [0, 1), where
(A4) for every e > 0

Authenticated
and
lim inf h(x, t) exp ( e t J = oo.
tôox€g \ )
Typical examples of functions of class A{Q) are:
(1) t) = tm e x p ( ß t a ) exp (bf for t > 0 and some constants m > 1, β > 0
and 0 —
< a < -^-r,
η— ι
(2) g(x,t) = t2e~f exp ( i " ^ 1 ) f o r i > 0.
Obviously, due to property (Ai) it is sufficient to define g for t > 0.
For a function g € A(Q) we consider the nonlinear Dirichlet problem
-Anu = g(x,u)\u\n~2 in Q,
(3.34)
u(x) = 0 in a ß , u(x) > 0 on Q.
To solve problem (3.34) we use the approach discussed in Chapter 1. Any solution of
(3.34) belongs to the set V defined by
V = {u€ Wl'n{Q)\ Ml" = f g(x, «)«""' dx),

JQ
where ||u|| is a norm of u in W^,n(Q), that is,
||uf= ί IVu{x)\ndx.
JQ
We define a functional F : Wl'n(Q) R by
F(M) = -|| M |r- f G(x, u)dx.

" JQ
Solutions of (3.34) will be obtained by solving the minimization problem for the func-
tional F subject to the constraint V, that is,
= inf{F(«); u e V}.
η
In the next section we will show that V φ 0 and g(x, u) e LP{Q) for all ρ > 0 and
u G W*'n(Q). Consequently, our minimization problem is well defined.
By λι (Q) we denote the first eigenvalue of the operator Δ„, that is,
λ ι ( β ) = ίηί{||κ|Γ; f \u(x)\n dx = 1}
JQ

Authenticated
3.10 Technical lemmas

In what follows we need two basic properties of functions in W^-n(Q).
Proposition 3.10.1. Letu e W}yn{Q), then
exp ^l«!" 1 7 1 ) G LP(Q) for each 0 < ρ < oo
and ^
(-J7) = max{c"; sup / exp (bc"^]™]*^ ) dx < 00},

v
II w II < \ J q '
I
where an — ηω£, with a>„ = | S ( 0 , 1)|.
Since an is the best constant of the embedding of W^'n(Q) into the Orlicz space
LA(Q), we expect that the Palais-Smale condition holds on (—00, ^ ( ^ f ) " )· This
will be proved in Proposition 3.10.3.
Proposition 3.10.2. Let {Uj} be a sequence in W^n(Q) such that \\uj || = 1 for each
j and Uj u in W*-n(Q), with u φ 0, then for every ρ < (1 - Ι Ν Γ ) ^ -1
sup j e x p ^pan\uj dx < 00.
1
To proceed further we define a potential operator Β : W 0 ' ( Q ) —> W ·"' ( Q ) and
functionals b : W*'n(Q) R and b : W*-n(Q) R by
(B(u),v)= I g(x,u)un~2vdx, b(u)= I G(x,u)dx

JQ JQ
and
b(u) = ~(B(u),u) -b(u)
η
for all u e Wol n ( 0 ) and ν e W0l n ' ( ß ) (see notation of Sections 3.1 and 3.2). We
point out that b defined here differs by the multiplicative constant from b defined in
Section 3.1. With these notation we have
F(u) = -\\uf-b(u).
η
Lemma 3.10.1. Suppose that g e A{Q). Then the following holds:
(1) g(x,u) e LP(Q) for allO < ρ < o o and u e W*-n(Q).
(2) = sup{c"; sup ||u) ||<, fQ g(x, cw)wn~1 dx < 00).

Authenticated
(3) Let {μ*} and {t>*} be sequences in W^,n(Q) such that Uk u and Vk ν in
W^n(Q) and Uk -> u and Vk —• ν a.e. on Q and moreover
£—>·οο
>n«*ir <(Ctfiο \
ΊΓ /
1
1
Then for every integer I > 0
.. f g(Xf «*) ι f g(x, u) .

lim I vkdx = I υ dx.
kôojQ Uk Jq U
(4) Let {«*} be a sequence in W*'n(Q) such that Uk u in W^'n(Q) and Uk u

o.e. on Q and
sup / g(x, uk)unk~l dx < oo,
k JQ
Jfc Jo
then, for every 0 < r < 1,
lim f g{x,\uk\)\uk\n-2+T dx = f g(x,\u\)\u\n-2+T dx,

->oo jJqQ
£—>•00 JO
and
lim I G(x,uk)dx = I G(x,u)dx.
IC-*OOJQ JQ
(5) Thefunctional b{u) is positive, thatis, b(u) > Oforallu € W 0 1,n (ß) andb(u) = 0
if and only if u ξ 0. Finally, there exists a constant Μ ι > 0 such that
(B(u),u)<Mi (l+£(«))
for all u € W*>n(Q).
Proof (1) In view of (Λ4) for every e > 0 there exists C ( e ) > 0 such that
| g U , / ) l < C ( € ) e x p ((fc + O k l ^ ) ·
Hence by Proposition 3.10.1 g(x,u) e LP(Q) for every 0 < ρ < 00 and u e
KniQ)·
(2) Let us set A = sup{c"; s u p ^ n ^ Jq g(x, cw)wn~1 dx < 00} and let c > 0 be
such that c" < · We can find e > 0 sufficiently small so that (1 +e)2n~lcn <
. By (A 4 ) there exists C i (e) > 0 such that
Ο*" - 1 ! < C i ( 0 exp + 01*1^) ·

Authenticated
It then follows from Proposition 3.10.1 that
sup I g(x, ( 1 4 - €)cw)wn~l dx

M<1 JQ
<Ci(e) sup I exp lb ((1 + dx < oo,

\\w\\<lJQ L J
hence A > · To show the converse inequality, for a given f > Owe find by
(A4) a constant Ci(<e) such that
\g(x,t)tn-l\>C2(€)exp{b(\-€)\t\^)
for |f I > 1. If c > 0 is such that
sup I g(x, cw)wn~l dx < 00,

IMI<wß
then
sup I exp(b{\ — ) dx < 0 0 , (3.35)
IM<1 JQ V '
and by Proposition 3.10.1 and (3.35) we get that (1 - €)n~lcn < that is,
A < ft)-'.
w e use
(3) Since lim sup^^^ ||μ^ΙΙ" < (ηβΎ ^ (2) to find ρ > 1 such that
cf = sup / \g(x,uk)\pdx < 00.

k JQ
Let us set
4 = sup / \Vk(x)\lqdx,
k JQ
with ^ + - = 1. Then, for every Ν > 0 we have by the Holder inequality
\f ^ ώ < 1 / | ί ( Μ ι ) ι Κ
» ^ CiC2
1 J\uK\>N Uk " JQ
Writing
f g(x,uk) . f g(x,uk) , 1
/ v k d x = vlkdx + 0(—),
JQ uk J\uK\<N "JFC Ν
letting k —* 00 and then Ν oo, the dominated convergence theorem gives
.. f g(x*uk) ι , f g(x,u) ι ,
lim I vkdx = I ν dx.
k~*OO JQ Uk JQ u

Authenticated
(4) For every Ν > 0 we have the estimate
f g(x,\uk\)\uk\n~2+T dx < - i - f IgixÛkDlUkl^dx

J\uK\>N Ν1 T JQ
which implies
j' g(x, \uk\)\uk\n~2+T dx = f g(x, \uk\)\uk\n~2+T dx + O ( ^ r r ) ·
Letting k —> oo and Ν oo we obtain by the dominated convergence theorem the

first part of our assertion. To obtain the second part we observe that by (A 3) we get
|G(*,i)l < Α / [ ΐ + | £ ( χ , 0 Ι ! ' Γ - 2 + σ ]
for some σ e [0, 1) and the result follows from the dominated convergence theorem.
(5) First, we observe that by(A2) we have
Hence the function g(x, t)tn~x — nG(x, t) is even and increasing for t > 0. This
shows that b(u) is a positive functional. Finally, it follows from (A3) that
nb(u) = j [gOc,«)«" - 1 - n G ( x , u ) j dx
> JQ [ * ( * , u)un~l - n M ( l + ιg(x, Μ)||«Γ-2+σ)] dx
> C l + ] r i g(x,u)un~ldx
1
J\u\>C2
for some contants Ci > 0 and C2 > 0 and the estimate follows from assertion (5). •
Lemma 3.10.2. Let g(x, t) = h(x, t) exp(fc|f 1 ^ ) be in A(Q) and define
h0(t) = inf' h ( x , t ) , M0 = s u p h 0 ( t ) t n ~ l , R0 = supdist(jc, 3Q)

xeQ t>0 x € Q
and
1
if Mo <00
kn =
0 if Μ ο = oo.

Authenticated
Suppose that
sup I g(x,aw)wn 1
dx < a (3.36)
\\w\\<\JQ
for some a > 0. If ^ < 1, then an <
Proof. Part (2) of Lemma 3.10.1 implies that an < \ Suppose that an =
n _ j
now c
(if) · hoose x0 G Q such that dist(x 0 , 3 Q) = /?0 and let 0 Ε by
S
(log^)' if 0 < \ x - x 0 \ < / ,
m/(jc) = l°g r
if I < r = -x0\ < R0,
ι |JC
(logf)"
0 if \x - x 0 | > Re
It is easy to check that mi e W^' n (Q) and ||m/|| = 1. Letting
log — j
we get from (3.36)
a
— Ι 8{χι am m
i) 1 1
dx
JQ
> I h0(ami)m"~l exp ( ba*1^m^ ) dx
JB(x0,1) \ )
h0(t)tn~xo>nRn0
tia n—1
This estimate can be written in the form
h0(t)tn~la>nRn
(ίΓ-**
and hence for all t e (0, oo) we obtain
Consequently, we get
1
which is impossible. Hence, we must have α" < (^jf)" and this completes the proof.
•

Authenticated
Lemma 3.10.3. Let g € A(Q) and let {uk} be a sequence in W^n(Q) such that
uk u in Wln(Q) and uk —> u a.e. on Q, with u φ 0. Moreover, we assume that
(i) there exists C e (if)"1] such that

lim*-»oo F(uk) = C,
(H) \\u\\n>fQg(x,u)u*-ldx.
(iii) sup* fQ g(x, uk)unk~x dx < oo.
Then
lim / g(x,uk)unk *dx= g(x,u)un 1
dx.
fcôo JQ J0
Proof. By (5) from Lemma 3.10.1 and assumption (ii) we get
F(u) > F(u) - ~(F'(u),u) > 0

η
and F(u) < lim ϊηί*_».οο F(uk) = C. Hence, we can find € > 0 such that
(C - F(II)) (1 + e ) " - 1 < i ( y ) n _ 1 · (3.37)
Let Κ = f Q G ( x , u ) d x . It then follows from (iii) and Lemma 3.10.1 (4) that
lim ||u*|| n = η lim F(uk) + / G(x, uk)dx = n((C + K). (3.38)

IC—KX L Jq J
According to (3.37) and (3.38) we can find an integer ka such that
1
(1 + e ) -i (LY- iUkV < ^ L = Λ _ Nl" V1 (3.39)
K
\a„J C — F(u) V n(C + K) J '
for all k > ka. We now choose ρ > 0 so that
C + K
(3.40)
C — F(u)
We now apply Proposition 3.10.2 to the sequence - j ^ and using (3.38) and (3.40) we
get
sup J
exp p a n ^
uk
dx < oo. (3.41)
Combining (3.40) and (3.41) we obtain
sup j e x p [ ( l d x (3.42)
< s u p / ß e x p U ( ^ ) ' dx < oo.

Authenticated
Let us set
Mi= sup \h(x,t)t"-l\exp(-€^\t\^).
(x,t)eQx R V 1 '
We then get from (3.42)
/ g(x,uk)unk~l dx = I h(x, uk)unk~l exp (b\uk\^) dx

J\uk\>N J\uk\>N v '
< Mi f exp(-€^\uk\^)exp\(\+€)b\uk\^]dx
J\uk\>N \ 1 / L J
= o (exp(-f ^^T)^
and we can write
f g{x, uk)unk~l dx= f g(x, uk)unk~l dx + O ·

JQ J\uk\<N \ 1 /
Letting it ->• oo and then Ν —>· oo the result follows. •
Lemma 3.10.4. Suppose that g € A(Q) and that

(i) l i m s u p ^ o o / i o C O i " - 1 = oo. where h0(t) = inf^gQ h(x, t),
(ii) supx6ÖM^<X,(ß).
Then
0 < a(Q,g)n < ·
Proof. Step I. We show that a(Q, g) > 0. Let u € W o l r t ( 0 , with ||u|| = 1, and set
Kit)
iMO = 7- If g(x,tu)un ldx
t JQ
IQ
for t e (0, oo). It follows from (i) that limf_,.oo iûit) = oo. By virtue of (ii) we have
d8(
lim^(0= f *,0)undx <λι«2) < 1
/-»•0 JQ du
and the claim follows from Proposition 3.8.1.

Step II. It follows from Proposition 3.8.2 that for every u € W*>n(Q) - {0}, there
exists γ > 0 such that yu e V. Moreover, if
IIwII" 0 such that γ w e V.
Hence n n n
q(Q,g) π, w v „ ..„ y
< F(yw) < —||ΐϋ|| = —
η η η
and this implies that a(Q, g) < y. Since rfrw(t) is an increasing function for t > 0
and wy e V, we have
8ix a(Q 8)w)

f ' ' w»-*dx< f
Jo
'Q a(Q,g)
a^,g) JJo
Q γ
This implies that
sup a(Q, g)w)wn~l

Φ I/ g(x,g(x,a(Q, dx < a(Q, g). (3.43)
\\<IJQ
\\w\\<lJQ
v n-1
It now follows from (3.43), assumption (i) and Lemma3.10.2 thata(ß, g) <
•
As an immediate consequence of Proposition 3.8.2 we can formulate the following
lemma.
Lemma 3.10.5. Suppose that g e A(Q), u0 e V and that F'(u0) φ 0. Then
F(u0) > inf{F(u); u <E V}.
We are now in a position to prove the (PS) condition.
Proposition 3.10.3. Suppose that g e A(Q). If limyôo F(uj) = C, with C e

(—oo, £ ( f ) n _ 1 X and limbec F'iuj) = 0 in W~l-n'(Q), then {uj} contains a con-
vergent subsequence in W^n(Q).
Proof. First, we show that
sup ||w*|| + sup I g(x, uk)u^~l dx < oo. (3.44)

k k Jq
Indeed, since
F(uk) - -(F'(uk), Uk) = f Γ-gU, uk)unk~l - G(x, Mjt)I dx = b(u),

η JQL" J
we see that the sequence {b(uk)} is bounded. By virtue of Lemma 3.10.1(5) the
sequence {JQ g(x, uk)u^Tl dx] must be bounded. Now assumption (A3) implies that
{/g G(x, uk)dx) is bounded. Finally, since F{uk) —• C, we see that {uk} must be

Authenticated
3 . 1 0 Technical lemmas 111
bounded in W 0 1 , n (ß) and (3.44) follows. We may assume that u k u 0 in W l ' n ( Q )

and uk —> «ο a.e. on Q.
We now distinguish two cases: (I) C < 0 and (II) C e ( 0 , J ( ^ ) Π _ 1 ) ·
Case (I). It follows from Fatou's lemma and from Lemma 3.10.1(5) that
0< < lim

F(m0)--<F'(m0),m0) \F(uk)--(F'uk),uk)]=C.
η k—• oo L η J
If C < 0, no Palais-Smale sequence exists. If C = 0, then by (9.66) and Lemma
9.10.1(4) we have
lim Hull" = n lim F(uk) + J ^ G ( x , u k ) j dx = 0.
k->0 fc—>00
This shows that uk 0 in W^n(Q).

Case (II). We show that u0 φ 0 and u0 e V. Suppose that u0 = 0. Then, from
(3.44) and Lemma 3.10.1(4) we have
lim \\uk\\n =n lim I + ί G(x,uk)dx\ = nC < ( ^ Λ

k^-oo k^-oo Jq J \ b /
This and Lemma 3.10.1(3) imply that
lim / g(x,uk)unk ldx= g{x,ua)un0 1 dx = 0.

k-*oo Jq * J0
Hence,
0 < C = lim \F(uk) + ~(F'(uk), uk) 1 = lim b(uk) = 0,
k^-oo η J k-+ oo
which is impossible and u0 φ 0. Since F'(uk) -»• 0, we have
I \Vu0\n~2Vu0Vhdx = I g(x,u0un~2hdx
JQ JQ
for all h € W0°°(<2). We now observe that C™(Q) = W^n(Q), hence this identity
holds for all h € Wl'n(Q). Letting h = m0, we get
l"oir = f g{x,u0)un~ldx,
JOQ
that is, M0 e V. To complete the proof, we observe that {uk} and u0 satisfy the
hypotheses of Lemma 3.10.3. Therefore, we have
||M0|r < liminf ||κ*|Γ
k—>-00
= lim inf / g(x, uk)unk~x dx + (F'(uk), uk)

k—>OQ IJQ
= f g(x,u0)un-ldx = \\u0\\n-\
JQ
which means that uk -»· m0 in W^,n(Q). •

Authenticated
3.11 Existence result for problem (3.34)

We now prove the existence result for the Dirichlet problem for the n-Laplacian with
a nonlinearity of critical growth.
Theorem 3.11.1. Suppose that g(x, t) = h(x, t) exp is a function of class

A{Q) and that
Bgjx.O) . ,ηΛ
sup — - — < λ ι ( β ) ,
dt
xeß
and
lim sup h(x, t)tn~l = oo.
t —• oo
xeQ
=
Then problem (3.34) admits α nontrivial solution in W^,n(Q).
Proof. It is sufficient to show that there exists a function u0 e V such that
a(Q,g)n
F(u0) =
η
Then the result follows from Lemma 3.10.5. Let {uk} C V be a minimizing sequence
for F, thatis limjt-ôo F{uk) = . Since F(uk) = £>(«*)> it follows from Lemma
3.10.1(5) that
sup I g(x, uk)unk~x dx < oo (3.45)
k JQ
and that {u*} is bounded. We may assume that —- w0 in W 1 , n ( ß ) a n d w* ->· uQ a.e.
on Q. We show that u0 φ 0. In the contrary case we have that u0 = 0. Then (3.45)
and Lemma 3.10.1(4) imply that
k—>OQ k—t-oo Q L
lim ||«*||η = n li m F(uk) + I G(x, uk) dx=a(Q,g)n. (3.46)
1
By Lemma 3.10.4 we have 0 < a(Q, g)n < (ηβ·)η . Hence, it follows from Lemma
3.10.1(3) that
lim I g(x, uk)unk~l dx = 0.
k—too JQ
This implies that
0 < = lim F(uk)

η k^yoo
= lim Γ - f g(x,uk)unk l
d x - f G(x, u*)l dx = 0,
kôo\_njQ Jq J
Authenticated
which is impossible. In the next step we show that
IlKoir < f g(x,uo)un0-ldx. (3.47)

'ß
Jo
Arguing indirectly let us assume that
Μ" > f g(x,u0)un0~ldx.

Jo
This combined with (3.45) and the fact that 0 < a(Q, g)n < 1
shows that
assumptions of Lemma 3.10.3 are satisfied. Hence
lim / g(x,uk)unk~l dx = / g{x,u0)un~x dx

k-*ooJ 0 J0
and we get
|«o||n < liminf ||«*|Γ = l i m i n f f g(x, uk)u"~l dx

K—t00 K—• OG JQ
g(x,u0)un0 1
-L dx
and we have arrived at a contradiction. By Step 2 of the proof of Lemma 3.10.4 there
exists γ > 0 such that yu0 e V. Since b is weakly lower semicontinuous we get
a(Q,g)n r, \ ι· r Γ/ ν .. ν a(Q,g)n
5 F(yu0) = b(yu0) = lim inf b{uk) = lim F(Uk) =
η k—Kxt k—too η
and this implies that γ = 1 and u0 € V. •

Potential operator equations in a Hilbert space of the type considered in Sections 3.1
and 3.2 were studied by Stuart in papers [215], [216] and [217] and by Ruppen [193].
Related work was done by Rother [188], [189], [190], [191] and [192]. Application
of perturbation Theorem 3.4.1 to the solvability of problem (3.18)-(3.19), as well as
Theorem 3.5.1, appears to be new. Existence results derived here by perturbation
Theorems 3.4.2 and 3.5.1 were already obtained by Wei Yue Ding and Wei-Ming Ni
[101]. Their approach is based on the approximation of problem (3.18)—(3.19) by a
sequence of solutions of the Dirichlet problem in bounded domains and on application
in some uniform way the mountain pass theorem. For related results in the Orlicz-
Sobolev spaces we refer the work of Badiale-Citti [22] and Citti [81], [82] and [83].

Authenticated
The proof of Theorem 3.6.1 is modelled on the paper by Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz [10].

Results of Section 3.7 are taken from the papers of Jeanjean [137] and Alama-Li
[6]. Variational problems discussed in this section are characterized by the appearence
of indefinite functionals. Further results concerning these functionals, in particular
bifurcation results, can be found in [49], [50], [103], [135], [143] and [144]. In
Sections 3.9-3.11 we closely followed the work of Adimurthi [2] and we also refer to
the related work of Joäo Marcos B. do 0 [163]. Further extensions in case η = 2 can be
found in Adimurthi-Yadava [3] and de Figueiredo-Miyagaki-Ruff [117]. Proposition
3.10.1 is due to Moser [167] and Proposition 3.10.2 is taken from P. L. Lions [159].

Authenticated
Chapter 4
Potentials with covariance condition
The main objective of this chapter is to extend results from Chapter 1 concerning
constrained minimization and the dual methods to potentials satisfying a covariance
condition with respect to a group of transformations. We also discuss relations between
constrained minimizations and their relations to the mountain pass theorem.
4.1 Preliminaries and constrained minimization

Let X be reflexive Banach space. We suppose that for every σ > 0 a linear map
Τσ : X ->· X is given such that
Τσι ο Τσ2 = Τσισ2 and Τ\ = id
for all σι > 0, i = 1,2.

Let £ be a subspace of X such that Ta{E) c Ε for each σ > 0.
Throughout this section we impose the following covariance conditions on func-
tional a : X R and b : D(b) —• R, where D(b) is the domain of b.
(C,) b : D{b) R with Ε c D(b), D(b) + £ c Ta(D(b)) C D{b) and
q
b(Tau) = o b(u) for each σ > 0 and u 6 £>(£).
(C 2 ) a : X —• R and a(Tau) = aPa(u) for each σ > 0 and u e D{b).
We assume here that ρ and q are real numbers.
Assuming that {u e D(b)\ b(u) = 1} Φ 0, we can consider

(J) J = inf{e(«); u € D(b),b(u) = 1}.
Theorem 4.1.1.
(i) Suppose that A is a potential operator with a potential a. Moreover, suppose
that the problem (J) has a solution u and that b has a linear continuous Gateaux
derivative (B(u), u) at all directions ν in E. Then
(A(u),v) = J?-(B(u),v)
Q

Authenticated
116 4 Potentials with covariance condition
for all υ 6 Ε. The junctionals a and b have linear continuous Gateaux derivatives
at all directions Tau, σ > 0, satisfying
(A(Tau), v) = ?-Jot-P{B(Jau, υ)
for all υ ε Ε and σ > 0. Further, if & J > 0 and ρ — q φ 0, then the "scaled
<Α(ΰ), υ) = {B(ü), υ)
for all υ e E.
(ii) Suppose that {u € D(b); b(u) = 1} φ 0. Further, we assume that A is strongly
monotone, b- is weakly lower semicontinuous and that all weak limit points of
every bounded subset of level set {u e D(b)\ b(u) = 1} belong to D(b). Then
the constrained minimization problem (7) has α nontrivial solution with J > 0.
Proof. The proof is similar to that of Theorem 1.2.1, therefore we only sketch the
proof of part (i). Setting k = ( A ( u ) , υ) and h = (B(u), v) we get
b(Tau + €Τσν) =aHl+eh + o(€)).
There exists ea > 0 such that 1 + eh + o(e) > 0 for all |e| < € 0 . For such e there
exists σ = σ(ε) so that
b{T0u + €Τσυ) — 1 that is σ = (1 + eA + o(e)) ι.
On the other hand
k - -Jh = 0
q
and the first claim follows. To prove the second part we observe that
a(T„u + ev) = apa(u + €Τσ 'υ)
and this allow us to prove that
{A(Tau), v) = ap(A(u), T~lv)
and similarly
(.B(T(ru),v)=a<f{B(u),T-]v)

Authenticated
and the second claim easily follows. The proof of the claim concerning "the scaled
minimizer" is now a routine and is omitted. •
We now establish the existence result for problem ( / ) in which we assume that
the potentials a and b satisfy some inequalities. However, we drop the assumption of
positivity of b and strong monotonicity of a.
We assume that a and b satisfy the covariance conditions (Ci) and (C2) with
D(b) = X and ρ φ q.
Theorem 4.1.2. Suppose that there exists a Banach subspace X\ C X equipped with
a norm from X and a mapping Τ : X X\ such that a(T(u)) < a(u) and b(T(u)) =
b(u)foreachu e X andletb(u0) > 0for some uQ G X. Moreover, we assume that a is
weakly lower semicontinuous and that b admits a decomposition b(u) — b\(u) — b2(u)
on X, with b\ and b2 nonnegative on X, where b\\xx is weakly continuous, bi is weakly
lower semicontinuous and
(i) there exist constants 0 < € < 1 and C > 0 and a > 0 such that
b\(u) < eb2(u) + Ca(u)a
in X,
(ii) \\u\\ß < C(b2(u) + a(u)y) for some constants β > 0, C > 0 and γ > 0.
Then problem (J) has α nontrivial solution.
Proof The set {b(u) = 1} is nonempty, because b(Tau0) = aqb{ua) = 1 if

σ = b(uo) 1. Let {um} C X be a minimizing sequence for (J). Since b(T(um)) =
b(um) = 1 and a(T{um)) < a(um) we may assume that wm = T{um) is a minimiz-
ing sequence which belongs to X\. Combining the inequality in (i) with b\(wm) =
bi{wm) + 1 we get
\ + (I - €)b2(wm) < Ca(wm)a.
This implies that J > 0 and that {b2(w m )} is bounded. According to (ii) the se-
quence [wm] must be bounded. Therefore, we may assume that wm w in X\ and
consequently b\(wm) -»· b\(w) as m —• 00. On the other hand we have
bitw) < liminf b2(wm) = lim bi(wm) — 1 = b\(w) — 1

m-+ 00 m—>-oo
and
1 < bi(w) - b2(w) = b{w),
hence w φ 0 and
0 < a(w) < liminfa(u> m ) = J.
m—>00
We now show that b(w) = 1. Assuming that b(w) > 1, there exists 0 < σ < 1 such
that
b(Taw) = aqb{w) = 1

Authenticated
and consequently
J < a(T„w) = σρα(ιυ) < σρJ,
that is, σ > 1 which is impossible. Since b(w) = 1 and a(w) < J we must have
a(w) = 7 and this completes the proof. •
As an application of Theorem 4.1.2 we establish an existence result for the problem
— Au = g(u) in M",
(4.1)
u € Wl'2(Ra), ιιιφΟ.
It is assumed that g : R R satisfies the following conditions
- oo < lim inf < lim sup s

= - d < 0, (4.2)
s->0+ s
- oo < lim ^ < 0 with I = Ί+λ. (4.3)

ί-»οο sl η — 2
Moreover, we assume that there exists ζ > 0 such that
G(0= ί g(s)ds> 0. (4.4)

Jo
We take Τσ : Wl-2(Rn) W 1 - 2 (R"), defined by
Tau = "(-), σ > 0,
as a group of transformations. As a subspace Xi and a mapping Γ : X —• Χι, we

take Xi = H)(Rn) and (Γη)ΟΟ = μ*(|jcI) (Schwarz symmetrization, see Appendix,
Section A.6).
Proposition 4.1.1. Suppose that assumptions (4.2), (4.3) and (4.4) hold. Then problem
(4.1) admits a solution.
Proof. The result follows from Theorem 4.1.1 (i) and Theorem 4.1.2. We set
a(ii) = i f \Du(x)\2dx and b(u) = f G(u(x))dx.
First, we check that the level set {u e &(") = 1} is nonempty. For R > 0
we define a function WR : M" —• Μ by
ζ for <
lUtfOO = £(/? +l-|*l) for/? < |jc| < R + 1,
0 for |x| > R + 1.

Authenticated
Obviously, WR g W 1 , 2 ( R " ) and we have
b(wR) > G ( f ) | f i ( 0 , R)I - |B(0, R+ 1) - B(0, R)\ max |G(*)|.
It is clear that there exist constants C\ > 0 and C2 > 0 such that
b(wR) >CiRn- C2Rn~l
and for R sufficiently large Ö(WR) > 0. To verify assumptions (i) and (ii) of Theorem
4.1.2 we set
gl CO = (g(s) + ds)+ and g 2 0 ) = giO) - g(s)
and we extend gi and g2 as odd functions. We have gi > 0 and g2 > 0 on [0, 00) and
l i m £ l « = 0 , lim = 0
.?->0+ s s->oo sl
and g2(s) > ds for each s.

Setting Gi (z) = /0Z gi (s) ds we write
b(u) = f G(u(x))dx= I G\{u(x))dx — f G2(u(x))dx = bi(u)-b2(u)

J R" J R" JR"
for all u ε W 1 , 2 ( R B ) . It follows from (4.2) and (4.3) that for every e > 0 there exists
C€ > 0 such that
Gi(j)<eG2(i) + CeM/+1,
hence using the Sobolev inequality we get
b\(u) < eb2(u) + C€Sa(u
and (i) holds. Finally, observing that g2(s) > ds we get
b2(u)>^; f u(x)2dx
J Rn
for all μ e W 1 · 2 ^ " ) , that is,
\\u\\2 <h2(u) + a(u)

a
and (ii) holds. •

Authenticated
4.2 Dual method

We assume that (Cι) and (C2) hold. The dual method consists of finding a maximizer
of the problem
(Η) Η = sup{&(«); a(u) = 1 and u € D(b)}.
Theorem 4.2.1 below is an analogue of Theorem 1.3.1.
Theorem 4.2.1. Let A be a potential operator with a potential a. Suppose that problem
(Η) has a solution u and that b has a linear continuous Gateaux derivative at all
directions ν e E. Then
(B(u),v) = ?-H(A(u),v)
Ρ
for each ν e Ε and
{.B(Tau), v) = —Haq~p(A{Tau), υ)
Ρ
q P
for all ν e Ε and σ > 0 . I f ^ H > 0 and ρ - q φ 0, then for σ = , the
"scaled minimizer" ü = T„u satisfies
(A(ü),v) = (B(ü),v)
for all ν € E.
The proof is similar to that of Theorem 1.3.1 and therefore is omitted.
4.3 Minimization subject to constraint V

By a straightforward calculation we check that if ü is the "scaled minimizer" of problem
(H), then u satisfies the equation
a(ü) = ?-b(ü). (4.5)

Ρ
Let us define a set V by
V = {ueX- {0}; a(u) = -b(u)}

Ρ
and consider the constrained minimization problem
0) j =mm{a(u)-b(u)\ u €V}.
Similarly, if ü is the "scaled minimizer" of problem (J), then ü satisfies equation (4.1).
Authenticated
4.4 Sobolev inequality 121
We now state without a proof Propositions 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 which show that the
existence of solutions of minimizing problems ( / ) and (Η) leads to the existence of a
solution of problem ( j ) . The proofs of Propositions 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 are similar to those
of Propositions 1.4.1 and 1.5.1. For the sake of simplicity we assume that D(b) = X.
Obviously, we assume that covariance condition for a and b hold.
Proposition 4.3.1. Let £ e (0, 1). Suppose that A is strongly monotone potential
operator and that b is a positive strongly continuous potential with a potential opera-
P
tor B. Ifü = Tau, with σ = , where u is a solution of problem (J), then ü
is a solution of the constrained minimization problem (j).
Proposition 4.3.2. Let ^ > 1. Suppose that A is a strongly monotone potential oper-
ator and that b is a positive strongly continuous potential with a potential operator B.
I f ü = TäU, with a — { j f j ^ j ' ? > where u is a solution of problem ( / / ) , then ü is a
solution of the constrained minimization problem ( j ) .
4.4 Sobolev inequality

We assume that potential operators a and b satisfy covariance condition and that
D(b) = X.
Proposition 4.4.1. Suppose that A is a strongly monotone hemicontinuous potential
operator and that Β is a positive potential operator with its potential continuous at 0,
then there exists an absolute constant spq > 0 such that
£
spqb(v)i <a(v)
for all ν e X.
Proof Since A is strongly monotone we have

fx fx ds fl ds
a(u) = I (A(su), u) ds = / (A(su),su)— > / k(j||m||)||sm|| —
Jo Jo s Jo s
fl r ll«ll
= / /c(j||ii||)||m|| ds = / K{t)dt.
Jo Jo
We now set
spq = inf{a(«); b(u) = 1}.
We show that sp>q > 0. In the contrary case there exists {um} c X such that a (un) —• 0
as η oo. By the previous inequality we get
Hl"nll
lim I K(t)dt = 0
nôoJ Q

Authenticated
and this implies that limn_ôo ||u n || = 0. On the other hand l i m , , - ^ = &(0) = 1
which is impossible since b(0) = 0. To obtain our inequality we take ν φ 0 and set
a — — t h e n b(Tav) = 1 and
b(v)1
a(v)
j = a ( Τ σ υ ) > Spq
b{v)i
As an application we establish the existence of an absolute minimizer.

Proposition 4.4.2. Suppose that A is a continuous strongly monotone potential op-
erator and that Β is a positive and strongly continuous potential operator. Further,
assume that covariance constants ρ and q are such that ^ > 1. Then there exists u0
such that
F(u0) = inf F(u) < 0.
u&X
Proof. First we show that F is bounded from below. Indeed, if follows from the
Sobolev inequality that
F(m) = a(u) - b(u) > a(u) - Sp}a(u)p > a(u)p (a(u)l~p - l)
and the claim follows. Let ν φ 0, then since α (υ) and b(v) φ 0 we see that
F(Tav) = σρα(υ) - aqb(v) <0

provided σ is sufficiently small if both ρ and q are positive. If ρ and q are negative we
choose σ large and the above inequality also holds. Since F is bounded from below
we must have
- o o < inf F(u) < 0.
ueX
By Ekeland's variational principle there exists {un} such that
F(un) inf F(u) and F'(un) - » 0 in X*

ueX
as η —> oo. We now observe that under our assumptions the Palais-Smale condition
holds and the result follows. •
4.5 Mountain pass theorem and constrained minimization

We establish an inequality between infima from the mountain pass theorem and the
constrained minimization. We also formulate a rather general condition guaranteeing
that both infima are equal.

Authenticated
4.5 Mountain pass theorem and constrained minimization 123
To compare these two quantities we assume that conditions ( C i ) and (C2) are
replaced by the following assumptions:
(Di) (A(tu), u) > K\tP~x{A(u),u) and (B{tu),u) < Kit«'1 (B(u), u) for all 0 <
t < 1 and u e X and some constant K\ > 0,
(D2) {A(tu),u) < K2tp~l{A{u),u)md{B(tu),u> > K2tq~l {B(u), u) for alii > 1
and u € X and some constant K2 > 0.
Both potential operators A and Β are supposed to be hemicontinuous. The condi-

tions (£>i) and ( D 2 ) imply that
a(tu) > K\tpa{u) and b(tu) < K\tqb(u)
for all 0 < t < 1 and u € X, and
a(tu) < K2tpa(u) and b(tu) > K2tqb(u)
for all t > 1 and u € X.
Lemma 4.5.1. Let q > pand(D\), (D2) hold. Suppose that both potential operators
A and Β are positive, A is strongly monotone and that sup||M||—1 b(u) < 00. Let e e X
be such that \\e\\ > 1 and F{e) < 0. Then
0 < c = inf max F(g(t)),

ger re[0,1]
where Γ = {g e C([0, 1], X); *(0) = 0, = e.}
Proof. ForO < ||u|| < 1 we have
F(u) > KduWPaiuWuW-^-KtWuV'HuWuW-1)

> KI\\U\\PK(\) - KiM« sup b(u).
M=l
Since ρ < q there exist constants 0 < ρ < 1 and η > 0 such that F(u) > η for
u e 5 ( 0 , ρ) and F{u) > 0 for u e B(0, p) - {0} and the result easily follows. •
Lemma 4.5.2. Suppose that the assumptions ofLemma 4.5.1 hold. Then for every u φ
0 there exists a unique t > 0 such that tu € V. Ifu e V, then F(u) = maxf>o F(tu).
Proof. If f < 1, then
(F'(tu),u) = {A(tu), u) — (B(tu), u)
> Kitp{A{u),u) - Kitq{B(u),u).
Similarly, if / > 1, then
(F'(tu), u) < K2tp(A(u), u) - K2t"{B(u), u).

Authenticated
These two inequalities imply that t~p{F'(tu),u) > 0 for t > 0 close to 0 and
p
lim/ôo t~ (F'(tu), u) = —oo. Consequently, there exists t > 0 such that tu G V.
To show that t is unique we observe that for u G V and t < 1 we have
(F'(tu),u)> Kxtp(F'(u)jU) = 0
and ( F ' ( t u ) , u ) < 0 if t > 1. Finally, setting h(t) = F(tu), we see that h'{t) =
{F'(tu), u) > K\tp(F'(tu), u) = 0 if t < 1 and h'(t) < 0 for t > 1 and this proves
the second assertion of our lemma. •
We are now in a position to prove the main result of this section.
Proposition 4.5.1. Let q > ρ and let (D\) and {Di) hold. Suppose that potentials
operators A and Β are positive, A is strongly monotone and that
sup b{u) < oo.

IMI=1
Further, we assume that potentials a and b are continuous and that for each u e V
and all β > 0 b(u + ße) > 0. Then j > c, that is
min F(m) > inf max F(g(t)).

«εν ger fe[0,i]
Proof. We fix u e V and set V+ = {au + ße, a > 0, β > 0}. Since A and Β are
positive we check that
F(tu + tße) < K2tpa(u + ße) - K2tqb(u + ße)
for t > I and consequently l i m , - ^ F(tu + tße) = —oo. By a compactness argument

we can find R > 1 such that F(au + be) < 0 for all a > 0 and a + b = R. We
now define the path g consisting of segments with endpoints 0 and Ru, the segment
with endpoints Ru and Re and the segment passing through Re and e. We see that
u G g and g G Γ. Since F(u) = max/>o F(tu), we have F{u) = m a x „ e | F(v), that
is i n f u 6 v F(v) > c. •
The question arises as to whether the equality c = j holds. Obviously, this holds
if there exists a critical point u φ 0 of F with F(u) — c.
We now formulate a slightly more general condition guaranteeing c = j.
We say that the functional F(u) = a(u) — b(u) has a property (D) if there exist an
increasing sequence of Banach subspaces of X, with (Jn>i dense in X, and
an element e belonging to each subspace Xn, with ||e|| > 1, such that each functional
Fm — F \xm has a nontrivial critical point um of the mountain pass type, that is,
F(um) = cm = inf max Fm(g(t)),

germt€[ 0,1]
with cm c, where r m = ( g e C([0,1]; Xm)\ g(0) = 0, g(e) = 1}.

Authenticated
4.6 Minimization problem for a system of equations 125
Proposition 4.5.2. Suppose that condition (D) and assumptions of Proposition 4.5.1
hold. Then c = j.
Proof. For each m we have
um e [u e Xm - {0}; (A(u), u) = (B(u),«)} c V,
hence j < F(um) = cm. Since cm -*• c, the result follows. •
Inspection of the proofs presented in this section shows that the positivity of Β can
be replaced by the following requirement: b > 0 on X, b(e) > 0 for some e € X and
b(u + ße) > 0 for all β > 0 and u eV.
4.6 Minimization problem for a system of equations

To illustrate Theorem 4.1.1 we establish the existence of a solution in
of a system of equations
Aui = gi (x,u) in i = 1 , . . . , m, (4.6)
where« = (u\,... ,um) andg : Μ" χ R m R m satisfies the Caratheodory condition.

In what follows we always assume that there exists a function G : R" χ R m —• Κ
satisfying the Caratheodory condition, such that G{x,y) > 0 on a set of positive
measure, G(x, 0) = 0 a.e. on R" and G > 0 on R" x R m . Moreover, for a.e. jc e R"
G(x,y) is differentiable in y e R m and
g(x,y) = VyG(x,y) οηΚ"χΚ™.
It follows from Proposition A.8.1 (see Appendix A.8) that if
I g U ^ I ^ ^ X M ^ + b'r 1 )
and
< Ch(x)(\y\p + |y|9)
for a.e. χ € MP and all y € R"1 for some exponents 1 < ρ < q < oo and some
nonnegative function h e L^0C(R"), s > q, where C > 0 is a constant, then a functional
b : Wl<2(R", R m ) R defined by
b(u)= / G(x,u)dx
JR"
has a linear Gateaux derivative for all u e D{G) η LjîR") in all directions φ e
C f (R"; R m ). Obviously, C ~ ( R " , R m ) c D{G).

Authenticated
To apply Theorem 4.1.1 (ii) we must ensure that b+ is weakly continuous. This will
be achieved by introducing asumptions on G garanteeing that the Nemytsky operator
associated with G+ satisfies the condition of concentration and of incomplete decay
at infinity (see Theorem A.4.1 in Appendix A.4).
To solve the system (4.6) we consider a minimization problem
(/) mm{f^Y,j=i[\Duj(x)\2 + Uj(x)2]dx·, b(u) = 1 ,u€ D(b)}
and set
I f
a M
( ) = ö/ T][\Duj(x)\2 + Uj(x)2]dx.
1
JW JTj
Theorem 4.6.1. Let G : RRT Χ R W -> R be a Caratheodory function which is positive

on a set of positive measure. Suppose that (a, G) satisfies the covariance condition
with respect to a group {Τσ}, er > 0 , on W 1 · 2 ^ " ) with (r, s), Ls e (0, 1). Moreover,
we suppose that
(a) there exists a function h e Lq(W) Π L"oc(Mm), with a > q and | = 1 - £ such
that for all y £ Rm and a.e χ eR"
G+(x,y) <h(x)\y\P
or
(b) there exists a function h e L°°(E m ) such that
(i) limî-ôo h(x) = 0 and
(ii)
bk(x)= sup{| y\-2*G+(x,y)}
I >1>λ
satisfies bx —> 0 as λ -> oo in L ^ c ( R n ) and finally
G+(x,y) < h(x)\y\2*
for ally € R M and a.e. χ E R".

Then problem (I) has α nontrivial minimizer.
Proof We only sketch the proof of the part (a) of our assertion. It follows from the
Holder inequality that
G+(u) < \\h\\Lq ||«||£2.,
and consequently by the Sobolev inequality we have
G+(u)<C(\\Vu\\L2 + \\u\\L2)P.
This implies that if My ^ u in W 1 I 2 ( R \ R M ), then G+(uj) = G+(·, uj(·)) belong to

L1 (M") for each j , Moreover, it follows from (a) that for any compact set Κ c R" and

Authenticated
λ > 0 we have
f G + ( x , U j ( x ) ) d x < (f \h\q d x \ q
\\Uj\&
J w - K \JRn-K /
and
a
[ G+(x,uj(x))dx < ( f \ h \ d x ) ( f \uj\2*dx)*
JKn(\uj\>k) \ J k ) \ J k J
x Π (\uj\ >λ)}|ρ
w i t h Since
i = i +
1 -21
|{λ < \uj\}\p < const λ ρ
we easily deduce that conditions (C) and (D) of Theorem A.4.1 hold. This means
that b+ is weakly continuous in W I,2 (M' 1 ). Finally, we show that limit points of every
bounded subset of a level set {b(u) = 1, u € D(b)} belong to D(b). Suppose that
{uj} is a bounded sequence in W 1 , 2 (M n , R m ) such that b(uj) = 1 for each j. We may
assume that uj u in W 1 · 2 ^ " , R" 1 ). Then we have
b-(u) < liminf b-(uj) = 1- lim b + ( u j ) = 1 — b+(u),

j-+oo J-> oo
so b(u) is finite and the result follows from Theorem 4.1.1 (ii). •

Results of Sections 4.1-4.5 were motivated by Briining's paper [48]. Proposition 4.1.1
is taken from work of Berestycki-Lions [30]. For an alternative approach we refer to
thepaperof Il'jasow [136]. Theorem4.6.1 is due to Brüning [48]. Interesting examples
illuminating the results of Section 4.5 can be found in the papers of Badiale-Citti [22]
and Citti [81].

Authenticated
Chapter 5
Eigenvalues and level sets
Level sets of contrained minimizations considered in Chapter 1 were fixed since we

were dealing with homogeneous potentials. If potentials a and b are not homogeneous
then the dependence of level sets on a positive parameter leads to interesting properties
of the corresponding minima a{t) and maxima κ{ί). In this chapter we explore the
monotonicity and differentiability properties of functions σ and κ. These properties are
used to establish a sufficient and necessary condition for a solvability of an eigenvalue
problem related to the constrained minimization or maximization.
5.1 Level sets

We return to constrained minimization discussed in Chapters 1,3 and 4. In this chapter
we consider level sets depending on parameter t. Let X be a reflexive Banach space
and let A : X Μ and b : X R be potentials in C 1 (X, R) with potential operators
A : X -)· X* and Β : X X*, respectively.
If Λ is a positive potential operator, then for each u φ 0 and s > 0 we have
which implies that a (su) is strictly increasing in s > 0. Consequently, if A is positive

and its potential a is coercive then the range of a is [0, oo) and for each t > 0 the sets
S, = {w g X-, a(u) = t}
and
ω, = {« e X; a{u) < t}
are nonempty.
We set
σ(ί) = sup b(u) for t > 0 (5.1)
ueS,
and
/c(f) = inf{a(u); b(u) = t} (5.2)

Authenticated
5.1 Level sets 129
for those t > 0 for which the level set {u e X\ b{u) = t) φ 0. We start by finding a
relation between σ and κ.
Proposition 5.1.1. Suppose that A is positive, a is coercive and weakly lower semi-
continuous. Moreover, we assume that Β is positive, b is weakly continuous and that
for each t > 0 level sets {u € X; b(u) = ί} φ 0. Then
σ(κ(ί)) = ί and κ(σ(ί)) = ί (5.3)
for each t > 0.
Proof It is easy to show that both problems (5.1) and (5.2) are solvable. We only
prove the existence of a solution to problem (5.1). Let {wm} e X be a minimizing
sequence for problem (5.1), that is, a(um) = t for each m and b(um) a(t) as
tm - » oo. Since a is coercive we see that {um} is bounded and we may assume that
um —^ u. We must have b(u) = a(t) and a(u) < t. If a(u) < t, then there exists
s > 1 such that a(su) = t and consequently b(su) < σ(ί). Since b(su) is increasing
in s we also have a(t) = b(u) < b(su), which is impossible.
To show that (5.3) holds, let ü be such that b{u) = a(t) and a(u) = t. Then
t = α{ΰ) > κ{σ(ί)). Similarly, we prove that t < σ(κ(ί)) for each t > 0. Suppose
that for some t > 0, a(ic(t)) > t. Then there exists a sequence {um} c X such that
a(um) = κ(ί) and b(um) —• σ(κ(ί)) as m oo. We may assume that b(um) > t + e
for some e > 0 and all m. Since b(sum) for each um is strictly increasing, there exists
sm < 1 such that b(smum) = t. Thus a(umsm) > κ(ί), which is impossible because
a(SmUm) < a(um)· By a similar argument we show that κ(σ(ί)) = t. •
Inspection of the proof of Proposition 5.1.1 shows that if Β is a positive potential

operator, then {u e X\ b{u) = t) φ 0 for t e [0, Τ), where Τ = sup t t e ^ b(u). If Β is
coercive then Τ = oo.
In a general case we have
Proposition 5.1.2. Ifb{u) > 0 for some u e X, then all level sets ( v e X : b(v) = s}
are nonempty for all 0 < s < b(u). Moreover, if a is a positive potential, then κ{ί) is
strictly increasing for t € [0, b(u)].
Proof Let h{r) = b(ru) for 0 < r < 1 and let 0 < s < b(u). By the mean value
theorem there exists 0 < r < 1 such that Λ (τ) = s.
Let 0 < ii < S2 < b(u) and € > 0. We can choose w e X such that b(w) = S2
and a(w) < k(s2) + e. By the mean value theorem there exists 0 < r < 1 such that
b{xw) = Since α(ίΐϋ) is a strictly increasing function in s we have
< α(τιυ) < a(w) < ic(s2) + e
and this implies that k(ji) < k(s2)· •

Authenticated
130 5 Eigenvalues and level sets
We shall return to the question of the monotonicity of κ in Section 5.6.

If a and b are homogeneous of degree ρ and q, respectively, then we have, using
notation of Sections 1.2 and 1.3, that σ(1) = I and κ(1) = Κ and
a ( t ) = t * I and K(t) = t * K .
In the next two sections we investigate properties of the function σ without the
positivity assumption on B. Namely, we replace this assumption by: "b has no local
maximum on X".
It is worth to observe that if Β is positive, then b has no local maximum on X.
Indeed, (B(u), u) vanishes only if u = 0 and the representation
b(su) = f (B(stu),su)dt
Jo
shows b(su) is strictly increasing in s for u φ 0.
5.2 Continuity and monotonicity of σ

To show that σ is an increasing function on [0, oo) we define
ß(t) = sup b(u) = supa(r).

«€ω, τ<ί
Lemma 5.2.1. Suppose that
(i) a is coercive,
(ii) a is weakly lower semicontinuous,
(iii) A is positive, that is, {A(u),u) > 0 for u 6 X — {0},
(iv) b has no local maximum on X,
(v) b is weakly continuous.
Then σ is increasing and continuous on [0, oo). Moreover, the maximum in (5.1)
is attained for every t > 0.
Proof Let [um] be a maximizing sequence for ß(t). Since a is coercive, {um} must
be bounded and we may assume that um «ο and by (ii) uQ e a)t. It follows from
(v) that b(um) -»• b(u0) = ß(t). If u0 & St, then it is point of interior maximum for b
in cot and this contradicts (iv). Therefore, u0 € St and er (i) = ß{t). This yields that σ
is an increasing function on [0, oo) and moreover b{u0) = max„ e s, b(u). To show the
continuity of σ we consider
σ (t0 + 0) = liminf a(t)

t-H0, t>t0

Authenticated
5.2 Continuity and monotonicity of σ 131
and
ο {to — 0) = lim sup a(t).
/->/„, t<t0
Let tm > to, tm t0. By the previous part of the proof σ (tm) is attained at um e Stm.
We may assume that um —>- u0 with u0 € ωίο. Consequently,
σ(ί 0 + 0) = b(u0) σ(ί0), hence σ(ΐ0 + 0) = σ(ί0).
Finally, let ta > 0 and w0 be such that b(u0) = cr(t0). Since a(su0) is increasing
in s we see that t(s) = a(su0) has the properties: t(s) —• t0, t(s) < ta as s 1 and
s < 1. This implies that
a(tQ — 0) > lim sup b(su) = σ(ί 0 )

j-^l, J<1
and the monotonicity of σ implies that σ (t0 — 0) < σ (t 0 ) and this completes the proof.
•
Lemma 5.2.2. Suppose that assumptions of Lemma 5.2.1 hold. Let u0 be such that
b(u0) = o(t) for some t > 0. Then there exists λ > 0 such that
XA(u0) = B(u0). (5.4)
The proof is a routine and therefore is omitted.

To proceed further let us define a set Λ, c St χ [0, oo), t e (0, oo) by
A, = {(α, λ); b(u) = <7(f), XA(u) = B(u)}.
It follows from Lemmas 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 that Λ, φ 0 for each t e (0, oo). We now
denote by Λ^· and A" projections of A, on [0, oo) and St, respectively, that is,
A^ = {λ > 0; 3u G St, («, λ) € A,}
and
A," = ( « 6 5 , ; 3 λ > 0 , (μ, λ) € A,}.
It is clear that
A," = ( « 6 S ( ; b(u)=a(t)}
and
λ r \BW,u) u)
(B(u), l
A, = 1 λ = , u € A, 1
' I (Λ(μ),«)' Ί
We need the following lemma.

Authenticated
Lemma 5.2.3. Suppose that assumptions of Lemma 5.2.1 hold and additionally we
assume that
(αϊ) ifum u0, then
a(um) a(u0) {A(um), um) ->· (A(u0), u0),
(£*2) (B(u), u) is weakly continuous.

For a set Τ C (0, oo) we put
AT = \jAt.
teT
If Τ is compact in (0, oo), then At is weakly compact in Χ χ (0, oo).
Proof. Let [um, tm) C Atm with {tm} c T. We may assume that tm t0 e
T. It follows from (i) and (ii) of Lemma 5.2.1 that {um} has a weakly convergent
subsequence, relabeled again by {u m }, such that um —^ u0 with ua e a>to. By Lemma
5.2.1(v) b(um) —• b(u0), b{u0) = o{t0) and u0 € Sto. This means that u0 e A /o . Let
Xm and λ 0 be eigenvalues corresponding to um and u0, respectively. We then have
(B(u m
Am —
—• , Αι ο —
{A(um),um) ( Λ ( Μ Ο ) , Μ Ο )
and using (αϊ) and (02) we readily deduce that Am —• λ 0 . •
5.3 The differentiability properties of σ

The aim of this section is to show that a(t) has right and left hand derivatives for each
t > 0. We also give some conditions guaranteeing the differentiability of σ. In the
proof of Theorem 5.3.1 we make use of Dini's derivatives which are defined as follows:
n+ λ ι· g(0-g(*o) n , .. ..a(t)-a(t0)
D o{t0) = limsup , D +o(t0) = yliminf
f->-/0,/>f0 t — to t-+to,t>to t — to
and
D a(t0)= limsup , D-a(t0)= liminf .

t ^ t a , t < t a t - to t-*t 0 ,t<t 0 t - t 0
Theorem 5.3.1. Suppose that assumptions (i)-(v) of Lemma 5.2.1 and assumptions
(αϊ) and (02) of Lemma 5.2.3 hold. Then for every t > 0 there exist left and right hand
derivatives o'+(t) and o'_(t) such that a'_{t) < σ+(ί)· Moreover,
° + ( 0 = sup{p; ρ G Λ*} (5.5)

Authenticated
5.3 The differentiability properties of σ 133
and
= inf{p; ρ e A*}. (5.6)
Proof. First, we observe that according to Lemma 5.2.3 sup in (5.5) and inf in (5.6)
are attained. Let uQ € A"o and let 9m -»• 1, tm = a(9mu0). Then tm ->· a(u0) = t0.
We also have
tm - t0 = a(9mu0) - a(uD) = ( A ( « o ) , «o)(0m - 1) + o(9m - 1)
and moreover
σ(ί„) - σ(/0) > - b(u0) = (B(u0), uQ)(ßm - 1) + o(9m - 1)

(B(u0),u0)^
= ... Λ "(im - ίο) + o(i m - ίο)·
(A(Uo), «ο)
Letting i m -»• r 0 , we get £>+σ(ί 0 ) > and D~a(t0) < j f f e f e j • Since u 0 is

arbitrary in we see that
D+a(t0) > sup{/>; ρ e A ^ } (5.7)
and
D~a(t0) < inf{p; ρ e A*}. (5.8)
Let um e A"m with tm - > i 0 . By Lemma 5.2.3 we may assume that um —^ w0 e A" o .
Since the function 5 —• a{sum ) is increasing and its range is [0, oo) we see that for
each m there exists 9m > 0 such that a(9m um) — i 0 . Moreover, the sequence {Öm}
must be bounded and we may assume that 9m —• 9a. Now, there exists ηη e [9m, 1]
such that
tm ~ to = a(um) - a{9mum) = (A^mum), um)( 1 - 9m).
Since 9mum —^ 90u0, we necessarily have 90 = 1. Consequently, ηη —• 1 and
tm ~ to = (A(um), um)( 1 - 9m) + o( 1 - 9m).
Similarly,
&(«„) - = (£(«„), um)(1 - 0 m ) + o{ 1 - 0 m )
and hence
tr(/ m ) - or (ίο) < Hum) ~ b{9mum) = (ß(w m ), um)(\ - 9m) + o(\ - 9m)
(B(um), Mm)
(tm ~ to) + o(tm ~ t0).
(A(um),um)
Assumptions (a\) and (02) imply that (A(um), um) -»• (A(u0), u0) and (B(um), um) —•
( 5 ( u 0 ) , «ο)· Therefore, it follows from the last equality that
D+a(t0) < sup{p; ρ e A M (5.9)

Authenticated
and
D-a{t0) > inf{p; ρ G A M . (5.10)
To complete the proof we observe that (5.9) and (5.7) imply the existence of a'+{t0)
and (5.8) and (5.10) imply the existence of σ'_ (t 0 ). •
As an immediate consequence of Theorem 5.3.1 we obtain
Theorem 5.3.2. Suppose that assumption of Theorem 5.3 Λ hold. Then for every t > 0
there exists u+ and m_ in St such that
a'+{t)A{u+) = B(u+)
and
a'_{t)A(u-) = B(u-).
A natural question arises as to whether the function σ (t) is differentiable. To answer

this question we need the following result.
Proposition 5.3.1. Suppose that assumptions of Theorem 5.3.1 hold and thatfor every
t G (si, S2) the set A" consists ofsingle element u(. Then the mapping t —» ut is weakly
continuous in (jj , S2).
Proof Let {tm} C (si, S2) and tm -> t0. Applying Lemma 5.2.3 with Τ = {rm}, we
see that there exists a weakly convergent subsequence of {ulfn}, denoted again by {utm},
such that Ufm u0 with u0 e A"o. Since A"o = {m/o}, the whole sequence {utm} must
be weakly convergent to u0. •
Corollary 5.3.1. Suppose that assumptions of Theorem 5.3.1 hold and that for every
t G (si, ^2) the set A" consists of a single element ut. Then the problem
kA(u) = B(u) (5.11)
possesses a weakly continuous family of eigenfunctions t ut corresponding to

eigenvalues
λ _ {B(ut),ut)
' {A(ut),ut)
continuous on (ji , 52)· Then functional) has a continuous derivative on (jj , 52) and
λ, = a\t).
We now establish a simple criterion which can be used to show that the set A"
consists of exactly one element.

Authenticated
Proposition 5.3.2. Let h : Χ χ Χ X be a mapping such that

(b\) a(h(u, υ)) < max{a(u), a{v)} for u φ ν,
(bi) b(h(u, υ)) > min{6(u), b(v)}foru, ν € X.
Then for every t > 0, Λ" consists of a single element.
Proof Suppose that there exists u, ν in Λ" with u φ v. By ) h(u, ν) 6 ω(> for
some t' < t. On the other hand (fo) implies that b(h(u, ν)) > b(u) = a(t) and we
get a contradiction with Lemma 5.2.1. •
Corollary 5.3.2. Let a be strictly convex and b concave on X. Then for each t > 0
A" consists exactly of one element.
Proof. We apply Proposition 5.3.2 with

h(u, υ) = ku + (1 — λ)υ
for λ e (0, 1). •
If σ e CjîO, oo), we define

I(A, B) = (mfa'_(t),supff'+(t)).
' t
If λ € I (A, B), then problem (5.11) has a nontrivial solution.
In the next section we construct an example showing that in general σ does not
have a continuous derivative. Therefore, we wish to determine a subset of I (A, Β) for
which problem (5.11) still has a nontrivial solution.
Proposition 5.3.3. Suppose that the functional Xt — a(t) has a local minimum on
(0, oo). Then problem (5.11) has α nontrivial solution.
Proof. If Xt — a{t) has a local minimum at t0 e (0, oo), then

o+(t0) <X< σ'_ (t0).
On the other hand, by Theorem 5.3.1 we always have a'_(t0) < σ'+ (tQ) and consequently
σ is differentiate at t0 and a(t0) = X. •
To obtain a more general result we use a version of the mountain pass theorem
without the (PS) condition which will be proved in the next section.
5.4 Schechter's version of the mountain pass theorem

To establish criterion for solvability of the eigenvalue problem (5.11) we use the moun-
tain pass theorem without the (PS) condition due to Schechter [197].

Authenticated
Let G e C 1 (X, M) and let e be a fixed nonzero element of X. By Μ we denote the

family of all open and bounded sets Ν c X such that 0 e Ν and e g Ν.
Let Ψ denote the set of non-increasing functions ψ : (0, oo) —> (0, oo) such that
oo
/ x}r(t)dt = oo. (5.12)

We set
b = sup inf G(u). (5.13)
NeMuedN
We aim to show that given ψ G Ψ we can find a sequence {um} c X such that
G(um ) b and ψ^γ - > 0. We commence with a variant of the deformation lemma.
In what follows we use notation Gc = {u e X; G(u) > c}.
L e m m a 5 . 4 . 1 . Let ψ G Ψ, c G R α/id G G C ' C X . R ) . Suppose that ||G'(u)|| >

Ψ(\\η\\) for all u satisfying \G(u) — c\ < 80 for some 80 and let u\, «2 X with
G(u\), G{u2) < c, be given. Then for each e > 0 satisfying
0 < € < min ~(c - G(M)), I ( c - G(H2)))
am/ eve/7 closed bounded set Μ C G c _ e rcoi containing u\ and U2, there exists a
continuous mapping a : [0, Γ] χ X —> X
(i) a(t, u) = u for t G [ 0 , T ] a n d u $ G _ , ( [ c - 2e, c + 2e]),
(ii) G(a(F, w)) IS nondecreasing in t G [0, 7 ] for every fixed u € X,
(iii) | | a { t , u ) - M|| < t for t G [0, T]andue X,
(iv) σ(Τ, Μ) C G c + f .
Proof Let
<2I = {UGX; \G(U)-C\<€),
02 = {«EX; | G I ( M ) — c| > 2E}
and define a locally Lipschitz function η : X -»· [0, 1] by

d(u, β2)
=
d(u, Q\) + d(u, Q2y
which has the following properties: 77(1/) = 1 on Q\, η{ύ) = 0 on Q2. By virtue of
Lemma 2.4.2 there exists a locally Lipschitz continuous pseudogradient Y for G such
that
(G'(u),Y(u))>^\\G'(u)\\ and ||7(«)|| < 1
for Μ G {M; G » # 0}. We set W(u) = n(u)Y(u). The functional W : X X is

Lipschitz continuous and such that
(G'(u), W(u)) > 0 and ||W(u)|| < 1

Authenticated
on X. The deformation mapping will be defined as a solution of the initial value

problem
u) = W(a(t, u)), σ(0, u) = u. (5.14)
at
For each u G X this problem has a unique solution a(t, u) defined for all t > 0 and
verifying
\\a(t,u)-u\\ <t, (5.15)
^-G{a(t, u)) = {G'(a(t, u)), W{a{t, u))) (5.16)

at
> ^(°(t,u))\\G'(a(t,u))\\ >0
for alii > Oandw G X. The inequalities (5.15) and (5.16) easily follow from properties
of W and Y. Inequality (5.16) implies that G(a(t, u)) is nondecreasing in t for each
u g X. Let Μ be a closed and bounded subset of Gc~e with w, & M,i = 1 , 2 . Setting
Κ = sup w e ^ \\u\\ we choose Τ > 0 so that
1 fK+T
2€<- f{t)dt. (5.17)
^ Jκ
We show that the mapping a(t, u) restricted to t e [0, T] has properties (i)-(iv). It is
obvious that σ satisfies (i), (ii) and (iii). Since G(a(t, u)) is nondecreasing in t we see
that
G(a(t,u)) > c - € for μ e Μ and ί > 0. (5.18)
If u G Μ and u £ Q ι, we obviously have
G(a(T,u)) > G(m) > c + €.
If u G Μ Π Q\ we denote by t\ the largest number not greater than Τ such that

a{t, u) G Q\ for 0 < t < t\. If t\ < T, then for 8 > 0 sufficiently small we have
G(a(t\ +8, u)) > G(a(ti,u)) > c-e.
Since a(t\ + 8, u) & Q\, we have that G{a(t\ + 8, u)) > c + € and consequently
G(a(T, u)) > c + € for ueM.
It remains to consider the case t\ = Τ. Since η(μ) = 1 on Q\, we easily check, using
(5.16) and (5.17), that
G(a(T,u))-G(u) > i / ' Γ | | σ / ( σ ( ί , « ) ) Ι | Λ > ^ Γ ψ(\\a(t,u)\\)dt

ϊ J0 ^ Jo
τ τ
> MM +t)dt>^J^ rlf(K + t)dt
K+T
\f/(t)dt > 2e.
2 Jκ

Authenticated
This estimate combined with (5.18) shows that (iv) holds. •
Theorem 5.4.1. Let G E C 1 (X, R) and suppose that there exist N0 E Ν and ρ e Ε
such that G(0) < p, G(e) < ρ and
G(u) > ρ foralluedNo.
Then for every ψ e Ψ there exists a sequence {w*} C X such that
G(uk) —>· b (5.19)
and
- — - 0 (5.20)
as k —*• oo.
Proof. Since ρ < b, we have G(0), (G(e) < b. If (5.19) and (5.20) were not
true we could find e > 0 and f E Ψ such that ||G'(m)|| > V(LL"II) for all satisfying
IG(u) — bI < 3e. Taking € > 0 smaller, if necessary, we may assume that 3e <
min(& — G(0), b — G(e)) and that Lemma 5.4.1 holds for this choice of €. According
to the definition of b we can find Ν e M such that G(u) > b — € for u e dN. We
now apply Lemma 5.4.1 with u\ = 0, «2 = e and Μ = dN. Let η : [0, Γ] χ Χ —> Χ
be a deformation mapping satisfying (i)—(iv) from this lemma. Let στ(u) = σ(Τ, u)
and set Nj — oy 1 (N). It follows from (iii) and the continuous dependence of a(t, u)
on u that dNj = σ ^ 1 (dN). Since σ(Τ, 0) = 0 and σ(Τ, e) = e, we have that 0 e Νγ
and e & Ντ· This means that Νγ € λί. It follows from (iv) that G(u) > b + € for
u e dNT which impossible. •
5.5 General condition for solvability of (5.11)

For a constant θ € Μ we set
ae(u) = G(A(u),u) — a(u),
be(u) = e(B(u),u)-b(u)
and
Φ = {θ € Μ; \ae \ is coercive}.
Finally, let Q (θ) be a set of limit points of ^ ^ when ||m || oo, θ g Φ and we define
Q* = Π ß^·
βεΦ

Authenticated
5.5 General condition for solvability of (5.11) 139
Theorem 5.5.1. Suppose that assumptions ( i ) - ( v ) of Lemma 5.2.1 and assumptions

( α ϊ ) and (02) of Lemma 5.2.3 hold. Moreover, we assume that potential operators A
and Β are weakly continuous. Then for every k e I (A, B) — Q*, problem (5.11) has
nontrivial solution.
Proof. Let λ e / ( Α , Β) - β * , that is, λ is a slope of secant to the graph of σ ( ί ) , the

functional \ae\ is coercive for some θ and λ is not a limit point of ^ as ||u|| —*• 00. If
kt — a(t) has a local minimum at t φ 0, then the result follows from Proposition 5.3.3,
so we can consider the case when kt — σ ( ί ) has no local minimum. If λ = σ + ( ί 0 ) or
λ = σ'_ (t0) for some t0 > 0, then by Theorem 5.3.2 λ is an eigenvalue. Consequently,
it remains to consider the case: σ'_(ί0) < λ < <7+(t0) for some t0 > 0. This means that
t0 is a point of local maximum of kt — σ(ί). Since kt — a(t) has no local minimum,
t0 must be a point of strict global maximum. Let 8 = kt0 — a(t0) > 0 and there exists
t\ > t0 such that δι = λίι — a(t\) < We now apply Theorem 5.4.1, with ψ(ί) = j ,
t > 0, to a functional F : X —> R defined by
F(u) = ka(u) — b(u) — Si.
It is easy to check that all assumptions of this theorem are satisfied with N0 = {u e
X ; a(u) < to} and u0 e Stl. Hence, there exists a sequence c X and a constant
y > 0 such that
ka(uk) - b(uk) ^ δι + γ > δ\ (5.21)
and
||λΑ(«*)-β(Μ*)||||«*|| - > 0 . (5.22)
From this we deduce that
k(A(uk), uk) - (B(uk), uk) 0
and
λ<3<?(«*) - be(u,t) -y - δι.
If HufcH -»• 00, then ag(uk) ->• 00 and λ = limjfc-»oo which is impossible.
Therefore, {uk} is bounded and we may assume that uit —^ u0. Since A and Β are
weakly continuous it follows from (5.22) that
λΑ(«0) = B(u0).
Consequently, from (02) of Lemma 5.2.3 and (5.22) we get
lim k(A(uk), uic) = lim { B ( u k ) , u k ) = {B(u0),u0) = k(A(u0),u0).

k 00 k—>oo
Finally, using ( α ϊ ) of Lemma 5.2.3 we get
lim a(uk) = a(u0)

it-)· 00

Authenticated
and by (5.22) and (v) of Lemma 5.2.1 we have that
0 < <5i + γ = lim ka(uic) — £(«*) = ka(u0) — b(u0)

k-+ oo
showing that u0 φ 0. •
Corollary 5.5.1. //"λ* = inf0e<t> lim s u p y ^ ^ then for every
λ € I ( Α , Β) Π (λ*, oo)
problem (5.11) has α nontrivial solution.
5.6 Properties of the function κ(ί)

We commence by showing that κ(ί) is an increasing function and to show this we do
not need positivity of the potential operator Β.
Proposition 5.6.1. Suppose that a is weakly lower semicontinuous, coercive and that
its potential operator is positive. Further, we assume that b is weakly continuous and
for each t > 0 the level set {u e X; b(u) = /} φ 0. Then κ(ί) is an increasing
function on [0, oo).
Proof. First, we show as in Lemma 5.1.1 that tc(t) is attained for each t > 0. Next,
we show that
K(t) = inf{a(«); b{u) > i}. (5.23)
Indeed, let {um} be a sequence such that a{um) —> κ(ί) and b(um) > t. Since a is
coercive, we may assume that um —^ u and b(u) > t. If b(u) > t, then a has an
interior minimum, which is impossible because a(su) is strictly increasing in s > 0;
so b(u) = t. The relation (5.23) shows that ic(t) is increasing. •
If A and Β are positive and conditions (αϊ) and (02) of Lemma 5.2.3 hold then
a'_(t) and <y'+(t) exists for each t > 0 and are positive for t > 0. Hence σ is strictly
incresing. Then (5.3) implies that ic{t) is continuous and its left hand and right hand
derivatives are given by
Theorem 5.6.1. Suppose that potential operators A and Β are positive, a is weakly
lower semicontinuous, b is weakly continuous and that conditions (a\) and (<22) of
Lemma 5.2.3 hold and that for every t > 0 {u G X; b(u) = t) φ 0. Then for

Authenticated
5.6 Properties of the function κ(t) 141
each t > 0 the function κ(ί) has left and right derivatives >c'_{t) and κ'+{ί) such that
K+(t) < κ'_(ί) and there exists u+ and u- such that
A(u+) = κ'+(ί)Β(μ+) and A(u_) = ic'_(t)B(u-).
This theorem shows that one-sided derivatives Kf_(t) and κ'+ (t) are eigenvalues of
the problem
A(u) = XB(u). (5.24)
As in Section 5.3 we define the following sets
Π, = {(«, λ); a(u) = K(t), A(u) = λΒ(«)},
Π}· = {ρ > 0 , 3M g Rt, ( u , p ) G Π,},

and
Πt = {ueRt·, 3/0 > 0 ; (u,p) € Π,},
where Rt = {u G X\ b(u) = f}.
We also have
Π? = {u € Rt-a(u) = κ(ί)}
and
λ f {A(v),v) ι
Π,f = {ρ = ; ν G Π, 1.
Γ {Β(ν),νγ η
Theorem 5.6.2. Suppose that assumptions of Theorem 5.6.1 hold, then for each t > 0
we have
* ; ( f ) = inf{p; p G n f }
and
κ'_(ί) = sup{/o; ρ G Π^}.
We now briefly discuss the analogue of Theorem 5.3.4. We need the following
result parallel to Proposition 5.3.3.
Proposition 5.6.2. Suppose that assumption of Theorem 5.6.1 hold. If λί — κ (t) has
a local maximum at tQ > 0, then problem (5.24) is solvable and we have λ = tc'(t0).
To formulate the analogue of Theorem 5.5.1 we set
J(A, Β) = (inf ic'+(t), supκ'_(0),

' t
Q(9) = the set of limits points of when ||u || oo and θ e Φ. We set
Q* = Π ÖW·
0e<J>

Authenticated
Theorem 5.6.3. Suppose that assumptions of Theorem 5.6.1 hold. Then for each
λ G J (A, B) - Q* problem (5.24) is solvable.
Proof. The proof is similar to that of Theorem 5.5.1. We reduce the proof to the case
where Xt — x(t) has a global strict minimum at ta > 0. Then λί0 — κ(ΐα) = — 5 < 0
and there exists t\ < ta such that — <$i = Xt\ — κ(ίι) > —δ. We now apply Theorem
5.4.1 to the functional F(u) = a(u) — X(u) — δι, with Ν = {u e X; b(u) > i 0 } and
n
M0 € Rti-
Corollary 5.6.1. Under assumptions of Theorem 5.6.1 we have
λ G JiA, B)-Q* <=* k~l e I {A, B) - Q
that is, the constrained minimizing and maximizing lead to the same eigenvalues.
5.7 Hilbert space case

Let Η be an infinite-dimensional real Hilbert space and let b : Η R be a con-
tinuously Frechet differentiable functional and let Β : Η ->• Η denote its potential
operator. Using notation of Section 5.1 we have
St = {u € H\ ||m||2 = t} and σ(ί) = maxfc(w).

ueSt
We assume that b(u) and (B(u),u) are weakly continuous.

If Β is positive potential operator, then it follows from Theorem 5.3.2 that for every
ί > Οσ(ί) has a left and right hand derivative σ'_ (t) and (ί) such that σ'_ it) < σ'+ it)
and there exist u+ and «_ in St such that
Biu+) = 2a'+it)u+ and B(m_) = 2 o'_(t)u—
Theorem 5.5.1 yields the following result.
Theorem 5.7.1. Suppose that λ > 0 satisfies

σ(ί)-σ(» λ ait)—σ is)
inf
Ιφ3 t - s
and there exists θ < ~ such that

biu)-e(Biu),u)
llim
im τ
II« II-* oo II« ||
Then there exists u0 φ 0 such that
ku0 = Biu0).

Authenticated
We now construct an example showing that σ is, in general, not differentiable.

Let Ω be an open and bounded sets consisting of two disjoint components Ωι and
Ω 2 in R " . Let Η = ^ 0 ' · 2 ( Ω ) and define
tp 1-1
for j c e f i i , i>0,
for x e f i 2 , i > 0 ,
0 for χ G Ω, t < 0,
w i t h 2 < p\,p2 < fy. Letb(u) = /Ω F(x, u)dx foru G Η^01,2(Ω), where F(x, t) =
/ό f ( x , s)ds and
(B(u),v) = ι f(x,t)vdx
Jn
for u, ν e ^ 0 1 ι 2 ( Ω ) .
Finally, we set
S} = {«; u G ^ ^ ( Ω Ι ) , ||M||2 = H),
and
Letting bt(u) = y /Ω. dx, i = 1, 2, we see that
PL £2
σ(ί) = max (at,21 + ßtfz )
t\+t2=t
with
α = max b\{u\) and β = max £»2("2)-
u\&S] u2€Sf
It is clear that σ (t) takes the form
a(t) = max(at^, ßt^).
If pi φ p2, then a(t) has a point t0 where it is not differentiable.
5.8 Application to elliptic equations

We apply the results of Sections 5.2 and 5.3 to establish the existence of a continuous
family of eigenvalues and eigenfuctions for a nonlinear elliptic equation of order I >2.
Let Ω be a bounded domain in R". For a positive integer I we denote by v(l) the
number of multiindices ( α ϊ , . . . , α „ ) with |α| = αϊ Η | - α η < /. L e t X = Wl0'p(£l)
and let A : Ω χ R v ( / ) R and Β : Ω χ R " ^ 1 ) R be ( ^ - f u n c t i o n s in

Authenticated
We assume that A and Β and their derivatives in {ya} are Caratheodory functions and
A(x, 0) = 0 and B(x, 0) = 0.
We impose the following conditions on A and B:
(ci) A(x, ·) is convex for almost every χ e Ω.
(c2) There exists a constant c > 0 such that
γ Α { χ , {fye}) |r=i> c J^ \ya\P, for all (*, {ya}) € Ω χ Rv«\

dt
M=i
(03) A'ya and B'ya satisfy the growth conditions
\A'ya(x, {>α})|< Μ
\ |α|</ /
for all (jc, {>>„}) e Ω χ R v w and
ι f y j x , {ja})i <m Σ + \\ß\</-*) +

\ß\<i-up\>i-f
for all (x, {_ya}) € Ω χ R 1 ^' - 1 ) and some constant Μ > 0, where
n n
P - f , i i
η- p(l- \β\) ρ
ηρ -η + ρ(1- \α\) η
η — ρ(1 — \β\) ρ
Wa e Ζ/α(Ω), ra = 1 if / - |α| > - ,

Ρ
ηρ η
ra > if I — |α| < —,
ηρ — η — ρ(1 — |α|) ρ
and Va is a continuous function on its domain of definition.
Using the Sobolev embedding theorems (see Theorem A.2.1 in Appendix) we
immediately obtain
Proposition 5.8.1. Suppose that (ci), (02) and (cj) hold. Then the fiinctionals a :
Wl-P(&) —» Μ and b : R given by
a(u)= f A(x, {Dau})dx

Jn
and
b(u)= I B{x, {Dau})dx
Ja

Authenticated
s a t i s f y conditions (i), (ii), ( i i i ) and (v) o f Lemma 5.2.1 and ( a \ ) and (<22) o f Lemma
5.2.3. Moreover, their potential operators A and Β are given by
α α
( A ( u ) 1 v ) = ί Σ Α γ α ( χ Λ Ο Η ) ) Ό ν ά χ
Jii
\a\<l
and
a a
( B ( u ) , ν) = f Σ B ' y a ( x A D u } ) D v d x
M</-1
l p
f o r all u, ν € W 0 - (Sl).
Proof. We only observe that by (ci) the set ω, = {u e X \ a ( u ) < t ) is convex. So it

is weakly closed and a is weakly lower semicontinuous. By (C2) we have
x
^ - A { x , t { y a } ) > c t P - t > 0
l«l=/
and this inequality together with the growth condition for A'ya, postulated by assump-
tion (C3), imply that a weak convergence of a sequence {uj} together with the con-
vergence of either { a ( u j ) } or { ( A ( u j ) , uj)} is equivalent to the convergence in norm.
•
As we remarked in Section 5.1 the positivity of Β implies that b has no local

maximum on X. Therefore, we have
Proposition 5.8.2. If
b^})?« > 0 (5.25)
a
f o r all χ € Ω. and ya φ 0 , then condition ( i v ) o f Lemma 5.2.1 holds.
To apply Theorem 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 we need the following definition of the eigenvalue
problem
λ (5.26)
Hi/
l ß l ß Y
= Σ ( - \ ) D B ' y p ( x , { D u ( x ) } ) in Ω ,
\ß\si-i
u(x) = 0 on 3Ω. (5.27)

A pair (λ, u) e R χ W0'p (Ω) is a solution of eigenvalue problem (5.26), (5.27) if
A x D Y u D a v d x Y ß
λ ί J 2 ' y ^ ^ ^ ^ = f Σ ß ' y ß ( x A D u ( x ) } ) D v ( x ) d x
|α|</ J n \β\<1-1
ρ
f o r all υ € ψ ί ' ( Ω ) .

Authenticated
Theorem 5.8.1. Suppose that (ci), (c2) and (C3) and (5.25) hold. Then for each t > 0
there exist m_ and u+ in Ψ10'Ρ(Ω) such that a(u±) = t and a{t) = suptt€iSr b(u) =
sup„€W( b(u) = b(u±) and pairs (o'+(t), u+) and ip'_(t), U-) are solutions of eigen-
value problem (5.26), (5.27).
Propositions 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and Corollaries 5.3.1, 5.3.2 yield
Theorem 5.8.2. Suppose that (ci), (C2), (03) and (5.25) hold and that J3(x, ·) is
concave for a.e. χ e Ω. Then there exists a continuous mapping t G (0, 00) —
(σ'(ί), ut) G (0, 00) χ wi'p(£i) such that for each t > 0 the pair (σ'(ί), ut) is a
solution of eigenvalue problem (5.26), (5.27).
We now specify problem (5.26)-(5.27) to the p-Laplacian
-kApuP = F'(u) in Ω
(5.28)
u(x) = 0 on 3Ω.
Theorem 5.8.3. Suppose that F G C'(R, R), F'(s) > 0 for s > 0 and F'(s) = 0
i
for s < 0 and that the function s F{s ρ ) is concave for s > 0. Then there exists
a continuous mapping t G (0, 00) —>• (σ'(ί), ut) G R χ ^<!'Ρ(Ω) such that a pair
(σ'(ί), ut) is a solution of the eigenvalue problem (5.28).
Proof L e t M " i . " 2 ) = (0|"il p + (1 - 0 ) | m 2 | p ) ' , O < θ < 1. Applying the Holder
inequality we get
ΐν(0|Μ1|'-1 + ( ΐ - 0 ) | « 2 ΐ ρ ) Ί ρ
I 1 eP\ui\P-lV\u2\ + {\ - e)p\u1\P~xV\u1\ ρ
p
(0|mi|P + ( 1 - 0 ) | M 2 | ' V
0 P + i 7 | « l K V | M i | + (1 - 0 ) P + 7 | M 2 | / V | M 2 |
< 0 | V | m | | p + (1 - Ö)|V|M2||P = 0|V«i\ p + (1 - Θ)|VM2lp,

with ^ + ^7 = 1. This implies that
a(he(uu u2)) < θα(μ\) + (1 - θ)α(μ2)
for «ι, «2 e νΓ01,ρ(Ω). Since F(s~p ) is concave we see that

b(he(uuu2)) > 9b(ui) + (1 - 6)b{u2)
for u\,u2 G
Wo' Ρ (Ω), where b(u) = fQF(u(x))dx. We now observe that in our
situation one can easily check that if tj ->· t0 and utj uto, then utj uto. The result
now follows from Corollary 5.3.1 and Proposition 5.3.1. •
Authenticated
An application of Theorem 5.5.1 leads to the following result.

Theorem 5.8.4. Suppose that assumptions of Theorem 5.8.1 hold. Then problem
(5.26), (5.27) has α nontrivial solution for
λ e (inf a'_{t), s u p σ | ( ί ) ) - β*.
' t
We now establish two results giving some information about the set β*.
Lemma 5.8.1. Suppose that assumptions of Theorem 5.8.1 hold and that
B'ya{xAya})=o( £ \ya\p~l) (5.29)
uniformly in χ € Ω. Then β * = {0}.
Proof First, observe that assumptions^) and (03) imply that ae(u) > ||«|| p for θ
sufficiently large. It follows from (5.29) that bg(u) = o(||m|| p ), consequently β * =
{0}. •
Theorem 5.8.5. Suppose that assumptions of Theorem 5.8.1 and (5.29) hold. Then for
every λ e (0, sup, σ'+(ί)) problem (5.26), (5.27) has α nontrivial solution in W0 (Ω)
and
b(u)
supa+(t) > s u p - - ,
t a{u)
Proof By virtue of Theorem 5.5.1 and Lemma 5.8.1 problem (5.26), (5.27) has a
solution for λ e I (A, B) and limôo ^ψ. = 0. Consequently, the lower bound in
I {A, B) is less than or equal to 0. The upper bound in / (A, B) is greater than or equal
to any given slope of secant line to the graph of σ and this implies the assertion of our
theorem. •
Theorem 5.8.6. Let F : R R be a Cl-function and let F'{s) = q <

-Suppose that for some e > 0, sp-i+( is an increasing function for s large and
that F'(s) = o ( | j | p _ 1 ) as s - > -00. Then for every λ e (inf, a'_(t), 00) problem
(5.28) has α nontrivial solution.
Proof It follows from our assumption on F that be(u) < o(||m|| p ) for θ >
Hence β* Π (0, oo) = 0 and that supf a'+(t) > sup, = oo and the result follows
from Theorem 5.5.1. •
Finally, we illustrate the solvability of problem (5.28) by considering a case F'(u) =

a
u + for u > 0, o; > 0 and β > 0, that is, we consider the problem
—λΔ„«p
= ua + uß, u > 0, ρ > 1
~ (5.30)
u(x)= 0 on 9Ω.

Authenticated
148 6 Generalizations of the mountain pass theorem
We distinguish the following cases:
Case 1. 0<α<β<ρ — 1. By Theorems Theorems 5.8.1 and 5.8.3 there is a

continuous family of eigenvalues and eigenfunctions (λ,, ut) and I (A, B) = (0, oo).
Case 2. 0 < a < ρ — \ < β. If η > ρ v/e also assume that β < It follows
from Theorem 5.8.6 that problem (5.30) has a solution for every λ e (λ 0 , oo) with
0 < λ 0 < inf sup r 1 f (-t-u'+h*? + -P-u^t^r) dx.

~'>0||«II=1 ΛΛ<* + 1 ß + l )
Case 3. ρ — \ < a < β and if η > ρ, we assume β < ^ ^ — 1. By Theorem

5.8.6 problem (5.30) is solvable for λ € (0, oo).
Case Α. 0<α<β = ρ-\. Then Theorem 5.8.3 implies that I (Α, Β) = (0, λ 0 )
with λ ο = S U P | | u | | ^ / Ω \u\p dx.
Case 5. 0 < a < ρ — 1 < β, if η > ρ we assume β < — 1. We apply

Theorem 5.8.6 to obtain I (A, B) = (0, λ 0 ), with λ 0 as in Case 3.

Results of Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.8 are due to Tintarev [223] and are extensions
of his earlier work jointly with Schechter [200], [216] and [201]. Theorem 5.7.1 and
the counter-example following this theorem are taken from [201]. The version of the
mountain pass theorem presented in Section 5.4 was proved by Schechter [197] (see
also [198], [224]). For the results on the asymptotic behaviour of eigenvalues with
respect to "levels" of constraints we also refer to a series of papers by Chiappinelli
[76], [77], [78], [79], Thompson-Moscatelli [166], Chabrowski [68], Shibata [207],
[208] and Binding-Huang [35], [36],

Authenticated
Chapter 6
Generalizations of the mountain pass theorem
The mountain pass theorem has been extensively used in the search for critical points
of C 1 functionals. Assuming that a functional F : K. —> X satisfies the mountain
pass geometry, that is, G(0) < p, G(e) < ρ and G(u) > ρ for ||u|| = S < ||e||, we
consider all paths joining 0 and e. We expect to find a path on which the maximum of
G is not greater than its maximum on any other path. If such a path exists, it contains
a critical point of G. In general, it may be difficult to pick an appropriate path unless
we impose some compactness condition. The most widely used is the (PS) condition.
In this chapter we consider a substitute for the (PS) condition which is similar that
one used in Theorem 2.3.1. The novelty of this approach is the following alternative:
either a given functional has a critical point or an eigenvalue problem is solvable.
We basically follow the approach, described in Section 1.1, based on a choice of an
appropriate deformation mapping and a pseudogradient which significantly differ from
those introduced in Chapter 2.
6.1 Version of a deformation lemma

The main tool for our treatment of the results of the mountain pass type are variants of
the deformation lemma.
Lemma 6.1.1. Let u and w be unit vectors in Η such that
(u, w) + Θ > 0 for some Θ < 1.
Then for each a < 1 — Θ there exists an h € Η such that
(«, h) > 0 and (w, h) > α||/ι||. (6.1)
Proof Let h = w + ßu, with β > 0. Then ||/ι|| < 1 +ß,(h,u) = (w,u) + ß > β-Θ
and (h, w) = \ + ß(u, w) > 1 — βΘ. According to our assumption, there is a β with
Θ < β < and this choice of β gives (6.1). •
We recall that B( 0, Ä) = ( « e H\ ||u|| < R}.

Authenticated
L e m m a 6.1.2. Let Ζ : B( 0, R) Η be a continuous function such that Z(u) φ 0

for all u e Ε = B(0, R) — {0}. Suppose that there exists a closed subset Q C Ε and
α Θ < 1 such that
(Z(u), u) + Θ||Ζ(Μ)||||Μ|| > 0 f o r u z Q .
Then for each a < 1 — Θ there exists a locally Lipschitz mapping Υ : Ε —Η such
that
(Z(u),Y(u))>a\\Z(u)\\ foru e E,
(Y(u),u) > 0 for u e Q
and
||Γ(κ)|| <1 f o r u e E .
Proof Let a! satisfy a < a' < 1 - Θ. According to Lemma 6.1.1, for each u € Ε
there is an element h(u) e Η such that
( Z ( M ) , h(u)) > a'\\Z(u)\\, ||Ä(M)|| = 1 for u € E,
and
(h(u),u)>0 f o r « G Q.
we can take h(u)

l f u £ Q , = ^ ^ • By continuity, each u € Ε has a neighbourhood
Nu such that
(Z(v),h(u))>a\\Z(v)\\ forvzNu,
and
(h(u), v) > 0 for u e Q and ν e Nu.
If u is not in β , we take Nu so small that it does not intersect Q. The collection of all
these neighbourhoods covers E . There is a locally finite, locally Lipschitz partition of
unity {Ψ τ («)} subordinate to this covering. Let Y(u) = Ψ T ( u ) h z ( u ) . Then Y(u)
is locally Lipschitz, since hr is constant on the support of Ψ Γ («). Also,
I I W I I = II X > r M < X > r l l M < 1,

r τ
(Y(u),u) = ^ Φ τ ( Λ Γ , Μ ) > 0 , u e Q ,
τ
and
( Z ( « ) , Y ( « ) ) = J2*r(u)(Z(u),hT(u)) >α^Ψτ(Μ)||Ζ(Μ)|| = a\\Z{u)\\

τ r
for u G E. •
For the ease of notation we set j = ß ( 0 , R) — ß ( 0 , <5)andF c = {«; F(u) < c}.

Authenticated
6.1 Version of a deformation lemma 151
Proposition 6.1.1. Let F G C 1 (ß(0, R), R). Suppose that there exist constants 0 <
e e l , 0 < δ < R, Θ < 1, c G Μ and b > 0 such that
(F'(u), U) + Θ||μ|| ||F'(«)|| > 0 and \\F'(u)\\>b
for all u satisfying |F(w) — c\ < 2e and u G BR$. Then there exists a continuous
mapping σ : [0, 71] χ BRJ BRS such that
(i) a(t, u) = u for u # F~l([c - 2e, c + 2e]),
(ii) F{a{t, u)) is nonincreasing in t G [0, 7 ] for each u G BR$,
(iii) \\σ(ί, u)-u\\ <t <T for (t, u) G [0, Τ] χ BR>S,
c+€
(iv) F(a(T, F )) C F(a(T, Fc~€)).
Proof Let β be the set of points in BRJ satisfying |F(w) — c\ < 2e. We define
subsets ß i and 02 of by
ß i = {" e β ; | F ( « ) - c | <€},
02 = {" e B{0, Ä); |G(u) - c| > 2e}

and set
dist(w, 02)
n(u) = .
dist(n, ß i ) + dist(n, β 2 )
The function η : X -> [0, 1] is locally Lipschitz, jj(m) = 1 for u G ß i and 77(1/) = 0
for μ g β2· Let a < 1 — Θ and we apply Lemma 6.1.2 with Ζ = F' and β defined
as above to obtain a locally Lipschitz mapping Υ : Ε Η such that
(F'(M),r(M))>a||F'(M)|| (6.2)
for g E, (Y(u), w) > 0 for u g β and \\Y(u)\\ < 1 for μ g E. Let
K( M )
W(k) = ζ(α)η(α)
IIΓ (Κ) II
for« € E, where ζ : Η [ 0, 1] is a smooth function such that ζ (u) = Ofor ||«|| <
f (u) = 1 for ||u|| > y . It is obvious that W is locally Lipschitz and
II W(m)|| = ζ(uMu) <1 for u g Ε (6.3)
and by the definition of Q\ and Q2 we have
(W(u),u)>0 for u g BRJ- (6.4)
It follows from (6.2) that
( F > ) , W(u)) > («)||F'(«)|| (6.5)

Authenticated
for u € Ε and moreover
(F'(ii), W(u)) > ab f o r « G Q\. (6.6)
For u € Βr s we consider the initial value problem
d<T( U)
\' = ~W(a(t, «)), σ(0, u) = u.
at
Since W is locally Lipschitz and satisfies (6.3), a(t, u) will exist for all t > 0 such that
a(t, u) G Βrs. According to (6.4) we have
")ll 2 = 2(σ'(ί, μ), σ(ί, Μ» = - 2 ( W ( t r ( i , u)), σ(ί, «)) < 0,

at
for 0 < a(t, u) < R. Thus a(t, u) cannot exit B(0, R) and since W = 0 on B{0, it
cannot enter B(0, So a(t, u) is defined for all t > 0. By virtue of (6.5) and (6.6)
we have
= (F'(a(t,u)),a'(t,u)) (6.7)
at
= -(F'(a(t,u)),W(a(t,u))< 0
for f > 0 and

d
— F{a{t,u))<-ab for σ(ί, u) G Q\. (6.8)
dt
Hence F(a(t2, u)) < F(a{t\, u)) for 0 < t\ < /2· Let Τ = and we show that
σ : [0, Τ] χ ß / f ^ —»· satisfies the conclusions of our proposition. Since (i), (ii)
and (iii) are obvious we only check (iv). Let u g FC+€. We distinguish two cases:
(a) u <£ Q\ and (b) u G Q\. If u & Q\, then F{U) < c — €. Since F(a(t,u))
is nonincreasing, we see that F(A{T,u)) < F(u) < c — €. If u e Qi, let t\ be
the largest value in [0, Τ] such that a(t, u) e Q\ for 0 < t < t\. If t\ φ Τ, then
F(a(t\,u)) = c - e. If t\ = T, then a(t, u) G ß i for 0 < t < Τ and by (6.8) we get
F(a(T, u)) < F(u) - abT < c + e - 2 e = c - e ,
which proves assertion (iv) of our proposition. •
Proposition 6.1.2. Let F e Cl(B(0, R), R) and suppose that there exist constants
e > 0 , Θ < 1 , b > 0 and c G R such that
(F'(u),u) + @R\\F'(u)\\>0
and ||F'(m)|| > b for all u satisfying \F(u) — c| < 2e and ||u|| = R. Then there exists
a continuous mapping σ : [0, Τ] χ Z?(0, R) —> B(0, R) such that
(i) σ(ί, u) = ufor 0 < ί <T and u # F _ 1 ( [ c - 2e, c + 2e]),

Authenticated
6.2 Mountain pass alternative 153
(ii) F{a{t, u)) is nonincreasing in t e [0, T]for each u e 5(0, R),

(iii) IIa(t, u) - u\\ < t for all (t, u) € [0, Γ] χ 5(0, R),
(iv) σ(Τ, Fc+€) C Fc~f.
The proof is essentially the same as of Proposition 6.1.1 and is therefore omitted.
6.2 Mountain pass alternative

We commence with a bounded version of the mountain pass theorem.
Theorem 6.2.1. Let G : ß(0, R) R be a Cl (ß(0, R), Afunctional such that
G{0), G{e) < ρ = inf G(u) (6.9)

ll"ll=<5
for some 8 > 0 and e G 5(0, R). Let us set
c — CR — inf max G{(p{s)),

Γ 0<ί<1
where Γ denotes the set of continuous functions φ : [0,1] —• 5(0, R) such that
φ(0) = 0, ^j(I) = e. Moreover, we assume that there are constants e > 0 and Θ < 1
such that
0G'{u), u) + 0 5 | | G ' ( u ) | | > 0 (6.10)
for all u e Η satisfying
\G(u) — c\ < 3e, \\u\\ = R.
Then one can find a sequence {um} C 5(0, R) such that
G(um) —> c as m oo (6.11)
and
G'(um) -»• 0 in Η asm oo. (6.12)
Proof Suppose, on the contrary, that no such sequence exists. Then we can find
constants e > 0 and b > 0 such that ||G'(«)|| > b for all u e 5(0, R) satisfying
\G(u)-c\ < 2e.
Takings > 0 smaller, if necessary, we may assume that 3e < min(p — G(0), p — G(e)).
By Proposition 6.1.2 there exists a deformation mapping σ : [0, Τ] χ 5(0, R) —•
5(0, R) satisfying (i)-(iv). We now choose φ e Γ such that
max G(cp(s)) < c + e

«€[0,Γ] ~

Authenticated
and set h(t) = σ(Τ, φ{ί)) fori e [0,1]. Since e and 0 are not in G _ 1 ( [ c - 2 e , c + e]) it
follows from Proposition 6.1.2 (i) that h(0) = 0and/i(l) = e, that is, h e Γ. By(iv)of
Proposition 6.1.2 we see that h([0, Τ]) C Gc~€. Therefore max,e[o,i] G(h(t)) < c — €
which is impossible. •
For the ease of notation we set
v(u) = (G'(u), u), β(«) = ^ for u φ 0

II" II
and
X(u) = G'(u) - ß(u)u for u φ 0.
Theorem 6.2.2 (Mountain pass alternative). Let G : 5(0, /?)—>· Μ be a functional in

C\B(0, R), M) satisfying (6.9). Suppose that
-v(u)<M for ||u|| = R. (6.13)
Then the following alternative holds:

Either
(a) there is a sequence {«*} C B(0, R) such that
G{uk) c, G'(uk) ->-0 in Η ask oo,
or
(b) there is a sequence {u*} C B(0, R) such that
G(uk) c, ||k*||=ä,
X(uic) ->-0 in Η ask oo

and
limsupv(«*) < 0. (6.14)
k-* oo
Proof. Let us assume that there is no sequence satisfying (b) even if we assume
lim sup^.,.^ v(uk) = 0. Then there would exist constants € > 0 and b > 0 such that
||X(u)|| > b satisfying
|G(u) - c| < 3e, \\u\\ = R (6.15)
and
υ(κ) < 0. (6.16)
Let Θ < 1 be such that

Authenticated
6.3 Consequences of mountain pass alternative 155
Since
, 2 λ v(u)2
\\G'(u)\\2 = \\X(U)\\2 + - ^ i ,
II" II
we see that for u satisfying (6.13) and (6.14) we have
©~2v{u)2 < /?2||X(w)||2 + v(u)2 = R2\\G'(u)\\2.
This implies that (6.10) holds for all such u. Also, (6.10) holds for all u satisfying
(6.14). We can apply Theorem 6.2.1 to conclude assertion (a). Finally, assume that
there is no sequence satisfying (b) but there is one if we replace (6.14) by v(uk) -> 0
as k ->· oo. In this case ß(uk) -»· 0 and X(w*) -*• 0 in Η implies G'{uk) ->· 0 in H .
Thus assertion (a) holds in this case as well. •
6.3 Consequences of mountain pass alternative

We begin with the following consequence of Theorem 6.2.2.
Theorem 6.3.1. Let G G Cx(B(0, R), R) be afunctional satisfying (6.9) and (6.13).
Moreover, assume that
(I) If{uk} is a sequence satisfying || < R for all k, G(uk) —• c, X(u^) —• 0 in Η

as k —> oo and lim^-ôo v(uk) < 0, then {u^} has a convergent subsequence.

Either
(a) there is a solution in 5(0, R) of
G'(u) = 0, G(u) = c, (6.17)
or
(b) there is a solution to the problem
G'(u) = ßu, β <0, \\u\\ = R and G(u) = c. (6.18)
Proof Under our assumptions either (a) or (b) of Theorem 6.2.2 holds. If (a) holds
then v(uk) 0 and X{uk) —• 0 in Η as k oo and by assumption (I) there is a
convergent subsequence. The limit of this sequence satisfies (6.17).
If part (b) of Theorem 6.2.2 holds, then by (I) a subsequence of {M^} converges
strongly to € B{0, R). Thus
G(uk) G(u), G'(uk) G'(u), v(uk) v(u) and β(uk) ^ β(«).

Authenticated
Hence part (b) of Theorem 6.2.2 yields
G'(u) = ß(u)u, ß(u) < 0, ||mII = R, G(u) = c,
that is, μ is a solution of (6.18). •
To derive the second consequence of the mountain pass alternative we need the
following hypotheses:
G{e) < G(0), (6.19)
and
(II) G is weakly lower semicontinuous.
Theorem 6.3.2. Suppose that (6.9), (6.13), (6.19) (I) and (II) hold for each R > 0.
Either
(a) there are at least two solutions of
G'{u) = 0, u φ 0, (6.20)
or
(b) for each R > ||e|| there is at least one solution of
G'(u) = ßu, β <0, = (6.21)
Proof Assume that there is an R > ||e|| for which (6.21) has no solution. It then
follows from Theorem 6.3.1(a) that problem (6.17) has a solution u φ 0. Let
a = inf g(v).
veB(0,R)
It is easy to see that by (II) and (6.19), there is a non zero vector ü e Z?(0, R) such that
a = G(w). If ||m|| = R, ü will be either a solution of (6.20) or (6.21). Since (6.21) has
no solution, ü must satisfy (6.20). We now observe that
α < G(e) < ρ < cR, (6.22)

hence ü does not satisfy (6.17) and ü φ u. This means that there are two solutions of
(6.20). •
Theorem 6.3.3. Suppose that the hypotheses of Theorem 6.3.2 hold. Then the follow-
ing alternative holds:
Either
(a) there is at least one solution of {6.20),
or
(b) for each R > ||e|| there at least two solutions of (6.21).

Authenticated
Proof. Assuming that there is no solution of (6.20), by Theorem 6.3.1 for each
R > ||e|| there is a solution of (6.18). As in the proof of Theorem 6.3.2 we can show
that there exists a vector ü φ 0 such that G(m) = ™n ugfl (Q r) G(v). ü is not an interior
point of 5 ( 0 , R) because (6.20) has no solution. Consequently μ is a solution of (6.21).
Finally, (6.22) implies that ü does not satisfy (b) of Theorem 6.3.1. Therefore, problem
(6.21) must have at least two solutions. •
6.4 Hampwile alternative

In this section we study analogous results to these obtained in Section 6.3 by replacing
B(0, R) by
Bu s = {ueH; 8< ||u|| < /?} for 0 < 8 < R.
As in Section 6.2 we assume that G e C\B(0, R), R) and moreover assumptions
(6.9) and (6.13) are replaced by:
(III) there is an element e e Brs, with ||e|| > 8, such that
G(e) < ρ = inf G(u)

II" IM
and
(IV) there is a constant Mr s such that
—v(u) < Mr s for u g 9ß/?,a.
We denote by Γ^ the set of continuous mappings φ : [0, 1] B(0, R) such that

11^(0)11 < δ and ^(1) = e and define
c = CRts = inf max G(^(s)).

^6Γ$0<ί<1
We need a parallel result to Theorem 6.2.1.
Theorem 6.4.1. Suppose that (III) and (IV) hold. Moreover, assume that there are
e > 0 and Θ < 1 such that
v(u) + @\\u\\G'(u)>0
holds for all u e 5(0, R) satisfying
IG(u) - c'| < 2e and ue BR,S. (6.23)
Then there exists a sequence {w*} C BR $ with G(uk) —> c' and G'(uk) — 0 in Η as
k -> oo and moreover lim sup^QQ v(ujt) < 0 and X(u*) 0 in H.

Authenticated
Proof. The proof is similar to that of Theorem 6.2.1 and is based on Proposition 6.1.1.
If we assume, contrary to the theorem, that no such sequence exists, then we can find
b > 0, e > 0 such that 3€ b for all u satisfying (6.23).
Let φ G Γ«5 be such that
G(sp(s)) < c + e for 0 < j < 1. (6.24)
We may also assume that
Mj)||>5 for 0 < j < 1. (6.25)

Otherwise we can replace φ by φ\ = <p(s\ + (1 — $ι).ϊ), 0 < s < 1, where ii is the
smallest number such that ||^(i)|| > 8 for si < s < 1. It is clear that φ e Γ$ and
satisfies (6.24) and (6.25). Since the assumptions of Proposition 6.1.1 are satisfied
there exists a deformation mapping σ : [0, Γ] χ BR S —• BR S having properties (i)-
(iv). Setting g(i) = σ(Τ, <p(s)), then it is easy to check that g e Consequently,
maxg([o,7']) F(u) < c — e which is impossible. •
Repeating the arguments used in the proof of Theorem 6.2.2 we can establish the
following consequences of Theorem 6.4.1.
Theorem 6.4.2 (Hampwile alternative). Let G e ( ^ ( # ( 0 , R), M) and suppose that

(III) and (IV) hold. Then the following alternative holds:
Either
(a) there exists a sequence {u*} C Br $ such that G'{uk) —> 0 in Η and G(uk) c'
as k —*• oo,
or
(b) there exists a sequence {uk} C 3 B r j suchthatX(uk) —> OinH, v(uk) —> ν < 0
and G(uk) —>· c' as k —> oo.
Theorem 6.4.3. Suppose that (III) and (IV) hold and that G satisfies the following
condition
(V) If{uk] C 5(0, R) satisfies: X(uk) 0 in H, v(uk) ν < 0 and G(uk) d
as k —> oo, then {u^} has a convergent subsequence.
Either
(a) there is a solution of
G'(u) = 0, u g Br &, G(u) = d,
or
(b) there is a solution of
G'(u) = ßu, β < 0, mg 3 BRtS, G(u) = d.

Authenticated
We now assume that

G(e) < G(0), (6.26)
This implies that (III) holds for 8 sufficiently small.
It is easy to see that l i m ^ o crj = cr.
Theorem 6.4.4. Suppose that (6.26) and (V) hold and moreover that
-v(u)<M, u e B(0, R).
Then we have the following alternative:

Either
(a) there is a sequence {«*} C 5(0, R) such that
G\uk)= 0, Until > - , G(uk) = cR i,
or
(b) there is a sequence {uk} C 5(0, R) such that
G'(uk) = ßkuk, ßk < 0, G(uk) = cR i,

'k
or
(c) there is a sequence {uk} such that for k large
G'{uk) = ßkuk, ßk < 0, ||u*|| = - , G(uk) = cR ι
with k\\G'(0)\\uk ±G'(0) for a subsequence.
Finally, we have
Theorem 6.4.5. Under the assumptions of Theorem 6.4.4 the following alternative
holds:
Either
(a) there is α β satisfying
βο = [G(e) - G(0)] < β < 0

IMI
such that
G'(u) = ßu, u € Ε
has a solution for all β such that β0 < β < β,
or

Authenticated
(b) there are sequences {«*} C 5(0, R), {ßk} C {ß0, 0) such that
G'(uk) = ßkuk, ßk ß0,
or
(c) there are sequences {uk} C 5(0, R), {ßk} C (β 0 , 0) such that
Gf(uk) = ßkuk, k\\uk\\ = l, ßk-^ßo,
or
(d) there is a solution of
G'(uk) = ßu, β < β0, Μ€5(0ΓΚ)-{0}.
In the next two results we consider the situation where the assumptions of Theorem
6.4.4 hold for each R > ||e||.
Corollary 6.4.1. Suppose that assumptions of Theorem 6.4.4 hold for R > ||e||. Fur-
ther, we asume that the equation
G'(u) = 0 , uφ 0 (6.27)
has no solution and that
G'(u) = ßu, β <0, 0<||κ||<δ (6.28)
has no solution for some δ > 0. Then for each R > ||e|| there is a solution of
G'(u) = ßu, β < 0, ||«|| = Ä. (6.29)
Theorem 6.4.6. Suppose that the hypotheses of Theorem 6.4.4 holdfor each R > ||έ||
and that G(u) is weakly lower semicontinuous. Then the following alternative holds:
Either
(a) there are at least two solutions of (6.27),
or
(b) for each R > \\e\\ there is a solution of (6.29),
or
(c) for each 8 > 0 there is a solution of (6.28).
6.5 Applicability of the mountain pass theorem

In this section we discuss a typical problem in which we obtain an existence result via
the mountain pass theorem. We stress here that in order to apply the mountain pass
theorem, we need some rather restrictive assumptions on a nonlinearity.

Authenticated
6.5 Applicability of the mountain pass theorem 161
In a bounded domain β c l " , with η > 3, we consider the nonlinear Dirichlet

problem
Au = p(x,u) in Q, (6.30)
u(x) = 0 on 9 β . (6.31)
We assume that
(a) the function ρ : Q χ R ->· Μ satisfies the Caratheodory condition,
(b) I p(x, f)| < a\ + ai\t\s~x for and some constants a\ > 0, > 0
and 2 < s < n—z -K.
(c) lim|,|ô = 0 uniformly with respect to χ € Q,
(d) there exist constants 2 < μ < s < and r > 0 such that
0 < μΡ(χ,ί) < tp(x,t)
for all χ g Q and \t| > r, where P(x, t) = /0' p(x, s) ds.
Theorem 6.5.1. Suppose that the nonlinearity ρ : ö x M - > K satisfies (a), (b), (c)
and (d). Then the Dirichlet problem (6.30), (6.31) possesses at least one solution.
Proof. A solution to problem (6.30), (6.31) will be obtained as a critical point of the
functional F : W^2(Q) R defined by
f \Vu(x)\2dx-
= 1i JQ f P(x, u) dx.
JQ
Asumptions (a) and (b) guarantee that the functional F is well defined. We now check
that assumptions (i), (ii) and (iii) of Theorem 1.1.3 are satisfied. It is obvious that
F(0) = 0. Assumption (b) implies that
\P(x,t)\<Ci\t\s
for χ g Q, |/| > 8 and some constants 8 > 0 and C\ > 0. It follows from assumption
(c) that given e > 0 there exists δι > 0 so that
P(*,0l<e|'l2
for Λ: € Q and |f| < Combining the last two estimates we deduce, using the
Sobolev embedding theorem, that
f \P(x,u(x))\dx<C2€\\u\\2 + C3\\ur (6.32)

JQ
for some constants C2 > 0 and C3 (O > 0, with C2 independent of e > 0. Here || · ||
denotes the usual norm in W^'2(Q). Taking € = ^ we get from (6.32) that
F(u)>]\\u\\2-C4\\u\\s
4

Authenticated
for some C4 > 0 and all u e W0''2(<2)· Consequently, there exist a > 0 and ρ > 0
such that
F(u) >a for μ € 5(0, ρ)
and F(u) > 0 on B(0, p) - {0} and (i) of Theorem 1.1.3 holds.
To show (ii) of Theorem 1.1.3 we establish the following estimate from below
for P :
POt,t)>bl\t\»-b2 (6.33)
for χ e Q and t e R and some constants b\ > 0 and b2 > 0. Indeed, it follows from
(d) that
μ p(x,t
t P{x,t)
for t > r and χ e Q. Hence,
Jr t ~ Jr P(x,t)
and consequently
Ai(log£ - logr) < logP(x,£) - l o g P ( x , r ) .
This shows that there exist constants b\ > 0 and b2 > 0 such that (6.33) holds and
moreover,
μ
^ \ ξ \ < Ρ ( χ , ξ ) f o r \ξ\ > r .
The same argument can be applied to t < 0.

Let u € C™(Q), with u φ 0, then using (6.33) we get
Fitu)^1-! \Vu(x)\2dx — b\tß f \u(x)\^dx+b2\Q\.

2 Jq JQ
Since μ > 2, we see that limôo F(tu) = —00. Thus there exists ta such that
F{t0u) < p. Finally, the Palais-Smale condition (condition (iii) in Theorem 1.1.3)
is a straightforward consequence of (a), (b), (d) and the Sobolev embedding theorem.
We only emphasize here that (a) and (b) together with the Sobolev embedding theorem
imply that the functional b : W^2(Q) R defined by
b(u) = / P(x,u(x))dx
JQ
is weakly continuous. On the other hand we observe that if {um} is a sequence in
wIHQ) such that F(um) c and F'(um) 0 in W~l'2(Q) as m 00, then we
have
-M<^-f \Vu(x)\2dx-f P(x, um{x))dx < Μ (6.34)
1
JQ JQ

Authenticated
and
-€ / \Vum(x)\2dx
< JQ - JQ
/ p(x,um(x))um(x)dx < €
for all m > m 0 and some constant Μ > 0. This implies using (d) that
(ir - 2 ) f P(x,um)dx <]- [ p(x, um)um dx - f P(x,um)dx < Μ + \

JQ ΖJQ JQ I
for all m > m Q . Using again (6.34) we see that {um} is bounded and the remaining
part of the proof is routine. •
A close inspection of the proof shows that each assumption (b), (c) and (d) plays
its own role in enabling us to use Theorem 1.1.3. Assumptions (b) and (d) imply that
βιΙ*Ι μ <*/>(*,*) < β 2 ΐ * Ι '
for large ξ. This shows that the nonlinearity ρ must satisfy a very restricted growth at
infinity.
In particular, assumption (d) implies that there is u 0 e W 0 l l 2 (ß) suchthat
F(m 0 ) < 0. (6.35)
The question arises what can be said about the solvability of problem (6.30), (6.31), if
we weaken one of the assumptions (b), (c) or (d). We address this question in the next
section.
6.6 Mountain pass and Hampwile alternative

We develop here a more general approach to problem (6.30), (6.31) and pose the
following questions:
(i) What can be said about the solvability of (6.30), (6.31) if we only assume (b), (c)
and (6.32)?
(ii) What can be said if we only assume (b) and (6.32)?
and finally,
(iii) What can be said if we only assume (b).
Obviously, in our approach (6.35) replaces assumption (d).
As we shall see in all these situations the answer has the form of an alternative
which does not excludes the possibility of the existence of a solution to a nonlinear
eigenvalue problem.

Authenticated
Theorem 6.6.1. Suppose that (a), (b), (c) and (6.35) hold. Then the following alter-
native holds:
Either
(i) there are at least two nontrivial solutions of (6.30), (6.31),
or
(ii) for each R > ||u01| there is a solution of the problem
-Au = kp(x,u) inQ, u(x)=0ondQ, ||«|| = R, (6.36)
where 0 < λ < 1.
Proof This result follows from Theorem 6.3.2. It is clear that assumptions (a) and (b)
yield the weak continuity of the functional F . Now (6.35) implies (6.13) and also it is
easy to see that (6.19) is satisfied. It remains to verify assumption (I). The functionals
ν and β and the operator X in this context take the form
v(u) = I \Vu\2dx - I p(x,u)udx,

JQ JQ
ß(u) = ^ for w / 0,
Μ Γ
and
X(u) = F'(u)-ß(u)u.
Let {uk} be a sequence in W 0 1 > 2 (0) such that: {w*} C ß(0, R), X(uk) 0 in
W _ 1 , 2 ( ß ) and limsupv(«jt) < 0. We must show that {m*} has a convergent sub-
sequence Wl'2(Q). First, since {m*} is bounded we may assume that u in
Wo ' ( ö ) , μ* —u in L (Q) and a.e. on Q. Also, we may assume that ||u&||
1 2 S r > 0
( i f r = 0, there is nothing to prove) and that ß(uk) ->· I as k -»· oo, since {ß(uk)} is
bounded. We distinguish two cases: (i) I = 0 and (ii) I < 0.
Case (i). Since X(uk) 0 in W~l'2(Q) as k ->· oo, we see that F'(uk) 0 in
W - 1 , 2 ( ß ) as k - > oo. Therefore, we have
/ V « r ( V M r - Vus)dx - / p(x,ur)(ur - us)dx = o(\\ur - us\\)

Jo Jo
and
/ Wus(Vur — Vus)dx — I p(x, us)(ur - us)dx = o(\\ur - w.J).

JQ JQ
Combining this together we get
ll"r - " i l l 2 = o(||«r - Ms||) + / (p(x,Ur) - p(x,us))(ur ~ Us)dx.

JQ

Authenticated
It is easy to see that JQ(P(X, ur) — p(x, us))(ur — us)dx 0 as r, s oo and

consequently {ujt} is a Cauchy sequence in W^'2(Q).
Case (ii). Proceeding as before we get, setting Zr = ß(ur), that
Ι Ι " Γ - " Ϊ Ι Ι 2 - / (p(x,ur) - p(x,us))(ur - us)dx

JQ
- (LR-LS) I Vur(Vur ~Vus)dx ~ Ls\\ur - USF = 0(\\US - US\\).

JQ
Since ls < 0 for large s the result follows. •
Similarly applying Theorem 6.3.3 we get
Theorem 6.6.2. Suppose that assumptions of Theorem 6.6.1 hold. Then the following
alternative holds:
Either
(i) there is at least α nontrivial solution of (6.30), (6.31),
or
(ii) for each R > || w0 II there are at least two solutions of problem (6.36).
Finally, as a consequence of Theorems 6.4.6 and 6.3.1 we obtain the following

results
Theorem 6.6.3. Suppose that (a), (b) and (6.35) hold. Then the following alternative
holds:
Either
(i) there are at least two nontrivial solutions of (6.30), (6.31),
or
(ii) for each R > ||u0|| there is a solution of (6.36),
or
(iii) for each 8 > 0 there is a solution of problem
— Au = λρ(χ, u) in Q, u(x) = 0 on dQ, 0 < ||«|| < 8, 0 < λ < 1.
Theorem 6.6.4. Suppose that (a) and (b) hold, then the following alternative holds:
Either
(i) there is at least one solution of problem (6.30), (6.31),
or
(ii) for each R > 0 there is at least one solution of problem (6.36).

Authenticated

The results of Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 are taken from Schechter's papers [195],
[194] and [196]. The Dirichlet problem (6.30)-(6.31) under assumptions (a), (b), (c),
(d) was for the first time considered by Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz [10]. We have used
here some ideas from G?ba-Pruszko's paper [122]. Theorems 6.6.1, 6.6.2, 6.6.3 and
6.6.4 are due to Schechter [ 196]. Further generalizations of the Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz
mountain pass theorem can be found in Pucci-Serrin [180], [181], [182] and Fournier-
Willem [118]. In particular, versions given in [180] and [181] are concerned with the
mountain pass theorem for mountains possibly of zero height.

Authenticated
Chapter 7
Nondifferentiable functionals
The purpose of this chapter is to provide several variants of the mountain pass theorem
for locally Lipschitz functionals. The proofs are based on the Ekeland variational
principle and we avoid using the deformation lemma. We also present a version of the
mountain pass theorem for functionals in the form of a sum of a C 1 -functional and a
lower semicontinuous convex functional. This involves an essential modification of a
definition of a critical point.
7.1 Concept of a generalized gradient

In this section we present basic ideas and concepts from the calculus of generalized
gradients that will be needed to develop variational methods for nondifferentiable
(locally Lipschitz continuous) functionals. We closely follow the approach of the
monograph of F. H. Clarke [85].
Throughout this section we assume that / : X R is a locally Lipschitz functional

on a Banach space X. We recall that / : X —> R is a locally Lipschitz continuous
functional if for every χ e X, there exists a neighbourhood Nx of χ and a constant
K x > 0 such that
for all y, ζ e Nx.

A generalized directional derivative of a locally Lipschitz continuous functional
f : X —• R at χ e X in the direction υ G X is defined by
f°(x\ υ) = lim sup - [ / ( * + h + λυ) — f ( x + A)].

Λ->·0,λ\0 λ
We list the basic properties of f°{x\ ν):

(a) The functional ν -»• f°{x\v) is subadditive and positively homogeneous. Hence,
it is convex.
(b) |/°(JC, w)| < ΛΓχΙΙνΙΙ for all χ , υ e X.

Authenticated
168 7 Nondifferentiable functionals
(c) The functional f°(x\ ν) is upper semicontinuous as a function of (*, υ) and, as a

function of ν is Lipschitz.
(d) f°(x; ν) = ( - / ) ° 0 c ; υ) for all*, υ eX
Following F. H. Clarke we define the generalized gradient df(x) of a functional as
follows:
9/(jc) = {w g X*·, (w, v) < f°(x\ υ) for all υ e X).
According to the Hahn-Banach theorem every homogeneous and subadditive func-
tional on X majorizes a linear continuous functional on X. Therefore, 3 f ( x ) φ 0 for
every* e X. Moreover, for every ν e X, one has f°(x\ ν) = max{(£, υ); ξ e 3 /(*)}.
This is also an easy consequence of the Hahn-Banach theorem. Consequently, f°(x; v)
can be interpreted as a support function of 3 f{x). We recall that the support function
of a nonempty subset C of X is a function σα : X* -»· Κ U {oo} defined by
σα(ζ) = sup{(f,*); xeC}

We now collect some essential facts on the generalized gradient that will be used
in this chapter.
Proposition 7.1.1. The generalized gradient has the following properties:
(i) For each χ € X, 3 f ( x ) is convex and w*-compact subset ofX*.
(ii) For each w e 3 f { x ) , we have ||ιυ||χ* < Kx.
(iii) Let f : X M. and g : X Μ be locally Lipschitz continuous functionals,
then
d(f + g){x)Cdf(x) + dg(x).
(iv) For each λ € Μ,

3(λ/)(*)=λ3/(*).
(ν) The set valued mapping χ —>• 3f(x) is upper semicontinuous in the following
sense: for each xQ e X, € > 0 and υ € X, there exist 8 > 0 such that for each
w G df(x) with || jc — jc0 If < S, thereiswQ e df (xQ) such that \ {w — w0, < e.
(vi) A functional λ : X —> R defined by
λ{χ)= min I N I * .
wedf(x)
is lower semi continuous, that is, lim^-^ λ(χ) > λ(χ0).
(vii) For each ν G X, we have
Γ(χ·,υ) = τηζχ[{ξ,ν)·,ξ €df(x)}.
(viii) Let φ e C^tO, 1], X) and let f : X R be a locally Lipschitz continuous

functional, then the function h = f ο φ : [0, 1] —• Μ is differentiable a.e. and
h'{t) < max{(tu; φ'{ί))\ w e 3/(0(0)} a.e.

Authenticated
(ix) The set valued function χ df(x) is weak*-closed, that is, if {*,·} and {£,} are
sequences in X and X*, respectively, such that £,· G 3/(λ;, ), jc, —• χ and ξ is a
cluster point (limit point) of {ξι} in the weak*-topology, then ξ € df(x).
Proof The weak*-compactness of 3 f { x ) is a consequence of Alaoglu's theorem. We

shall only prove assertions (v), (vi) and (viii).
(v) Arguing indirectly we suppose that there exist xa e Χ, υ € X, e0 and sequences
{*„} C X, {£„} C X*, with ξη e 3/(*„), such that
1
II*« ~ JColl < ~
η
and
Ι^-ω,υ)! >e (7.1)
for each w e 3 f ( x 0 ) . Since x„ -»· x0, we see by (ii) that < Κ for some
constant Κ > 0. Hence, we may assume that ξη ξ0. To complete the proof we
show that ξ0 e 3 f { x 0 ) , which contradicts (7.1). Indeed, for each u e X there exist
sequences [hi) C X and {λ,·} C K, with hi ->· 0 and λ,· | 0, such that
7 - [f(xn +hn+ λ„Μ) - f(xn + A«)] > (ξη, u) - -

λ,· η
which implies that
f°(Xo\ u) > (ξ0, u)
for each u e X, that is, ξ0 e 3 f ( x a ) .
(vi) First, we observe that min is achieved, that is, for x0 € X, there exists w0 e
df(xQ) such that
INolljr* = λ ( Λ 0 ) .
This follows from (i) and the fact that the functional w —• ||ιυ||χ* is weakly lower
semicontinuous and bounded from below. To show that λ is lower semicontinuous
assume that there exists a sequence xn x0 such that limn_».oo λ(*„) < λ(χ 0 ),
w„ G 3 f ( x n ) and ||ιυη||^« = λ(χ η ). By virtue of (v) we can choose a subsequence
wm w0 with wa ε 3 f ( x 0 ) . On the other hand
lim ||u>„. II > II Wo II > λ(χ 0 ),

I-»· 00
which is impossible.
(viii) The function h is locally Lipschitz continuous, that is, it is differentiable a.e.
and let h be differentiable at t = tQ. Then, we have
h'(tQ) = lim I u m t o + λ)) - f(<t>(to))]

X4.0 λ
= lim I [ / ( 0 ( f o ) + Μ ο ) λ + σ(λ)) - f((f>(t0))] =

a 4.U A

Authenticated
= lim I [ / ( 0 ( ί ο ) + <P\t0)k) - /(φ(to))]

λ^ϋ A
< lim sup Iλ [/(<£(*ο) + h+ φ'(ί0)λ) - / ( 0 ( / o ) + Λ)]

Α^Ο,λΙΟ
= /°(0(ίο); 0'(ίο)) = max«™; φ'(ί0))·, w € 9/(0(ίο))}.
Many theorems of the classical differential calculus have their counterparts in the
calculus of the generalized gradients.
Proposition 7.1.2. If f attains a local extremum at x, then 0 e df(x).
Proof. Since 9(—/) = —3/, it suffices to consider the case of a local minimum.
Thus, it is obvious that f°(x\v) > 0 and the result follows. •
Theorem 7.1.1 (Mean value theorem). Let χ and y be in X. Then there exist a point
u = χ + t0(y — x), with 0 < t0 < 1, andx* e 3f(u) such that
f(y)~ f(x)= (x*,y-x).
Proof We define a function g : [0,1] —• Ε by
g(t) = f ( x + t(y-x)).
We show that
dg(t) C ( 3 f ( x + t(y-x),y-x) = {(x*, y - x)·, x* e df(x + t ( y - *))}. (7.2)
Since both sets in (7.2) are closed, it is sufficient to show that
max{3g(/)u} < max{<3/(x + t(y - x)), y - χ)υ}
for υ = ± . Indeed, we have
\ ,. g(S + λυ) ~ gjs)

g (t,v) = lim sup
λ
j-^ί,λφθ
fix + (s+\v){y-x))~ fix + siy - x))
= lim sup λ
j-νί,λ,ι,ο
.. /(/ + λν(?-*))-/(/)
< lim sup
/-»Χ+ί^-ΑΓί,λφΟ λ
= f°(x + tiy~ X)·, viy - x)) = max(3/(* + Hy - x)), viy - x))

Authenticated
and (7.2) easily follows. To complete the proof we consider a function 0 : [0, 1] —>· R
given by
0 ( 0 = f ( x + t(y - χ)) + *[/(*) - f(y)].
Since 0(0) = 0(1) = fix), there exists t0 e (0, 1) at which 0 attains an extremum. It
follows from Proposition 7.1.2 that 0 e 30(f o ). Hence, by Proposition 7.1.1 (iii) we
have
0 g [/(*) - /(>>)] + (df(x + ( y - x)t0), y-x)
To proceed further we introduce a definition of strict differentiability.

Let X and Y be Banach spaces. We say that F : X Y is strictly differentiable
at x, if there exists a continuous linear mapping DsF(x), that is DsF(x) e L(X, Y),
such that
r F ( x ' + tv) - F(x')
lim = ( D s F ( x ) , v).
x'->-x,tX0 t
It is known that if F is continuously differentiable (Frechet) at x, then F is strictly
differentiable at χ and hence Lipschitz near λ.
If / : X R is strictly differentiable at x, then / is Lipschitz near χ and
3 f ( x ) = {Ζ) 5 /(λ:)}. Conversely, if / is Lipschitz near χ and 3 f ( x ) reduces to a
singleton {£}, then / is strictly differentiable at χ and Dsf(x) = ζ.
For the proof of these facts we refer to the monograph [85].
Theorem 7.1.2 (Chain Rule). Let F : X Y, where X and Y are Banach spaces. If
F is strictly differentiable on X and g : Y R is Lipschitz continuous functional and
f = g ο F, then 3 f { x ) C 3g(F(jt)) ο Ds F(*)) for each x.
This inclusion follows from the inequality
/°(;c; DsF(x)) < max{(z, DsF(x)); z e dg(F(x))} = g°(F{x)· DsF(x)).
Corollary 7.1.1. Let g : Y —> R be a Lipschitz continuous functional on a Banach

space Y and suppose that the space X is continuously embedded in Y and is dense in
Y. Let f = g \x, then 3 f ( x ) C dg(x)for each χ e X, in the sense that every element
z of d f ( x ) admits a unique extension to an element ofdgix).
Finally, it is well known that if / : X R is additionally convex then one can

define the subdifferential of / at χ as the set of those ζ e X* satisfying
f i y ) - f i x ) > (ζ, y - χ )
for all y e X. In this case there exists a directional derivative f i x ' , v) at every χ € X
and in every direction ν e X. It is not difficult to show that / ° ( x ; υ) = f\x; v) (see
[90]). Consequently, we can state the following result.
Theorem 7.1.3. I f f : X —> R is convex, then d f i x ) coincides with the subdifferential

of f at χ in the sense of convex analysis.

Authenticated
7.2 Generalized gradients in function spaces

We commence with a very simple case, namely we find the generalized gradient of a
function of the form
Φ ( 0 == // '
Jo
4>(s)ds with φe
We set for σ>0
φ = essinf 0 ( s ) , 0 σ ( Ο = ess sup 0 CO
-<T k-f|«r |ϊ-ί|<σ
and
0 ( 0 = lim 0 ( 0 , 0 ( 0 = lim 0 σ ( Ο ·
— σ—>0 σ->·0
It is easy to check that
ζφ(β) for ζ> 0

Φ°(ί; ζ) >
ζ0(Ο for ζ < 0
and
ζφ(0 for ζ<0
Φ°(ί; ζ) < ζφ(ί) for ζ > 0.
These two relations imply that 3Φ(ί) = [ 0 ( 0 , 0 ( 0 ] . This observation will be used to
find a generalized gradient of a functional
r fu(x)
g(u) = / / φ(χ, t)dtdx, (7.3)
JQ, JO
where 0 : Ω χ R —>· R is a measurable function, Ω is a bounded domain in R" and
u : Ω —> R belongs to an appropriate function space.
We assume that 0 is a measurable function satisfying the growth condition
I0(*,OI < C\ +C2\t\a on Ω χ R, (7.4)
where C\ > 0, Cj > 0 and σ > 0 are constants. By Fubini's theorem /J φ(χ, s)ds
is a Caratheodory function. We are now going to find dg on Ζ, σ + 1 (Ω) and ^ ( Ω ) .
a+l
g
First, we observe that is well defined on L
(Ω). Indeed, by the Holder inequality
we have
\g(u) - *(u)| <

\
(ciΙΩΙ^ΤΤ + c2 max ΙΜΙ^Λ
uiet/ /
||u - υ | | σ + 1 ,
where U is an open neighbourhood containing u and v.

Authenticated
7.2 Generalized gradients in function spaces 173
Since φ and φ depend on χ and t we need an assumption guaranteeing that functions

φ(χ, «(*)) and φ{χ, u(x)) are measurable whenever u is measurable.
~~ We say that a function ψ : Ω χ Um R, where Ω C M" is an open subset of R n ,
is superpositionally measurable if for every measurable vector function u : Ω —»• Μ"1,
ψ{χ, u(x)) is a measurable function (see [140]).
Obviously, Borel measurable functions and functions satisfying the Caratheodory
condition are superpositionally measurable.
We shall compute dg(u) using 3, Φ , t) assuming that φ (λ, /)and</>(jc, t) are super-
positionally measurable functions. For example, this holds if φ is a Borel measurable
function and nondecreasing in t. In this case we have
9, Φ (χ,0 = [φ(χ,ί),φ(χ,ΐ)],
with
φ(χ, t) = min{0(x, t + 0), φ(χ, t - 0)} = φ(χ, t - 0)
and
φ(χ, t) = max{0(*, t + 0), φ(χ, t - 0)} = φ(χ, t + 0).
Since φ(χ, t±) = limn_».oo0(·*» t ± we see that φ and φ are superpositionally
measurable.
Theorem 7.2.1. Suppose φ satisfies (7.4) and that φ(χ, t) and φ(χ, t) are superpo-
sitionally measurable. Then the functional g : £ σ + 1 ( Ω ) —• Ε, defined by (7.3), is
locally Lipschitz continuous and
dg(u) C 3(Φ(χ, u(x)) = [φ(χ, u(x)), φ(χ, «(*))] a.e.
Proof. Let {Λ,} C Ζ, σ+1 (Ω) and {λ,·} C Μ be such that hi 0 in Ζ, σ+1 (Ω), λ, | 0
and
g°(u;v)= lim / — / φ(χ,ξ+α(χ))άξάχ.
λ,· Jhi(x)
We may also assume that hi —>- 0 a.e. and hence
g°(u;v)< [ Φ°(χ,α(χ)\υ(χ))άχ (7.5)

Jq
max{u;(x)u(Ac); w e 3,Φ(t, u(x))} dx
•L
= Ι υ(χ)φ(χ, u(x))dx + Ι υ(χ)φ(χ,
—
u(x)) dx.
Jv(x)> 0 Jv(x)< 0
We now show that for w e dg(u) we have
φ{χ, u(x)) < w(x) < φ(χ, μ ( χ ) ) a.e. on Ω.

Authenticated
In the contrary case, there exists a set Ε C Ω of a positive measure such that
w(x) < φ(χ, u(x)) for χ € E.
Taking v(x) = ~XE(X) in (7.5) we get
—j w(x)dx<—j <p(x,u(x))dx,
which is impossible. In a similar manner, we prove that w(x) < φ{χ, u(x)) a.e. •
Combining Corollary 7.1.1 and Theorem 7.2.1 we deduce the following result.
Theorem 7.2.2. Suppose φ : Ω χ Μ — R is nondecreasing, Baire measurable and

satisfies (7.4), witha < then the fiinctional g, definedby (7.3), is locally Lipschitz
1,2
continuous on ννο (Ω) and
dg(u) = [φ(χ, u(x) - 0), φ{χ, u(x) + 0)] a.e.
in both spaces La+X (Ω) and Ψ 0 1,2 (Ω).
Proof. From the discussion preceding Theorem 7.2.1 we have
dg(u) C [φ(χ, u(x) - 0), φ(χ, u(x) + 0)].
To get the inclusion in the opposite direction, we take
w(x) e [φ(χ, u(x) - 0), φ(χ, u(x) + 0)],
and have
rv(x)
w(x)(v(x) — u(x)) < Ι φ(:K,t)dt a.e.
Ju(x)
for each ν e L 0Γ+1 (Ω). This implies that
(w, V u,) < g(w)~ g(u),
that is, w e 3g(u) in the space La+] (Ω). •
7.3 Mountain pass theorem for locally Lipschitz functionals

Since we consider a locally Lipschitz functional, we need to modify the definition of
the Palais-Smale condition and that of a critical point.

Authenticated
7.3 Mountain pass theorem for locally Lipschitz functional 175
We say that a locally Lipschitz functional F : X R satisfies the Palais-Smale

condition at level c ((PS)C for short) if every sequence (jc„ } C X verifying
(i) lim „_• oo F(xn) = c and
(ii) lim^-yco = 0,
has a convergent subsequence.
We say that χ e X is a critical point of F at the level c if 0 € dF(x) and F(x) = c.
To prove the mountain pass theorem for locally Lipschitz continuous fiinctionals
we need the following results.
Proposition 7.3.1. Let F : X —> R be a locally Lipschitz functional and let Κ be a
compact metric space. Then a fiinctional Η : C(K, X) —> R defined by
H(g) = max F(g(t))
teK
for every g € C(K, X) is a locally Lipschitz functional on C(K, X).
Proof First of all, for any g € C(K, X), g(K) is a compact space. Since F is a locally
Lipschitz functional, for every t € Κ there exists constants ct > 0 and 8t > 0 such
that
|F(*I) - F(JC 2 )I <C,||*I - X 2 \ \
for all X\,X2 in B{g(t), 8t). Consequently, {B(g(t), 8t)}, t e K, is an open covering
of g(K) and by the Borel-Lebesgue theorem there exists a finite number of points
{ f i , . . . , tm) in Κ such that
k
g{K)^\jB{g{ti),8ti).
i=1
By Lebesgue's lemma there exists a number 8 > 0 (a Lebesgue number) such that for
every χ e g(K) there exists an index 1 < i < k such that
B(x,8)cB(g(ti),8ti).
Setting cg = maxi<,</t ctj we see that
|F(*i) - F(* 2 )| < cg\\χι - X21|
for all t 6 Κ and χ\, xj € B(g(t), 8). Thus for h\,hi e C(K, X) satisfying
\\hi - g\\c(K,X) = max ||A,-(/) - g(i)|| < 8, i = 1, 2,
teK
we have
\H(hi) - H{h2)\ = I m a x F ( h \ ( t ) ) — max F{hi{t))\
teK t&K
< max|F(Äi(f))-F(A2(i))l
teK
< c5g max \\hi(t) - h2(t)\\ =cg\\h\
6 - h2\\.
teK •

Authenticated
Proposition 7.3.2. Suppose that F, Η and Κ satisfy assumptions of Proposition 7.3.1.

We set for gandh in C(K, X)
M(g) = {szK·, F(g(s)) = H(g) = maxF(g(i))}

teK
and
rjo( is .. H{u+Xh)-H{u)
Η (g; h) = lim sup .
Then
H°(g-h)< max F°(g(sy,h(s)).
S€M(g)
Proof We choose two sequences {«;} C C(K, X) and {λ, } C (0, oo) such that
||m, - g|| = max, eA : II"; ( 0 - g(OII -»· 0, λ,· 0 as i -> 0 and
wo,(g\h)=
Η ι ·> rlim H(m+kjh)-H(m) . (7.6)
/-> 00 λ|
For any j, e Af(w,· + λ,Τι) we have
H(Ui+ λ,/Q -H(uj) < Fjuiis^ + kMs^-Fjuiisi))

λ; ~ λ,·
By Theorem 7.1.1 there exist 0,· e (0, 1) and xf e aF(M, (5·,) + 0,λ ( Λ(ί,)) such that
= {xi,h(si)), i = 1,2,... (7.8)
Since ÄT is a compact metric space, we may assume that j, —• s e Κ and this implies
that
ui(si) + 9ikih(si) g(s).
By the local boundedness and the weak*-closedness of a generalized gradient (see
Proposition 7.1.1 (ix)), there exists a weakMimit point (cluster point) x* of {x, } with
x* e dF(g(s)). Therefore, we may assume that (χ*, h(s)) —> {x*, h(s)). By virtue
of (7.6), (7.7) and (7.8) we have
H0{g\ h) < lim {χ*, h(si)) = lim (χ*, hfa) - h(s)) + lim (χ*, h(s))).
i—*· oo —
/' >• oo /-»· oo
It remains to check that s e M(g). This follows from the fact that Si e M(h, + λ,/ι)
and
F(ui(si) + kih(si)) > F(ui(t)+kMt))
for all t g K. Indeed, letting i -*• oo we get that
F(g(s)) > F(g(i))
foreachiGÄ". •

Authenticated
To state the next result we introduce the following notation; let Κ be a compact
metric space and K0 a closed subspace of Κ. We set
CKo(K, X) = {he C(K, X); h{t) = 0 for all t g K0}
Proposition 7.3.3. Suppose that F, Η and Κ satisfy assumptions of Proposition 7.3.1

and let K0 be a closed subset of K. Moreover, suppose that for a given g e C(K, X),
with M(g) C Κ — K0 and some € > 0 the following inequality holds:
H°(g-,h)>-€\\h\\
for each h e Cxo(K, X). Then, there exists s € Μ(g) such that
F°(g(sy,v)>-€\\v\\
for all ν € X.
Proof In the contrary case for every t e M(g), there exists v, e X with ||u/|| = 1
such that
F°(g(ty,vt)<-€.
Since g is continuous and F° is upper semicontinuous, for every t e M(g) there exists
vt e X, with ||υ,|| = 1, and St > 0 such that for each s € B(t, 8t) we have
F°(g(sy,vt)<-€.
Since {B(t,8t)},t 6 Μ(g), is an open covering of a compact set M{g) C Κ — KQ, we

may assume that K0 Π B(t, 8t) = 0 for each t € M{g). Also, we may assume that
k
M(g)c|Jß(r(A.) (7.9)
ι=1
for some finite sequence { i i , . . . , in M(g). We now define for every t e Κ
po(t) = min d(t, s),

seM(g)
and
Pi(t)= min d(t, s), i = \,...,k,
seK-B(tj,&j)
where d is a metric on K. It follows from (7.9) that
k
K = {\jB{ti,&i))U{K-M{g)}
;=ι
and moreover we have

k
y^ pi(t) > 0 for each t e K.
i=0

Authenticated
We now define a function h € Ck0(, X), with ||A|| < 1, by
m = % i W » .
Σί.οΡ.(')
By the sublinearity of F°(jc; υ) in υ we get
Σ?=οΑ(0
It is easy to check that for t e M(g), /0 o (0 = 0 and (f) > 0 for some i. This implies
that F°(g(t)\ v t j ) < —€. Therefore, we have
F ° { g ( t y , h ( t ) ) < - € < - € \
for each t e M(g). Applying Proposition 7.3.2 we see that
H°(g; h) < max F°(g(sy,h(s)) <-e\\h\\

szM(g)
which is impossible and the result follows. •
We are now in a position to formulate the mountain pass theorem. Let K* be a closed
subset of a compact metric space K. For a given continuous function ρ* : Κ* X
and a functional φ : X —• R we set
V = { p G C(K, Χ)· ρ\κ*=Ρ*}
and
c = inf m a x < f > ( p ( t ) ) .
pev t&K
Theorem 7.3.1. Let φ : X —• R be a locally Lipschitz continuous functional and A

be a closed subset contained in {x e Χ; φ { χ ) > c} and such that p*(K*) Π A = 0
and for each ρ £ V, p { K ) Π Α φ 0. Then, there exists a sequence {un} c X such that
lim dist(w„, A) = 0,
oo
lim = c
n-tO
and
lim X(un) = 0.
n-y oo
Proof. Let 0 < e < min(l, dist(p*(/sT*), Λ) and we choose ρ e V so that
e2
ma\φ{ρ{ί)) < c + —. (7.10)
t&K 4

Authenticated
Let us define a set L c Κ by
L = {t€K; dist(p(i), A) > €)},
which is closed and K* c L C Κ. We set
r L = { k e C ( K , X y , k \ L = p \ L } ,
which is a closed subset of C{K, X). We now introduce a function ψ : X —> R defined
by
ψ ( χ ) = max(0, e 2 - € dist(jc, Λ))
and a functional F : Γ/, R given by
F(k) = max +
tzK-L
It is clear that for each k e Γ/,, Λ(ΛΓ — L) Π Λ φ 0 and consequently
F(k) > m a x{(<p(k(t)) + f{k{t))\ t € K - L and k ( t ) e A} > c + e2.
This implies that

inf F(k) > c + € . (7.11)
k€ rL
Since ρ e Γ/,, we have
F(p) < rnax(0(p(i)) + ψ(ρ(t))) < c + — + <?

2
e2
< inf F + —.
rL 4
We now observe that Γ^ is a complete metric space with a metric d given by
d ( f , g) = 11/ - gll = sup | | / ( 0 - g(t)\\.

teK
Applying Ekeland's variational principle we get pQ e Γ^ such that
F(po) < F(p), (7.12)
\\P0-P\\ < €
~, (7.13)
and
F { q ) > F { p 0 ) - e
- \ \ q - p 0 \ \ forall9erL.
The last inequality implies that
zr°/ u\ ^ ν F(p0 + k h ) - F ( p 0 ) €
F ( p 0 \ h ) > lim sup λ > -~\\h\\
λ-> ο ^

Authenticated
for each h £ C ( K , X ) with h(t) = 0 for all t € L. We now set
M(p0) = {/; (</> + V0(Po)(0 = max_(0(/? o (i)) + tfr(p0(j)))

S € K - L
and check that Μ(ρ0)Γ\ L = 0. Indeed, by (7.11) we have
c + €2 < F(p 0 ) = (</> + f ) ( P a ( t ) )
for all t e M{p 0 ). On the other hand, if t e L, then
e2
0Φ + f ) ( P o { t ) ) = <j>(p(t)) <C + —
4
and this establishes our claim. We now apply Proposition 7.3.3 to obtain a point
s€ e M(p0) such that
for every ν € X. A dependence of s€ on € comes from ψ. Setting u€ = p0(se), we

see that
€
0 e 3(0 + ilr){u € )+ -B\
where B* is the unit ball in X*. We now check that a collection {u£}, € > 0 small, has
the following properties:
(a) c < 0(w e ) < c + f e 2 ,
(b) dist(w € , A) <
(c) infx*ea*(«e) Ik*II <
To check (a) we notice that by (7.10), (7.11) and (7.12) we have
c + €2 < inf F(k) < F ( p 0 ) < F(p)

ΓL
< max(0 + ψ ) ( ρ ( ί ) )
t&K
e2
< c+ — +€2.
4
To show (b) we first observe that since L Π M(pa) = 0 we get that dist(p 0 (i), A) < €
for t e M{pa) and using (7.13) we deduce that (b) holds. Finally, the fact that
0 e 9(0 + ψ)(α€) + 90(ue) + drjr(u€) +
implies (c). •
Following Ghoussoub and Preiss [125] we introduce the following definition.

Authenticated
7.4 Consequences of Theorem 7.3.1 181
Let φ : X - » Μ be a locally Lipschitz continuous functional, Λ be a subset

of X and let c € R. We say that φ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition around A
at the level c (in short (PS)aiC), if for every sequence {um} C X verifying conditions:
(i) limm_>oo dist(wm, A) = 0, (ii) lim m ^ o o 0(w / n ) = c and (iii) l i m ^ o o = 0
has a convergent subsequence.
Corollary 7.3.1. Suppose that a locally Lipschitz continuous fiinctional φ : X -> Μ

satisfies assumptions of Theorem! .3.1. If φ satisfies (PS)A<C> then there exists a critical
point u of φ with φ{ u) = c.
7.4 Consequences of Theorem 7.3.1

First, we establish the extension of Theorem 1.1.3 to locally Lipschitz functionals. In
what follows X always denotes a Banach space.
Theorem 7.4.1. LetF : X —>• M.be a locally Lipschitz continuous functional. Suppose
that
(i) F(0) = 0 and that there exist constants ρ > 0 and a > 0 such that F(u) > a for
u € 5(0, p),
(ii) there exists ν & B( 0, ρ) such that φ(ν) < 0 and further suppose that F satisfies
CPS)C, with
c = inf max F(g(t)),
ger f€[0,l]
where
Γ = {g G C([0, 1] χ X); g(0) = 0 and g(l) = v}.
Then, c is a critical value of F.
Proof We apply Theorem 7.3.1 with V = Γ. It is clear that for every g e V,

g([0,1]) Π 5(0, ρ) φ 0. Consequently the assumptions of Theorem 7.3.1 are satisfied
with Κ = [0,1], Κ* = {0, 1}, P*(0) = 0 and P*{ 1) = Υ and A = {u g F(U) > c). •
The next theorem extends the mountain pass theorem of Ghoussoub and Preiss
[125]. For a and b in X we set
ra,b = l g e C([ 0,1], X); g(0) = a, = b).

Theorem 7.4.2. Let F : X —y R be a continuous and Gateaux differentiable func-
tional such that F' : X X* is continuous from the norm topology of X to the
weak*-topology of X*. Let a and b be in X and set
c= inf max F(p(t)).

ρ€Γα,6 /e[0,l]

Authenticated
Finally, let A be a closed subset ofX such that a & A, b g A and A c {«; F(u) > c}
and that
p([0, 1])ΠΑφ0 for every ρ G Γ β >
Then, there exists a sequence {um} C X satisfying
(i) lim m ôo dist(« m , A) = 0,
(ii) Iim m ôo F(um) = c,
(iii) lim m ôo F'(um) = 0.
In particular, if F satisfies (PS)A,c condition, there exists u G A such that F(u) = c
and F'{u) = 0.
Proof. The weak*-continuity of F and the uniform boundedness theorem imply that
F is locally bounded. Consequently, by the mean value theorem F' is locally Lipschitz
continuous. To check that 3 F ( u ) = (F'(u)} we write using the mean value theorem
F(u + h + λυ) - F(u +h)= k(F\u + h + λθν, ν)
for some θ € (0, 1). Since F' : X -> X* is continuous from the norm topology of X
to the weak*-topology of X*, we see that F°(u, υ) = (F'(u), u). Consequently,
9 F ( k ) = {x* € X*\ (F'(u) - x*, v) > 0 for all υ G X) = {F'(u)}.
Applying Theorem 7.3.1 with Κ = [0,1], tf* = {0, l},andp*(0) = a a n d p * ( l ) = b,

the result follows. •
Finally, we give a variant of the mountain pass theorem due to Nirenberg and Brezis
[43],
Theorem 7.4.3. Let F e Cl(X, R) and let Κ, K*, p*, c and V be defined as in
Theorem!3A. Suppose that
for every t e K* either F(p*(t)) < c or F'(p*(t)) = 0 (7.14)
and that F satisfies the (PS)C condition. Then, for every e > 0 there exists ρ e V such
that
F(p(t)) = c=^\\F,(p(t))\\x* <e
for each t e Κ.
Proof In the contrary case, there exists e > 0 such that for every ρ e V we can find
t g Κ such that F(p(t)) = c and IIF'tpir))!!^, > €. This means the set defined by
A = {u G X; H F » ! ! * , > e, and F(u) = c}
satisfies ΑΓ\ρ(Κ) φ 0foreachp G V. Moreover, according to (7.14) ΑΓ\ρ*(Κ*) = 0.

By Corollary 7.3.1 there exists u e A such that F'(u) = 0 which is impossible. •

Authenticated
7.5 Application to boundary value problem with discontinuous nonlinearity 183
For the proof of the following variant of the mountain pass theorem we refer to the
monograph of Mahwin and Willem [164].
Theorem 7.4.4. Let Κ be a compact metric space, K0 C Κ a closed subset, X a

Banach space, χ e C(K0, X) and let Μ be complete metric space defined by
M = {ge C(K, X); g(s) = X(s) i f s e K0}
with the supremum metric. Let F € C1 (X, R) and set
c— inf m a x F ( g ( s ) ) , c\ = m a x F ( x ( s ) ) .
geM s&K s&K0
If c > c\, then for each € > 0 and each f € Μ such that
max F(f(s)) < c + €,
S€K
there exists υ € X satisfying the following conditions
c - € < F(v) < max F(f(s)),

szK
dist (v,f(K))<€l,
and
WF'mse'i.
If F satisfies in addition the (PS)C condition then c is a critical value of F.
7.5 Application to boundary value problem with

discontinuous nonlinearity
In this section we apply Theorem 7.4.1 to solve the boundary value problem
— Δ« =<£(*, u) ίηΩ, (7.15)
u(;t)=0 on 3Ω, (7.16)

where Ω is a bounded domain in R n .
Theorem 7.5.1. Let φ : Ω χ Μ —>· R be a function which is bounded on Ω χ [—Μ, Μ]

and such that φ and φ are superpositionally measurable. Suppose that
φ(χ,ί)
lim sup < λι uniformly in χ e Ω, (7.17)
i->±oo t

Authenticated
184 7 NondifFerentiable functionals
where λι is the first eigenvalue f o r the Laplace oprator — A. Then, problem (7.15),
(7.16) has a solution u e W2'P(S1) Π W0 Ρ ( Ω ) , ρ > η, in the following sense
- A u e W ( x , u ( x ) ) , M x , u ( x ) ) ] . (7.18)
Proof According to (7.17) there exist constants Κ > 0 and 6 > 0 such that
φ ( χ , t) < (λι - €)t + Κ for f > 0
and
φ ( χ , t) > (λι - e ) i - Κ for f < 0.
The problem
— Au0 = (λι — e)u0 + Κ in Ω , u0 = 0 on 3Ω
has a unique positive solution u0 € W 2 ' p ( S l ) Π ^01ρ(Ω), ρ > η. By the maximum

principle u0 is an upper bound for every solution of (7.18) and — u0 is a lower bound
for every solution of (7.18). This means that every solution in
(7.18) is a solution of the problem
- A u £ \Φ\(Χ, u ( x ) ) , φ\(χ, u ( x ) ) ] ,
where
φ(χ, -r) if t < - r
φ ι ( χ , ί ) = 0 if |i| < r
φ ( χ , r ) if t > r.
Since φι is bounded, by Theorem 7.2.2, a functional gι : Ζ , σ + 1 ( Ω ) —>· R , with

σ < S ä » given by
f ru(x)
g i ( « ) = / Ι Φ ι ( χ , ί ) ά ί ά χ
JSi Jo
is locally Lipschitz in L a + X ( Ω ) and |gi (Μ) | < M\ \\u || wi,2 for some constant M\ > 0.
We now set
F ( u ) = ]: f \ V u ( x ) \ 2 d x - g l ( u ) .
L JQ
It is obvious that F is locally Lipschitz in W 0 l i 2 ( ß ) and by Theorem 7.2.1 we have
d F ( u ) C - Au - [ 4 n ( x , u ( x ) ) , 4 > \ ( x , u ( x ) ) ] .
Since σ < it is easy to see that F satisfies the (PS) C condition for every e e l
By virtue of Theorem 7.4.1 F has a critical point u* € ^ 0 1 , 2 ( Ω ) such that
0 e - Au* - [ f a ( x , u * ( x ) ) , i ( x , u ( x ) ) ] .

Authenticated
By the regularity theory u * G ΨΡ·2(Ω), ρ > η. Applying the maximum principle we

see that |M*(X)| < u0(x). Consequently,
[^(x, u*(x)),<pi(x, u*(x))] = [φ(χ, u*(x)),<p(x, w*(x))]
7.6 Lower semicontinuous perturbation

In this section we extend some basic concepts of the critical point theory to the func-
tional F : X —> Κ on a Banach space satisfying the following conditions
(L) F(u) = Φ(Μ) + ψ(ιι), where Φ e Cl(X, R) and ψ : X ( - o o , oo] is convex
and proper (i.e., ψ φ 0) and lower semicontinuous.
We recall that the set = {u e X\ u) < oo} is called the effective domain
of ψ. By drj/ we denote the subdifferential of ψ at u, that is,
d f ( u ) = {u* € X*\ ψ(ν) - ψ(μ) > (u*, υ-u) for all υ Ε Χ).
We say that Μ 6 X is a critical point of F if u e D(rjr) and
(Φ'ί«), v-u) + f(v)~ f{u) >0 (7.19)
for all ν £ X. This can be expressed by writing 0 € Φ'(μ) 4- d\(r(u).
To justify this definition let us assume that u is a local minimum of F. Then for
t > 0 small and all ν e X we have
0 < F(u + t(v-u))~ F(u)

= Φ(Μ + t(v - u)) - Φ(Μ) + l/r((L - t)u + tv) - f ( u )
< Φ (u + t(v-u))- Φ (μ) + ί(ψ(υ) - ψ (μ)).
Dividing by t and letting t -> 0 we see that (7.19) holds, that is, u is a critical point.
It is obvious that the (PS) condition for functionals satisfying (L) takes the following
form.
Let c e M. We say that F satisfies the (PS)C condition if every sequence {um} c X
such that F(um) —> c and
(<t>'(um), ν - um) + ψ(υ) - f(um) > -€m\\v-um\\ (7.20)
for each ν e X, where e m 0, contains a convergent subsequence.
The (PS)C condition can also be expressed in the following way.

Authenticated
The functional F satisfies the (PS') C condition if every sequence {um} C X such
that F(um) —• c and
W'(um), ν - um) + ψ(ν) - f(um) > (zm, ν - um) (7.21)

for every ν e X, where —>· 0 in X*, contains a convergent subsequence.
In fact, both conditions (7.20) and (7.21) are equivalent. To show this we use the
fact that convex functionals have linear minorants.
L e m m a 7.6.1. Let f : X (—oo, oo] be a lower semicontinuous and convex func-
tional such that / ( 0 ) = 0 and f ( x ) > — ||jt || for all χ e X. Then there exists ζ Ε X*
such that ||ζ || < 1 and
f ( x ) > ( z , x ) for all χ e X .
Proof. We define two convex subsets A and Β of Χ χ R by
Λ = {(*,/); ||*|| < -t) and Β = {(x, t); f ( x ) < t}.
The set A is open and since f ( x ) > — ||λ||, Α Π Β = 0. Consequently, there exists a
hyperplane separating A and B, that is, there exist a and β in Μ and w Ε X* such that
(w, x) - at - β >0
for all (x, t) e Λ and
(w, x) - at - β < 0
for all (x, t) e B. Since (0, 0) e λ Π Β, β = 0. Letting t = - | | * | | in the first of these
inequalities we get {w, x) > —a||jc||, so a > 0 and ||w|| < a. If a = 0 then w = 0
and there is no hyperplane. Therefore, a > 0 and letting ζ = % and t = f ( x ) in the
second inequality we derive that ||z|| < 1 and {z, x) < t = f(x). •
Proposition 7.6.1. Conditions (PS)C and (PS')C are equivalent.
Proof. Since (7.21) implies (7.20), let us assume that a sequence {um} satisfies (7.20).
If €m > 0, we set χ = ν — um and
g(x) = — {(Φ'Μ, χ) + f { x + um) - f{um)),
then (7.20) can be written as
£(*)>-11*11 forallxeX.
By Lemma 7.6.1 there exists ζ η G X, with ||f m || < 1, such that > ( ζ η , χ ) . From
this we get letting zm = frnfm, that
(0'(Mm), V - Um) + ψ(υ) - f(um) > {Zm, υ - "m>·
Since e m 0, zm 0 in X*. •

Authenticated
Proposition 7.6.2. Suppose that F satisfies (L) and the (PS) condition holds. If u is
a limit point of a Palais-Smale sequence {um}, then u is a critical point. In particular,
the set of critical points at level {u : F(u) = c] is compact.
Proof. Let {u m } be a sequence satisfying the (PS)C condition. We may assume that
um —> u. Letting m -»· oo in (7.20) and using the fact that
liminf f(um) > f(u),

m—κχ
we get (7.19). Hence, u is a critical point. On the other hand, taking ν = u in (7.20)
we easily deduce that limm->.oo i/(um) = ψ(u) which means that μ is a critical point at
level c. Finally, if {um} is a sequence of critical points such that F(um) = c for all m
then (7.20) is satisfied with €m = 0. Hence, by the first part of the proof u is a critical
point at level c. •
As a first application we extend Theorem 1.1.2 to functionals satisfying (L).
Theorem 7.6.1. If F is bounded from below and satisfies (L) and the (PS) condition,
then
c = inf F(u)
U€X
is a critical value.
Proof We choose a minimizing sequence {wm} such that F(wm) < c + We now
apply Theorem 1.1.1 with € = ^ and λ = 1 and obtain a sequence {um} such that
F(w) — F{um) > --||u;-mw||

m
for all w € X. Since ψ is convex, letting w = (1 — t)um + tv, t e (0, 1), we obtain
that
Φ(um + t(v - um)) - cj>(«m) + ί(ψ(ν) - V("m)) > F(w) - F(um)
> ~ — \\w - um|| = - — IIυ - umII.

m m
Dividing by t and letting t —0 we get
1
(Φ (um), l; - Km) + f ( v ) - f(um) > ||V - «mil-
m
Hence {um} satisfies the (PS)C condition and by Proposition 7.6.2, c is a critical value
of F. •

Authenticated
7.7 Deformation lemma for functionals satisfying

condition (L)
To obtain some kind of deformation lemma we must use quite different approach than
that used in Chapter 2 since F is only lower semicontinuous. As in Chapter 2 we
denote by Κ the set of critical points of F and put
Kc = {«; F(u) = c and u G AT}.
Lemma 7.7.1. Suppose that F satisfies (L) and the (PS) condition and let Ν be a
neigbourhood of Kc. Then for each e > there exists € G (0, e) such that if u0 & Ν and
c — € < F(u0) < c0 + €, then
( Φ ' ( Μ 0 ) , VO - H o ) + f(v0) - V(«o) < -3e||u0 - M0||
for some v0 e X.
Proof Arguing indirectly, we find a sequence {um} C X — Ν such that F(um) —>· c
and
(0'(«m), ν — um) + ψ(υ) - \J/(um) > 1|ν - uffl||
m
for all ν € X. Consequently, by Proposition 7.6.2 a subsequence of {um} converges to
«ο G Kc. This contradicts the fact that um & Ν for each m. •
Lemma 7.7.2. Suppose that (L) and the (PS) condition hold and let Ν be a neigh-
bourhood of Κc. Let€ > 0 be such that the assertion of Lemma! .7.1 is satisfied. Then
for every u0 € Fc+e — Ν there exist v0 G X and an open neighbourhood U0 of ν0 such
that
<Φ '(ii), v 0 - u ) + ψ(υ 0 ) - < ||υ0 - Μ || (7.22)
for all u G U0,
(Φ'(Κ), v0-u) + f(v0) - rjr(u) < -3€\\v0 - M|| (7.23)
for all u £ UQ satisfying F(u) > c — €. Moreover, ifu0 & Κ we can take v0 = u0 and
if uο ^ K, v0, U0 and a number δ0 > 0 can be chosen so that v0 & U0 and
(Φ'(Μ), v0-u)+ f{v0) - ir(u) < -Äollüo - M|| (7.24)
for all u G UQ.

Authenticated
7.7 Deformation lemma for functional satisfying condition (L) 189
Proof. We distinguish two cases: (i) u0 € Κ and (ii) u0 & K.

Case (i). It follows from (7.19) that
(Φ'(Μο), μ - m0) + ψ {u) - f ( u 0 ) > 0
for all u e X. We now choose a small neighbourhood UQ of M0 such that
( Φ \ u ) , u0-u) + f(u0) - 1f/{u) < (Φ'(μ) - Φ(«ο), "ο - u)

< ||Φ'(Μ) — Φ'(« 0 )Ι|||μο — « I I
< ll"o - «II
for all u e U0. This shows that (7.22) is satisfied with v0 = uQ. We now observe that
if c — € < F(u) < c + € and u e K, then by Lemma 7.7.1 u € N. Since uQ g N,
we must have F(u0) < c — €. If F(u) < c — e in some neighbourhood of u0, we
may choose U0 to be contained in this neighbourhood. Therefore the condition (7.23)
is empty. If every neighbourhood of u0 contains a point u at which F(u) > c - e we
easily check, using the continuity of Φ, that x(r(u) — ψ(μ0) > d > 0 for some constant
d and u sufficiently close to uQ and satisfying F(u) > c — €. This means that if Ua is
sufficiently small neighbourhood of u0, then
(Φ'(μ), u0 — u) + ψ(ιι0) - f{u) < ||Φ'(«)|| ||mo -u\\-d

< - 3 e | | « 0 - «II
for all μ e i/ 0 such that F(u) > c — €.

Case (ii). First, we suppose that F(u0) < c — e. Since u0 is not a critical point of
F , there exists v 0 e X such that
(Φ'(Κο), Vo - Mo) + f(Vo) - Ψ(ΙΛ0) < 0. (7.25)
Letting u>0 = tvQ + (1 — t)u0,0 < t < 1, we get by the convexity of ψ that
(Φ'(Μ 0 ), W0 ~ Mo) + Ψ(Μο) ~ ο)

< t((<b'(u0), V0 - M0) + Xf/(V0) - f{u0)) < 0.
Hence we may assume that v0 is close to u0. As in the part (i) we show that there exists
d > 0 such that yfr{u) — > d > 0 for all u sufficiently close to M0 and such that
F(M) > c — €. It then follows from (7.25) that if U0 and ||U0 — M 0 || are sufficiently
small then
(ψ(υ0) - ^r(Mo)) + (ψ(μ0) - f{u)) < - - d = ~-
and
(Φ'(Μ), Υ 0 - Μ ) . + ψ(ν0) - ψ(μ) < ||Φ'(«)||||Υ 0 - « I I - \ < -3E||W0 - «II

Authenticated
for all u e UQ with F(u) > c — e. This means that (7.23) holds. Since vQ φ u0,
we may assume that vQ & UQ and moreover U0 can be chosen smaller, if necessary, to
ensure that the inequality (7.25) remains true in U0. that is,
(Φ'ΟΟ, v0 - u) + f(v0) - f(u) < -<5 0 ||u 0 - w||
and (7.24) is satisfied. It now remains to consider the case F(u0) > c — e. We can
apply Lemma 7.7.1 to obtain the existence of v0 such that the inequality from this
lemma is satisfied. By the continuity of Φ' and the lower semicontinuity of ψ we can
extend this inequality to a suitably small neighbourhood of U0 of u0, with v0 g U0,
that is
(Φ'(κ), v0 — u) + f(v0) - ι f r ( u ) < - 3 e | | u 0 - u||
for all « e t/ 0 . This shows that (7.24) holds. •
A family of mappings α(·, j ) ξ as : W —> X, 0 < s < s0, s0 > 0, is said to be a

deformation if a e C(W χ [0, j 0 ], X) and a0 = I (/ identity on W).
Lemma 7.7.3 (Deformation lemma). Suppose that F satisfies (L) and the (PS) con-
dition and let Ν be neighbourhood of Κc. Then for each € > 0 there exists 0 < e < €
such that for each compact subset A of X — Ν satisfying
c < sup F(u) < c + €,

ueA
we can find a closed set W, with A C Int W and a deformation as : W —»• X,

0 < s < s0, having the following properties
\\u - as(u)\\ < s (7.26)
for all u € W,
F(as(u)) - F(u) < 2s (7.27)
for all u e W,
F(as(u)) - F(u) < -2es (7.28)
for all u € W, with F(u) > c — e, and
sup F(as(u)) - sup F(u) < -2es. (7.29)

ueA U€A
Moreover, if WQ is a closed such that W0 Π Κ = 0, then W and as can be chosen so

that
F ( a s ( u ) ) - F(u) < 0 (7.30)
for allu eW(l WQ.

Authenticated
Proof. By Lemma 7.7.2 there exists € € (0, €) such that for each u0 G A there
corresponds a neighbourhood of U0 satisfying conditions stated in that lemma. If
«ο e Κ we may always assume that U0 Π Wo = 0. The sets U0 corresponding to
u0 G A form a covering of a compact set A. Let {£/,}, i G 7, be a finite subcovering.
Let {«,} and {υ,} be points corresponding to £/,· from Lemma 7.7.2. By taking a suitable
refinement, if necessary, we may always assume that if a i0 € J and u,o e K, then
dist(w,o, Ui) > 0 for each i φ i0. Let p, be a continuous function such that p, («) > 0
for u e Ui and p, (u) = 0 for u g C/,. We set
ai{u) =
E j z j p j i " )
u G V = U/E/ u' anc

* define a deformation mapping as as follows: if M,0 G Λ Π Κ,
then
" + * K ^ ^ r 0 < s ii"«0 - «Ii, w € i/ fo - U / / ( 0 ut
and in all other cases

Vi — u
Σ :i€Jc ,
Ciiu)- [7 ·
I k - «II
It is easy to check that a s is well defined and continuous for sufficiently small s. It is
clear that a Q = / . To check the remaining properties of a s we write
F(as(u)) = F(u + I U I ) = Φ ( Μ ) + F ( Φ ' ( Κ ) , w) + r(s) + f { u + sw), (7.31)
where
as(u) = u + sw and |r(i)| 0 such that
0 < 3<5 < min{l, €, <$,·},
where <5/ > 0 by numbers corresponding to C/, from relation (7.24). Since A is compact,
there exist a closed set W, with A c Int W and s > 0 such that | r ( j ) | < Si for all
0 < i < i , « 6 W a n d u ) e X with ||w|| < 1. If u £ Uio - \Ji¥=io £/,·, then
1
as(u) = u + sw = I 1 — s ^σ,·(Μ)||υ,· — μ|| 1« + s ^^σ,·(Μ)||υ,· — Μ||-1υ,.
For s sufficiently small we have
0< jâ/iiOlk-Kir1 < 1

i€J

Authenticated
and using the convexity of ψ we deduce from (7.31) that
F(cts(u)) < Φ(κ)+*Υ\, „ ( Φ » , ^ - u) + 8s

feWvi -»II
= F(«) + 5 Υ ι, σ ' ( Μ ) |ΐ ( < φ

» ' υ'· - "> + ^ ( υ / ) - ΨΜ) + 8s.
According to (7.22) each term in the last summation is less than or equal to σ, («),
hence
F(as(u)) < F(u) + s + 8s (7.32)
and (7.27) holds. In a similar manner we show, using (7.23) and (7.24), that
F(as(u)) < F(u) - 3es + 8s (7.33)
for all u e W with F{u) > c — € and
F(cts(u)) < F(u) - 38s + 8s (7.34)
for all u e W Π W0. Suppose that u e Uio - U i / / 0 u>>• W e have
ors(u) = u + sw = (1 - s||Wjo - m||_1)m + s||wio - M||-1Mio
for s < || m,0 — u || = s. In this case we repeat the previous part of the proof to show
(7.27) and (7.28). On the other hand , if s > s, then
F(as(u)) = F(a-S(u)) < F(u) + 3 + 8s < F(u) + 2s

and F(as(u)) = F(m0) < c — e. This means that (7.27) and (7.28) hold for small s.
The inequality (7.30) follows from (7.34) if« £ t / / o - E , y i 0 u i - I f " e υ ί 0 ~ Σ ί φ ί 0 u>>
then u e Ulo and uio e K. Hence Uio Π W0 = 0 and u & W Π W0. Finally, to show
(7.29) let us first assume that sup tt€j4 F(as(u)) < c — §. Then taking s < | we get
(7.29) since sup u 6 i 4 F(w) > c. On the other hand if sup u 6 / 1 F(as(u)) > c — we set
Β = {u e Λ; F(w) > c - e}.
It follows from (7.27) that
sup F(as(u)) = sup F ^ u ) )

«eA ueß
for ί small, say s < | . This combined with (7.28) implies that
sup F(as(u)) — sup F(u) = sup F(as(u)) — sup F{u) (7.35)

uzA ueA u&B ueB
< s u p ( F ( a s ( « ) ) - F(u)) < - 2 e s .
ueB
•

Authenticated
Corollary 7.7.1. Suppose that Φ and ψ are even and that A is symmetric. Then as is
odd.
Proof. We may assume that W is symmetric. We define
ßs(") = ^(«*(") -as(-«)),
then ßs is odd and satisfies (7.26). Writing as(u) = u + hs(u), we have by Taylor's
formula
+ + hs(u)) + i(« - hs(—u))j.
F(ßs(u)) < X- [Φ(μ) + <Φ'(Μ), hs(u)) + + hs(«))]
[ Φ ( - « ) + (Φ'(-Μ), hs(-u)) + f ( - u + AJ(-m))] + 8s.
Applying Taylor's formula again we get
F(ßs(u)) < iF(a,(«)) + iF(a,(-«)) + Us.
This combined with (7.32) gives

F(ßs(u)) < F(u) + s + 3Ss< F(u) + 2s
for s small and (7.27) holds. Similarly, using (7.33) and (7.34) we show that ßs
satisfies (7.28) and (7.30). Finally, ßs satisfies (7.29) since (7.35) continues to hold for
u satisfying (7.27) and (7.28). •
We are now in a position to establish the mountain pass theorem for functionals
satisfying (L).
Theorem 7.7.1. Suppose that F : X (-oo,oo]satisfies(L)andthe(PS)condition

and moreover
(i) F(0) = 0 and there exist constants ρ > and a > 0 such that
F(u)>a for μ G 5(0, p),
(ii) F(e) < 0 for some e & B(0, p).

Then
a < c = inf sup F(g(t))
S e r f € [ 0,1]
is a critical value of F. (Here, Γ denotes the set of paths defined in Theorem 1.1.3.)

Authenticated
Proof. Since g([0,1]) Π 5(0, ρ) φ 0 for all g e Γ, c > a. Suppose that c is not
a critical value. We now apply Lemma 7.7.3 with Ν = 0 and € = c and e < e be
a positive constant from that lemma. It follows from the definition of c that F c _ | is
not path connected and let us denote by WQ and We components containing 0 ana e,
respectively. We now replace Γ by a collection of paths Γι with "loose ends" defined
by
Γ, = {G € C([0,1], xy, g(0) 6 W0 Η F C _ § , G(I) € we Η F C _ F }
and set
c\ = inf sup F(g(t)).
S e r ι re[0,1]
We now show that c\ = c. Since Γ c Γι, ci < c. If ci < c, then there exists g e Γι
such that sup ie [ 0i i] F(g(t)) < c. Since g(0) can be joined to 0 and g(l) to e by paths
lying in Fc_«, we see that there exists a path g e Γ such that sup fe [ 0 ,i] F(g(t)) < c,
which is impossible. Since Φ is continuous and ψ is convex it is routine to show that
Γι is a closed subspace of Γ and conseqently Γι is a complete metric space. Since Γι
is a complete metric space it is easy to show that a functional Π : Γι —• (—oo, oo]
defined by
n ( g ) = sup F(g(t))
t
is lower semicontinuous. We now apply Ekeland's variational principle (Theorem
1.1.1) with € > 0 and λ = 1 to obtain a path / e Γι such that Π ( / ) < c + € and
n(g)-Tl(f)>-€d(f,g) (7.36)
for all g € Γι. Let A = /([0,1]) and let as be deformation mapping from Lemma
7.7.3 corresponding to A and satisfying (7.26)-(7.30). Setting g = α 5 ο / we check
that g € Γι for s sufficiently small. Indeed, if F ( / ( 0 ) ) € (c — €, c — §], then
by (7.27) F(g(0)) < F ( / ( 0 ) ) < c - § and if F ( / ( 0 ) ) < c - <?, then by (7.29)
F(g(0)) < F ( / ( 0 ) ) + 2s < c - §. In both cases g € W0 Π F c <. Similarly, we show
that g(l) g We (Ί F c _ f . Therefore, g e Γι. According to (7.26) d ( f , g) < i, it then
follows from (7.29) and (7.36) that
< - € d ( f , g) < 11(g)- Π (/) < - 2 «
Corollary 7.7.2. Suppose that F satisfies (L) and the condition (PS). If 0 is a local
minimum of F and if F(e) < F(0) for some e φ 0, then F has a critical point u
distinct from 0 and e. In particular, if F has two local minima, then it has at least three
critical points.
Proof. Without loss of generality we may always assume that F(0) = 0. If there exist
Constantsa > Oandp > 0 such that e & B( 0, p)andF(w) > α for all μ G 5(0, /o),then
the existence of a critical point distinct from 0 and e is a consequence of Theorem 7.7.1.

Authenticated
7.8 Application to variational inequalities 195
If such constants do not exist we choose r < ||e|| so that F(u) > 0 for u G B{0, r ) .
We now apply Theorem 1.1.1 with e = and λ = m and F restricted to 5 ( 0 , r ) . Let
0 < ρ < r. Since inf„ES(O,P) F(u) = 0, there exists wm e 5(0, ρ) and um G B(0, p)
such that
0 < F(um) < F(wm) < \\um — u)m\\ < —
mA m
and
F(z)-F(um)>--\\z-wm\\
m
for all ζ G B{0, r). For m sufficiently large um G ß ( 0 , r). Let ν E X and let
z = ( 1 - t)u m + tv. \i t > 0 i s sufficiently small then ζ e 5 ( 0 , r). We deduce from
the last inequality and the convexity of ψ that
--\\v -um\\ < F((l - t)um + tv) - F(um)

m
< Φ(Μ« + t(v - um)) - Φ (um) + t ( f ( v ) - ^ ( " m i -
Dividing by t and letting t —> 0 we get

1
(Φ ( u m ) , v-um) + ψ{ν) - f{um) > II V - um II
m
for all ν G X. According to the (PS) condition we may assume that um —*• u, with
u e 5(0, p) and that Μ is a critical point which is distinct from 0 and e. Finally, if F has
two local minimaM 0 and Μ I , may always assume that M0 = 0 a n d F ( M J ) < F{u0) = 0.
By the previous part of the proof there exists a critical point u distinct from M0 and u Ι
7.8 Application to variational inequalities

Let /C be a nonempty closed set and let ψ be the indicator function of K,, that is,
I//-(M) = 0 if u G /C and ψ(μ) = oo otherwise. A functional F = Φ + ψ, with
Φ G C 1 (X, R), satisfies (L). We now observe that Μ is a critical point of F if and only
if Μ G K, and
(Φ'(Μ), ν - u ) > 0 f o r all ν G /C.
Moreover, F satisfies the (PS)C condition if and only if every sequence {um} C /C such
that Φ (um) —• c and
(Φ'(«„), V — MM) > (ZM, V ' Um)
for each ν G AT, where 0 in X, has a convergent subsequence in X. We shall

apply Theorem 7.7.1 to variational inequality on a closed convex set.

Authenticated
Let Q be a bounded domain in W1 and let ρ \ Q χ R -»· R be a function satisfying

(a), (b), (d) of Section 6.5 of Chapter 6 and moreover
(c') is bounded uniformly in χ € Ω as t —> 0.
Let
Κ = {U € Wl'2{Q)\ U(X) > 0 a.e. in Q}.
Theorem 7.8.1. Suppose that ρ : β χ Μ ^ Ι satisfies (a), (b), (d) of Section 6.5 in
Chapter6 and (c'). Ifg € L 2 ( ß ) is such that g(x) < 0 a.e. on Q, then the variational
inequality
find u G K. such that for each ν C )C,
I Vm(Vi; — Vu)dx — I p(x, u)(v - u) dx > / g(v-u)dx

JQ JQ JQ
has a solution φ 0.
Proof We apply Theorem 7.7.1 to the functional F = Φ + ψ, where
= ^ f |V«|2 dx — [ P(x, u) dx — f gudx,

1 JQ JQ JQ
with P{x, u) = JQ p(x, t)dt, and ψ is the indicator function of /C. Repeating the
argument from the proof of Theorem 6.5.1 we show that the (PS)C condition and (ii) of
Theorem 7.7.1 are satisfied. It remains to check that F(u) > a for u g 5(0, p). In the
contrary case there exists a sequence [um] c JC - {0} such that um 0 in W^2(Q),
Φ("τη) < m~ \\um\\ . Setting zm = Ä
l 2 we get
φ («») II «mir 2 = \ ~ f 0 P(x,»M)u~2Z2mdx (7.37)

'Q
i-l
- II"'..., / gzmdx < m~l.
Jo
'Q
By virtue of (c') we have the following estimate for the first integral on the right hand
side of (7.37)
/ P(um)um2z2mdx\< f P(x,um)um2z2mdx + \\um\\ l f \P(x,um)\dx

JQ
'Q 1' ->l«mll"ml<l J\um\>\
< Ci f zm2max
dx -ι-
+ C^2\\u
2\\umm\\
\'s~-1X (7.38)
'Q
JQ
for some constants C\ > 0 and C2 > 0. Since {zm} is bounded in W 0 1 , 2 (ö) we may
assume that zm —^ ζ in L2{Q). If ζ = 0, then
1
liminf (um)||um|| >
00 2

Authenticated
because the first integral in (7.37) tends to 0 by (7.38) while the second one is negative
for all m. Consequently, ζ Φ 0. However, if this occurs, then JQ gzdx < 0 and hence
(Mm)||um||-2 -> oo because the first integral in (7.37) is bounded. This contradiction
completes the proof. •

We refer to the monograph of Clarke [85] for the basic concept of generalized gradi-
ent. Theorems 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 are due to Chang [72], [73] and [74]. The approach
to the mountain pass theorem, presented in Sections 7.3 and 7.4, has been patterned
after the works of Shu Zhong Shi [206], Choulli-Deville-Rhandi [80] and Ghoussoub-
Preiss [122]. Theorem 7.5.1 appeared in Chang's paper [73]. The results of Sections
7.6 and 7.7 were obtained by Szulkin [220]. Ribarska-Tsachev-Krastanov [187] and
Chang [72] proved the mountain pass theorem for locally Lipschitz functionals using
a variant of a deformation lemma. Further extensions of the mountain pass theo-
rem and the critical point theory for continuous functionals can be found in works of
Corvellec-Degiovanni-Marzocchi [89], [94]. A version of the mountain pass theorem
for functionals which are not differentiable in all directions was given by Arcoya-
Boccardo [15]. A different approach to boundary value problems for elliptic equations
with discontinuous nonlinearities via the dual variational principle can be found in [8],
[11] and [21].

Authenticated
Chapter 8
Concentration-compactness principle —
subcritical case
One of the main problems encountered in solving variational problems is to show the
convergence of a minimizing sequence. In many variational problems it is relatively
easy to show the boundedness of a minimizing sequence in an appropriate Sobolev
space. In this chapter we establish a form of concentration-compactness principle at
infinity in a subcritical case. This principle can be effectively used to show a relative
compactness of minimizing sequences on unbounded domains of constrained mini-
mization problems. In the final section we show the relation between Proposition 8.1.1
(the concentration compactness principle at infinity) and P. L. Lions' concentration-
compactness principle I.
8.1 Concentration-compactness principle at infinity —

subcritical case
The aim of this section is to establish the concentration-compactness principle at
infinity on unbounded domains of R in the subcritical case. In Chapter 9 we formulate
n
a corresponding result for critical case. Due to Sobolev compact embedding theorem,
a possible loss of mass of a weakly convergent sequence in W 1 , p ( R n ) can only occur
at infinity. In Proposition 8.1.1 we express this phenomenon in quantitative terms.
Proposition 8.1.1. Let Ω C M" be an unbounded domain. Let {um} be a sequence in

ΐνο''2(Ω) such that um u in ν^0''2(Ω) and define
(a) «σο = lim / ? _ > 0 0 limsup m ^ 0 0 / ß n ( | j c | > Ä ) \um(x)\P dx, where 2 < ρ < Τ,
(b) ßoo = timR^colimsupn^cc fan(M>R)(\Vum(x)\2+Xum{x)2) dx,whereX > 0

is a constant.
These quantities are well defined and satisfy
(c) lim sup m _ > 0 0 / Ω \um\pdx = f a \U\P dx + ofoo,
(d) lim supm_>.00 / Ω (| Dum I2 + λ « 2 ) dx > /Ω (I Du I2 + λ « 2 ) dx + ßoo and

Authenticated
8.1 Concentration-compactness principle at infinity — subcritical case 199
2
(e) Μλ(αοο) ρ < ßoo, where
M\ = Μλ(Ω) = i n f j J (\Du\2 + λα2) dx\ u e Ψ*'2(Ω), j \u\P dx = l}.
Proof. By the Sobolev embedding theorem we may assume that um —> u in

Let g C 1 (Mn) be such that <f>R(x) = 0for |jc| < RandφR(x) = 1 for |jc| > R + 1
and 0 < φr(x) < 1 on R". It follows from the definition of Μχ that
2
2
Μλ ^ W R u m \ P d x y dx < jf ( \ D ( u M \ + λ \ α η φ κ \ ή dx.
Since
lim limsup I \ u ^ r \ p
dx = αοοι
oo m—too J ω
lim limsup / (|V« m | 2 + λ « * ) ^ J a c = 0«,,

«-»•oo m->oo JQ
2
lim limsup1 / |aI".m V0/e| <ijc = 0
Λ-χχ) /η->·οο Jq
and
lim limsup / = 0
Ä->-oo rn-+oo JQ
the inequality (e) follows. To show (c) we write for each R > 0
limsup I \um\p dx = / |m|p dx + lim sup / |wm | p iijc.

m—κχ) JQ JQn(\x\<R) m-*·oo 7ωπ(|λ|>Λ)
Letting Ä ->• oo, relation (c) follows. By a similar argument, using the weak lower
semicontinuity of a norm with respect to the weak convergence, we deduce (d). •
The infimum Μχ{Ω) depends on Ω. It is easy to see that Μχ(Ωι) > Α/χ(Ω2)
whenever Ωι C Ω2. Applying the maximum principle it is not difficult to show that
if Μλ(Ωι) = Μχ(Ω2), Ωι c Ω2 and Ωι φ Ω2, then Μλ(Ωι) is not achieved. Such
situation occurs for large interior-domains. We say that a domain Ω C K" is a large-
interior domain if for every R > 0 there exists an χ e Ω such that B(x, R) c Ω.
Examples of large-interior domains are: exterior domains, cones and half-spaces.
Lemma 8.1.1. If Ω C K" is a large-interior domain, then Μχ(Ω) = Λ/χ(Ε η ).
Proof. Let w e W 1 , 2 (K") be a minimizer for Mx(R n ). Its existence is assured

by Proposition 4.1.1. We choose sequences c Ω and rm c (0, 00) such that
B(ym,fm) C Ω and l i m ™ - ^ rm = 00. Let φ e C,|([0, 00)) such that 0 < φ < 1

Authenticated
200 8 Concentration-compactness principle — subcritical case
on [0, oo), 0 ( f ) = 1 for t e [0, 1] and <j>{t) = 0 for t e [2, oo). Letting wm(x) =
<p(2]x~ym[)w{x - ym) we see that wm e ^ 0 ! · 2 ( Ω ) and
f (|Vui m | 2 + λίΐ) 2 ) dx = Α/χ(Ω) + o ( l )

JΩ
and
Jo.
Ώ
/ Γ
\wm\p dx = 1 4 - o ( l )
as m —> oo. This means that Μχ(Ω) < Μχ{Rn). Since we always have Μχ(Μ") <
Μχ (Ω) the result follows. •
8.2 Constrained minimization — subcritical case

In this section we use Proposition 8.1.1 to obtain criteria of the solvability for the
problem
Μ ^ λ ( Ω ) = inf{ j (\Vu\2 + ku2)dx\ u e Ψι·2(Ω), j b(x)\u\p dx = l ) , (8.1)
where λ > 0 is a positive parameter, 2 < ρ < 2* and b is a continuous, positive

and bounded function on Ω. We associate with problem (8.1) a variational functional
G : ^ · 2 ( Ω ) ^ Μ given by
G(u) = - f (|Vw| 2 + ku2) dx — - f b(x)\u\pdx.

2 Jn Ρ Jo.
1
By Theorem 1.2.1 a minimizer ν of problem (8.1) after rescaling u = Μζχ ν, where
Μχ = Μχ(Ω,), satisfies the equation
- Au + ku = b(x)\u\p~2u in Ω. (8.2)
Lemma 8.2.1. Let {um} be a minimizing sequence of problem (8.1). Then the reseated
ι
sequence vm = Μζλ um satisfies:
1 1 ρ
G(vm) (- - and G'(vm) 0 in Ψ~ι·2(Ώ) (8.3)
as m —> oo.
Proof. First we notice that

\\vm\\2=\\um\\2M^=M^ +o( 1)

Authenticated
as m - > oo and
f b\vm\pdx = Mi tr *,
Ja
Here || · || denotes the norm in defined by
||U||2 = f (IVu\ 2 +ku 2 )dx.

Ja
Hence,
For φ e W 0 1 , 2 ( n ) we define a functional Jm : R by
Jm(<P)= f b(x)\vm\P-2vm<l>dx.
Ja
If ||01| = 1, then
% < f (|V0|2||0||7P2 + X | | ( / » | r P V ) ^
Ja b
_I
and hence Μί,,Λ||0||2ρ < ||0||2 = 1. Consequently ||0||lP < M,J a n d f o r e a c h m we
Lb b
have
l/m(0)l dx\

Ja
< [J ^ ) (J Qb pdx p umpdx p )

Ρ-1 I
^ „JP^ Μ 2 — A-f 2(P-V
Thus
-ε-*
M p ρ
/m(Wml|W«ir1) = -ir'-ir f b\vm\Pdx = - J * = M ^ + o ( 1)
\\Vm\\ Ja
M * = * + o ( 1)
and from this we deduce that

Authenticated
as m —> oo. By virtue of the Riesz representation theorem, for each m we can find
w m e Ψ 0 '· 2 (Ω) such that
Jm(<p) = (wm, Φ) = (VwmV0 + λυ)ηφ) dx

Jn
and
INmll = II Jm\\ IV"1·2·
Consequently
(Wm, ymllVmir1) = /miwmllw»«"1) = M ^ + θ( 1)
as m —• oo. Therefore we have
(wm, vm) = ΜζλΔ +o(l)
as m —> oo and
Nm-WmII 2 = \ \ v m \ \ 2 - 2 ( υ m , w m ) + \\wm\\2
1M
= - ~t + M~t + =
as m -> oo. Finally, if φ e W j · 2 ^ ) and ||</>|| = 1, then
<G'(w m ),0) = f (νυ„νφ + λυ„φ)άχ

Jn
-f b\vm\P~2v^dx
Jn
= (νη,φ) - (u>m, Φ) = (vm - νυη,φ).
This implies that
|(G'(w m ),0)| < ||um - Wm!!
and the claim follows. •
We commence with an existence result for problem (8.1) with Ω = Μ" andb(jt) = 1
on R". In this case we write Μχ = Μi,x(R") (see Proposition 8.1.1).
Theorem 8.2.1. Let b(x) = 1 on R". Then the minimization problem (8.1), with
Ω = R", is solvable.
Proof. This result has already been established in Proposition 4.11. Here we give a
different proof based on the concentration-compactness principle (Proposition 8.1.1).
Let {um} C W U ( R " ) be a minimizing sequence for problem (8.1) and we put vm =
ι
Mûm. According to Lemma 8.2.1 relations (8.3) hold with Α//, λ replaced by Μλ.

Authenticated
Our aim is to show that {um} is up to a translation relatively compact in W , ' 2 (K").
Let 0 < r < (5 - and by (8.3) we may assume that G(vm) > r for all m.
=
Let {<2« }. (i ' Ί . · · · . '«) be the family of all cubes of the form {x g R"; ik < Xk <
ik + 1, k = 1 , . . . , n}, where ik are integers. We put
dm = m a x \\vm\\LP<Q ).
ieZ„
We claim that there exists a 8 > 0 such that dm > 8 for all m. Indeed, by (8.3) we have
G(vm) = ( ] - - - ) f \vm\pdx + o(l).

V2 p/yRn
Let I = - ^ 2 , we obtain by the Sobolev inequality that
lG(vm)+o(\) = f \vm\pdx = II
LP(Qi)
JV ieZ„
< max ll^ll£p ( 2 ö ( ) Σ IKIlL> (öl .)
< Cd?-2Y f (Wvm\2+*-v2m)dx = Cd? 2

\\vm ||2
/tz„ JQi
= CdP-2lG(vm)+o( 1)
for some constant C > 0 independent of i. Since G(vm) > r > 0 for all m, we see
that there exists a 8 > 0 such that dm > 8 for all m. Therefore, for each m there exists
a cube ß;m such that
II ^m ΙΙζ,Ρ(β,πι) - 2'
This means that for each m there exists a point ym = >>,·« in R" whose coordinates are
integers such that
8 (8,4)
\\Vm\\LP(Qim) = I K ( - + >V)llz./'(ß0) - J '
Since {vm(• -f j m )} also satisfies relations (8.3), we see that {um(- + must be
bounded in
W 1>2 (R n ). Therefore, we can select a subsequence, relabelled again by
such that
vm(- + ym)^v inW1·2^")
and
vm(-+ym)-+v in Lf0C(M").

Authenticated
By (8.4) we have ||υ||{,ρ(β0) > that is, ν φ 0. We now put wm(·) = vm(- + ym) and
denote by «oo and βοο the quantities related to {wm} by Proposition 8.1.1. It follows
from Proposition 8.1.1 (c) that
f \v(x)\p dx + aoo = Mf*. (8.5)

J R"
To complete the proof it is sufficient to show that atoo = 0· Arguing indirectly, we
assume that «oo > 0. Since υ φ 0, it follows from (8.5) that
ct00<Mf1. (8.6)
Let <j)R be a function defined in the proof of Proposition 8.1.1. Since G'(wm) -»· 0
in we see that (G'(w m ), wm(j)R) —• 0 as m —> oo uniformly for R > 1.
Hence we have that
o( 1) = (G'(w m ), wm<j)R)
= / (\Vwm\2(pR + k<pRwll)dx+ VwmV<t>Rwmdx- n

\wm\p(t>Rdx.
J R" J R" JR
Letting m —> oo and then R - » oo we find that αοο = βοο- This combined with (e) of
2 _£_
2
Proposition 8.1.1 gives M \ a ^ < α ^ , that is, < αοο which contradicts (8.6). •
Theorem 8.2.1 can be extended without any difficulty to periodic domains in M".
We say that Ω C M" is a periodic domain if there exists a partition {Qi} of Ω and
a sequence of points yi C M" such that
(i) {y,} forms a subgroup of R",
(ii) Qo is a bounded domain and ß , = Q0 + yit
Typical examples of periodic domains are: 1) Ωι = O x R J , where Ο is a bounded
domain in Rp and η = p + s, 2) Ω 2 = Κ", 3) {(λ, y) £ R 2 ; sinx < y < I + sin*}.
Inspection of the proof of Theorem 8.2.1 shows that
Corollary 8.2.1. Let b(x) = I on a periodic domain Ω C M". Then problem (8.1)
admits a solution.
Obviously a solution to problem (8.1) can be chosen to be nonnegative since G(u) =

G(|m|). So we may assume that a minimizer is nonnegative and it must be positive on
its domain of definition by the maximum principle.
By Lemma 8.1.1 problem (8.1) is not solvable on large-interior domains Ω / Ι " . A
question can be asked what can be said about minimizing sequences on these domains.
To answer this question we need the following lemma.

Authenticated
Lemma 8.2.2. Let Ω c R" be an unbounded domain and let b{x) = 1 on Ω. If

{um} C ννο1,2(Ω) is a minimizing sequence for problem (8.1) such that um u φ 0
1,2
in Μ^0 (Ω), then problem (8.1) has a solution.
Proof. Indeed, we have by Proposition 8.1.1 that 1 = fRn \u\p dx+aoo. Since u φ 0,
we must have that αοο < 1. On the other hand, since
1 1
( G \ u m M £ Z 1 ) , M p u m ) - + 0,
as m —»· oo, uniformly in R > 1, where 0/f are functions from the proof of Proposition
8.1.1, we get that Μχα^ = βοο• Therefore, by Proposition 8.1.1 (e) we have a^ > 1
By virtue of this lemma every weakly convergent minimizing sequence {um} c

1,2
Ψ 0 (Ω) on a large-interior domain Ω φ R" must have a weak limit 0, that is, a oo = 1.
On the other hand we extend every um by 0 outside Ω to obtain a sequence in W1'2 (R")
which is a minimizing sequence for problem (8.1) on R". The proof of Theorem 8.2.1
shows that there exists a sequence of points {ym} C R", with integer coordinates, and
a subsequence of {um} relabelled again by {u m }, such that um(· + ym) ^ u φ 0 in
W 1,2 (R"). Therefore we can state the following result
Corollary 8.2.2. Let Ω φ R" be a large-interior domain and let b{x) = 1 on Ω. Every
weakly convergent in ^01,2(Ω) minimizing sequence [um} for problem (8.1) has a weak
limit 0. If we extend every um by 0 outside Ω, then there exists a sequence } C R"
and a subsequence of {um}, relabelled again by {um}, such that um(- + ym) ^ u φ 0
in W 1 ' 2 ^ " ) and u is a solution of problem (8.1) on R".
The sequence in this corollary must be unbounded, since otherwise um

u φ 0 and problem (8.1) would be solvable for a large-interior domain Ω.
8.3 Constrained minimization with b ψ const, subcritical

case
To guarantee the solvability of problem (8.1), with b φ const, we must impose some
restrictions on the behaviour of b at infinity. Throughout this section we assume that
b φ const. We start with an analogue of Lemma 8.2.2.
Lemma 8.3.1. If{um} c W1,2(R") is a minimizing sequence for problem (8.1) such
that um —^ u φ 0 in W1'2(R"), then problem (8.1) has a solution.

Authenticated
Proof. It is enough to show that
etb,oo = lim limsup I b(x)\um\p dx = 0.

R-y00 m-too ./(M>*)
Assuming that aôo > 0, we have
1= f b(x)\u\p dx + ab>00.
J R"
1
2
Since {M£k um} satisfies (8.3), we easily derive that βoo = ocb,oo^b,x· By the defini-
tion of problem (8.1) we have
2
Mb,A f b(x)\u\pdx) < f (|Vw|2 + ku2)dx. (8.7)

\Jw J J R"
Relations (8.3) yield that
From this relation we deduce that
f (\S7u\2+ku2)dx < Mb,x f b{x)\u\p dx.

J R" J R"
This combined with (8.7) gives
Mb,J[ b(x)\u\P dx)" < Mb,κ f b(x)\u\p dx,

\J R" / JR"
that is fRn b(x)\u\p dx > 1, which is impossible. •
A starting point in establishing the solvability of problem (8.1) is to show, as in the

first part of the proof of Theorem 8.2.1, that for every minimizing sequence of problem
(8.1) there exists a sequence {;ym} C Z„ such that um(• + ym) u φ 0 in W 1 , 2 ( R ' 1 )
as m —> oo. To achieve this we modify dm by
dm = maxMj ^J b{x)\um\pdxy
and show that dm > 8 for all m and some constant 8 > 0.
Theorem 8.3.1. Let {um} C W 1 , 2 ( R n ) be a minimizing sequence of problem (8.1).

Then there exists a subsequence of {um}, denoted again by {um}, and a sequence
{ym} c Ζ „ such that um (· + ym) —1^ u φ. 0 in as m oo. Moreover

Authenticated
(0 tfiym) is bounded, then u is a solution to problem (8.1),

(ii) if Ηηΐμΐ-κχ,b(x) = b(oo) > 0 and {j m } is unbounded, then um(· + ym) —• u in
as m —»· oo and u is a solution of problem (8.1) with b(x) = b(oo) on
n
R.
Proof If {_ym} is a bounded sequence then obviously um —^ u φ 0 in

and the result follows from Lemma 8.3.1. We now consider the case where {ym} is
unbounded. To show that um(• + ym) u in W 1 , 2 (R n ) it is enough to check that
<*b,oo = Hm lim sup / b(x + ym)\um(x + ym)\p dx = 0.

R->oo m-*oo J\x\>R
Arguing indirectly let us assume that α£ ι00 > 0. Thus setting vm(x) = um(x + ym)
we have for R > 0
l = f b(x)\um(x)\p dx = f b(x + ym)\vm(x)\P dx

J R" J\x\<R
+ 1 b(x + ym)\vm(x)\p dx
J\x\>R
and then letting m —> oo and R -*• oo we get that
1 =[ b(oo)\u(x)\p dx + a ^ . (8.8)
J R"
1
Since u φ 0, we have 1 > oo > 0. Using the fact that [Μζλ um} satisfies relations
(8.3) we get that
f (\Vvm\2+Xv2m)dx = Mb<k f b{x)\um(x)\p dx + o{\).

J R" J R"
Setting
ßoo = Hm lim sup / (|Vt; m | 2 + λ υ 2 ) dx,
R-*oo m->oo J\xl>R
we deduce from Proposition 8.1.1 that
f (IVuf + Xu^dx + ß o o Z M u . (8.9)

J R"
1
Since we may assume that \ym \ —> oo as m —> oo, we easily check that Μζχ u is a
weak solution of equation (8.2) with b(x) replaced by b(oo), from which we deduce
that
I (|Vm|2 + Xu2)dx = Mb<kb(oo) I \u\p dx. (8.10)
J R" ' J R"

Authenticated
We associate with each ym the variational problem
M(ym) = inf{ f (|V«|2 + λ « 2 ) dx; u e W 1 · 2 ^ " ) , f b(x + ym)\u(x)\P dx = 1}.

J R" J R"
We now show that limm_».oo M(ym) = Mb,χ. Since
f b(x + ym)\vm(x)\P dx = f b{x)\um{x)\Pdx = \,

JW1 J K"
we see that
M(ym)<[ (\Vvm\2+kv2m)dx= f (\Vum\2+ku2m)dx,

J R" J R"
from which we deduce that lim sup^,^.^ M(ym) < Mb,\. Our claim will follow if we
can show that Mb,χ < M(ym) for each ym e Z„. Suppose that M{ym) < Mxj, for
some m. Then there exists zm e W 1 · 2 ® " ) such that
f b(x + ym)\zm(x)\p dx = \ and f (\Vzm\2 + kz2m) dx < Mb,k.

JW J R"
This can be rewritten as
f b(x)\zm(x - ym)\pdx = 1
J R"
and
/ (|Vzw(jc - ym)\2 + kzm(x - ym)2)dx < Mb,\

J R"
and this contradicts the definition of Mb,χ. Let <pR be a function from the proof of
Proposition 8.1.1. Then
M(ym)(f b(x + ym)\<f>R(x)vm(x)\P dx)" < f (\V(vm<t>R)\2 + k{vm<t>R)2) dx.

\J Rn / J R"
Letting m —> oo and then R oo we obtain
p
Mb,k((Xb,oo) < βοο·
This, in conjunction with (8.9) and (8.10), gives
/ b(oo)\u\pdx + (ab,00)p <1,

J R"

Authenticated
8.3 Constrained minimization with b ψ const, subcritical case 209
which combined with (8.8) gives α^,οο > 1 which is impossible. Therefore vm u in
p n 1,2
L (R ). The convergence of vm to u in W (R") follows from the following estimate
f
JR n
(|V(wm - vr)\2 + k(v m -vr) 2
)dx
= f (b(x + ym)\vm\p-2vm-b(x+yr)\vr\P-2vr)(vm-vr)dx
J w
in
ρ
P
< sup b ( f \vm\Pdx) + ( ( \vr\"dx) \Vm ~ Vr II LP + θ(1).
R" \J R" / \Jw /
•
Solutions obtained in Theorem 8.3.1 can be taken to be positive. This can be
justified by an argument in the paragraph following Corollary 8.2.1.
To show the existence of a solution to problem (8.1) we must impose a condition on

b that rules out part (ii) of Theorem 8.3.1. We denote by M0Q the infimum of problem
(8.1) with b(x) = b(oo) on R", that is,
Moo = i n f { f (\Vu\2+ ku2)dx·, u eW l 2

( R " ) , b(oo) f \u\?dx = l}.
J R" J R"
Theorem 8.3.2. Let b(x) > b(oo) = limîôofc^) > 0 on W1. Then problem (8.1)
has a positive solution.
Proof. We may assume that b{x) > b(oo) on a set of positive measure on R", since
otherwise the result follows from Theorem 8.2.1. Let {um} be a minimizing sequence
for problem (8.1). It is easy to see that {um} is bounded in W 1 , 2 (R") and we may
assume that u^ —^ u in W 1 i 2 (R") ) um u in LÔR") and a.e. onR". First we show
that u φ 0. Arguing indirectly, we assume that u = 0 on R n . Let Oioo and βοο be
quantities related to {um} by (a) and (b) of Proposition 8.1.1. We write for each R > 0
1 = f b(x)\um(x)\p dx + f b(x)\um(x)\pdx.
J\x\<R J\x\>R
Since um -> 0 in L^ C (R"), we deduce from this identity, by letting m —• oo and then
R —• oo,that
1 = b(oo)aoo. (8.11)
ι
Since [ M ^ 2 u m ] satisfies relations (8.3), we have
(G\M£?um), M ^ u M 0
as m —>· oo uniformly in R > 1. This implies, letting m —> oo and R —>· oo, that
— -A
Mbp~2ß00 = a0üb(oo)Mg5.

Authenticated
By virtue of (8.11) we get βοο = Μ^χ. It follows from the definition of Μoo that
2
Moofi b(oo)\uMP dx)" < f (\V{uM\2 + \(uM2)dx.

\J R" / JR"

2
Moo (fc(oo)ofoo)p < βοο = M b i k ,
which by (8.11) is equivalent to

Moo < M b ,00- (8.12)
By Theorem 8.2.1, Moo is achieved by a positive function w e W u ( R n ) . Wethen

have
Mb,k( f b(x)\w\pdx) < f (\Vw\2+kw2)dx = Moo.

\J R " / JR"
Since ιυ > 0 on K", / R n £?(oo)|u;(jc)|/' ^λ: = 1 and b(x) > b(oo) on a set of positive
I
—
measure on E" we get that Μ^χ < M ^ which contradicts (8.12). Obviously Μζχ u
is a solution of (8.2) and by the maximum principle u > 0 on R". We now show that
/r« \um\p dx fRn \u\p dx as m —• oo, which implies that um -> u in L p (M n ). To
prove this we must show that «oo = 0· Suppose that «oo > 0. As in the previous part
of the proof we have that
1=1 b(x)\u(x)\p dx + b(oo)aoo.

JR"
Since u ψ 0 on R", we have that 0 < b(oo)aoo < 1. Using again the fact that
(G'(Mbp-k2um),Mbp-2um<f>R)-+ 0
as m —> oo uniformly in R > 1, we see that
A
βοοΚ'λ = c*oob(oo)Mbp-\
that is
ßoo = aoob(oo)M b ,k. (8.13)
2
Mb,Jf b(x)\<f>Rum\P dxY < f (Wu„4>R)\2 + X(um4>R)2)dx.

\J R" / J R"
Letting m —• oo and then m oo we deduce that
2
Μ &ιλ (^(οο)««,) ρ < β » .

Authenticated
This combined with (8.13), gives fc(oo)aoo > 1 and we have arrived at a contradiction.
•
Theorem 8.3.2 can be reformulated in the following way.
T h e o r e m 8.3.3. Suppose that Y\m\x\-+oQb{x) = b(oo) > 0 and Mb,\ < Mqq, then
problem (8.1) admits a positive solution.
Obviously, assumption b{x) > b( oo) on M" with strict inequality on a set of positive
measure in K" guarantees Mb,\ < M w .
It is worth mentioning that problem (8.1) on W1 is also solvable if b(x) is a periodic

function on R", that is, b(x) = b{x + >>) for all χ € Ε " and y e Z„. This can
be justified as follows. For a given minimizing sequence [um} we can always find a
sequence {ym) C Z„ such that um(- + ym) —^ u φ 0 in W 1 · 2 ^ " ) . Since {um(· + ym)}
is also a minimizing sequence for problem (8.1), Lemma 8.3.1 implies the solvability
of problem (8.1). This remark can also be extended to periodic domains.
8.4 Behaviour of the Palais-Smale sequences

We investigate here in more detail a sequence of functions in a Sobolev space which
satisfies the Palais-Smale assumptions but is not relatively compact. A good example
of such sequence arises in studying an exterior Dirichlet problem
-Au + ku = \u\P~lu in Ω
(8.14)
u(x) = 0 on 3Ω,
where Ω C K" is an unbounded domain with nonempty boundary 3Ω. A variational

functional F : ν^ 0 1,2 (Ω) R corresponding to problem (8.14) is given by
F(u) = ^ J (\Du\2+ ku2)dx - ^ J \u\pdx.
Our aim is to show that any sequence {um} C such that lim m _^. 00 F(um) = c
and limm_>oo F'{um) = 0 in Ψ _ 1 ' 2 ( Ω ) either converges to its weak limit or differs
from its weak limit by a finite number of sequences which after suitable translations
converge to solutions of the problem
- A u + ku = \U\P~2U in I T
(8.15)
μ > 0 onl".

Authenticated
By Proposition 4.1.1 this problem has a positive solution ü which is spherically radially
symmetric, that is ü(x) = ü ( | j c | ) . It is also known that this solution is unique up to a
translation (see [146]) and moreover
SdjcDIxlêxpljclc (8.16)
and
S ' d x D I j c l ^ e x p l x l ( 8 . 1 7 )
where c > 0.
We associate with problem (8.15) a functional F* : W 0 1,2 (R n ) —• R given by
F*(u) = }-f (| VW| 2 + ku2) dx — — ί \u\p dx.

I JR H ρ JRn
In this and the next section we treat functions in W 0 '' 2 (ß) as functions in W 1 , 2 (R") by
extending them by 0 outside Ω. As in Section 8.3 we introduce constrained minimiza-
tion problems corresponding to (8.14) and (8.15)
mx = inf{ / (\Wu\2+ ku2)dx\ u f \u\p dx = l]

Jo. JQ
and
Μχ = inf{ f n (\Vu\2+ ku2)dx; u eWl'2(Rn), f \u\p dx = l}.

JR J R"
Obviously, we have m ; = Μχ. It is convenient to define norms in Ψ 0 1,2 (Ω) and

W u ( R n ) by
||M||2 = f ( | V m | 2 + ku2) dx
Ja
and
||M||2„ = I (|V«|2 + ku2)dx.
J R"
Μχ is achieved by a function ν e H}{Rrt) (see Chapter 4). Replacing ν by |υ|, if
j.
necessary we may assume that υ is positive. According to Theorem 1.2.1 ü = Μ λ ρ-Ζ ν
solves (8.15). Furthermore, by Proposition 1.4.1 ü is a ground state solution to (8.15),
that is, it is a solution with the least energy among all solutions of (8.15). This can be
expressed as:
F .(S) = (> _
and
1 1 ρ

Authenticated
for any other solution υ of problem (8.15). On the other hand if υ is a solution of (8.15),
then
I (|Vw| 2+kv2)dx=f n
\v\p dx. (8.18)
Jw JR
Letting w = n^" , we see that / R n \w\p dx = 1 and ||uj||2 > which combined
with (8.18) implies that
f (|Vw| 2 + Xv2)dx>Mf^. (8.19)

JR"
Proposition 8.4.1. Let {um} C ^ α 1 , 2 (Ω) be a sequence such that F{um) —c for
some e e l and F'(um) 0 in W _ 1 , 2 ( ß ) . Then there exist α nonnegative integer k,
sequences of points {yJm}, i = ... ,k, and sequences of functions {uJm} in
j = 0,... ,k, such that for some subsequence of {um}, relabelled again as {um}, we
have
(i) um(x) = u°m(x) + Yij=luJm(x-yjn y}m),
(ii) u^ —> u° as tn —> oo in
(iii) uJm —> u^ as m —>• oo in Wl-2(Rn), j = 1 k,
where u° is a solution of(8.14) and u·*, j = 1 , . . . , k, are solutions of (8.15). More-
over,
* 2
l l " m l l ^ ΙΙ"ΊΙ + Σ ΐ Ι Μ % "

2 2
j=1
and
k
F(um)^ F(u°) + J2F*(uj).
j=ι
Ifum > 0 for all m, then uJ > 0, j = 0, . . . , k and due to the uniqueness of positive
solutions of problem (8.14) we may assume that «·' = Ü.
Proof. It is easy to show that the sequence {um} is bounded in W 0 1,2 (ß). So we may
assume that um u° in Ψ 0 1,2 (Ω) and in Δ ^ ( Ω ) , moreover um(x) u(x) a.e. on
Ω. Obviously, u° is a solution of (8.14). We now set
= um(x) - u°(x)
and according to our convention we treat v^ as functions in W l i 2 (R"), so t;^ 0 in

Wl-2($.a) and
l l ^ l l 2 = ll"mll 2 -||"°H 2 + o(l).
It follows from Corollary A.7.1 that
\\um\\pLP = \\u°\\pLP + \\vlm\\PLP+o(l).

Authenticated
From this observation we deduce that
F*(v x m ) = F(vlm) + o( 1) = F(um) - F(m°) + o ( l )
and
* > i ) = F\vl) + o( 1) = F'(um) - F V ) + o(l) = o ( l )
in If wi 0 in W u ( ] R n ) we are done, so we may assume that v^ 0
,,2 rt
in W (K ). We show that there exists a sequence {3^} c R" with -»· 00 such
] 1 1 2
that v m(x + y^) u φ 0 in W · ^ " ) . Since u ^ O w e see that
F*(^) > α > 0
for all m and some constant a . We cover R" with cubes having vertices consisting of
integer coordinates and set
dm=m^\\\v]n\\LP{Qiy
As in the proof of Theorem 8.2.1 we show that there exists a constant γ > 0 such that
dm > γ > 0 (8.20)
for all m. According to (8.20), for each dm we can find a cube QTm such that
11
"illLPiQ rm ) ^ that is,
IIÛ+>-rm)llLp(ßo) > J .
Since + >vm)} is bounded in W 1 , 2 (R n ) we may assume that + jv m ) ul(·)

in W 1 ' 2 (R") and strongly in Lj, c (R"). Letting yxm = yrm, we see that fQo\vlm(x +
yjn)^ dx -»· JQo \ux(X)\p dx > £ and« 1 φ 0. The sequence is unbounded since
1 P
otherwise υ^(·) —>· u (·) φ 0 in L (Q0) which contradicts the fact that v^ 0 in
1,2 1
W (IR"). Iterating this construction we obtain sequences υ„(χ) = v ^ Ox + —
Μ 7 - 1 (x), j > 2, and sequences of points \y}m\ —00, as m ->· 00, such that
ιά(· + > ά ) - - « ' ( · )
in W , i 2 ( R n ) and satisfies (8.15). Also, we have
I\vJm II2 = IIν } - χ II2 - IIκ'" 1 II2 + o(l) = IIum II2 - \\u°\\2 - ] T ||«'' || 2 + o ( l )
i=1
and
F*(vJm) = ) - F*(w- /_1 ) + o( 1) = F i ( « m ) - F(u°) - £ F(w') + o(l).

i=l

Authenticated
By virtue of estimate (8.19) this iteration process must terminate after finitely many
steps k. If k = 0, we set u°m{x) = um(x). If k > 1, we set w* (x) = v^(x + y^) and
and for 1 >*)].
Since vkm{x + ykm) - uk(x) 0 in W u ( R n ) , we have
o(\) = \\vkm(x + ykm)-uk(x)\\

= Wvîx+yy+y^)-uk-l(x + ykm)-uk(x)\\
= ||vk~\x +yy)-uk(x-y k
m )- 1
C*)||
= \\vkm-2(x + yk~2 + ykml) - + Λ"1) - «*(* - ykm) - «ÔOII
= \\vk~2{x + ykm~2) - uk~l{x - ykm~l) - uk(x - yk~x - yk ) - u*-2(;t)||
= IIum(x) - u°(x) - [ul(x - ylm) + u2(x - ylm) + u2(x - yxm - y2m)

+ ... + „*(*
as m —> oo. Finally, we also have
* 2
2 2 ;
ι ι ^ ι ι = ιι«Ίΐ + Ε ι ΐ " ι ι
j=ι
and
k
F(um) = F(u°) + £ W ) + o(l)
j=1
as m —> oo. •
8.5 The exterior Dirichlet problem

It follows from Lemma 8.1.1 that problem (8.14) has no solution in case where Ω is
an exterior domain and b(x) = 1 on Ω. However, a solution can be found on a higher
energy level set of the functional F.

Authenticated
Let ζ : R ->· R be a C 1 -function such that ζ(ί) = 0 for t < 1 and ζ{ί) = 1 for
t > 2 and set £(;c) = ζ ( w h e r e ρ is such that R n - Ω c 5 ( 0 , p). W e define a
mapping Φ ρ : R " W 1 · 2 ^ " ) , ρ > 0, by
Vy(x)
Φρ(>0 = *
H f (R n )
where
= ζ(x)ü(x - y) = ζ )ü(x - y).
It is obvious that ΦρΟΟ is continuous in y for each ρ > 0. It is easy to show that
ΦρΟΟ "(· - y) as ρ 0 in W 1 , 2 ( R " ) (8.21)
uniformly in y and that
ΙΙΦρΟΟΙΙκ« Mk as \y\ oo. (8.22)
In what follows w e supress the subscript R " in || · ||r«. According to (8.21) there exists
ρ > 0 such that
sup | | Φ Ρ ω ΐ | 2 < 2 ^ Μ λ (8.23)

yeR"
for ρ < p. T o proceed further we define a vector valued functional β : W 1 , 2 ( M " ) —>
R " by
ß(u)= f u(x)x(\x\)xdx,
Jr"
where χ : R + R is a continuous nonincreasing function such that χ (t) = 1 for
0 < t < R and χ ( ί ) = f for t > R, where R > 0 is such that R " - Ω C B(0, R).
Let
B = {ueWy(Q); f \u\p dx = 1 and ß(u) = 0}.
Jn
L e m m a 8.5.1. Let cQ = i n f u € ß ||w||2. Then cQ > Μχ and moreover there exists R0,
with Ra > p, such that
0) ΙΙΦρΟΟΙΙ 2 e {Μχ, c-^)for \y\ > R0,
(ii) (ß(*p(y)),y)>Ofor\y\>R0.
Proof. Comparing the definitions of c0 and Μχ w e easily see that ca > Μχ. T o show
the strict inequality, let us assume that c 0 = Μχ. Then there exists { u m } C ν ν ο ' · 2 ( Ω )
with properties: ||i>m||LP(n) = \,ß{vm) = 0and ||um||2 Μχ. B y Lemma 8.1.1, Μχ
is not attained. Therefore, the sequence {vm} is not relatively compact in νν ο 1 , 2 (Ω).
1
Setting um = vm, then by Lemma 8.2.1 w e see that
1 1 ρ
F(um) ( - - ~ ) μ Γ and F'(um) 0 in W " 1 · 2 ^.

Authenticated
Extending every um by zero outside Ω, we may assume that the above condition holds
in W r - 1 , 2 (R"). By Theorem 8.4.1 (ii), we can decompose {um} as
um(x) = u(x - ym) + wm(x),
where« is a ground -state solution of (8.15) and wm -> Oin W 1,2 (lR n ) and |_ym| —• oo.
We set (R") m + = {x e W1, ( x , y m ) > 0} and (R B ) m _ = Mn - ( K n ) m ) + · For m
sufficiently large, we can find a ball B{y m ,r) c (^n)m + such that
ü(x - ym) > ^M(O) for χ G B(ym, r)
and
ü ( x - y m ) < — forxe(Rn)m_
expflx - y m |)|* - ym\~T~
for some constant Κ > 0. We now have
(ß(ü(- - ym)), ym) = IΙ ü u( (x x- y- m ) x ( \ x \ ) ( x , y m ) d x

J(ßn)m.+
+ / "Ο -
J(ßn)m,-
ü(0)x(\x\)(x,ym)dx
> Ί
- 2 JE
B(ym,r)
- K R t Μ
J(ß")m,- expdx - ym\)\x - ym\V
> C > 0
for some constant C. Since wm —• 0 in Ψ 0 1,2 (Ω) and β is continuous, we see that
ß(um) φ 0 for m large, which is impossible. Hence c 0 > Μχ. Both assertions (i) and
(ii) follow from (8.22) and from the above estimate of ß(ü(x — ym)), ym) by taking Ra
sufficiently large. •
To obtain a solution to problem (8.14) by a min-max method we denote by Tp,p <

p, the set of all continuous mappings W : B{ 0, R0) —>· W 0 1 , 2 (fi)n{«; /Ω \u\p dx = 1}
such that W(y) = Φ p ( y ) for all y e 5(0, R0).
Lemma 8.5.2. For each W G T p , there exists y G 5(0, R0) such that ß(W(y)) = 0.
Proof. To show this, we define a homotopy Η joining ß(W) with I (identity map on
M") by
H ( t , W ) = t ß ( W ) + ( l - t ) I for 0 < ί < 1.
By Lemma 8.5.1(ii) 0 ^ H{t, W(S(0, R0)), so the topological degree

d(H, B{0, R0), 0) = d(I, 5(0, R0), 0) = 1

Authenticated
and the assertion follows from the homotopy invariance of the topological degree. We
now set
c = min max ||W(y)|| 2
y€B(0,Ro)
Ezl
and by Lemma 8.5.1 we see that M\ < c 0 < c < 2 Ρ Μχ and by (8.22)
sup \\W(y)\\2<c
yeS(0,Ko)
for R0 sufficiently large. On the other hand, in view of Proposition 8.4.1 we see that
the functional F(u) = ||«|| 2 restricted to {«; u e Η^· 2 (Ω), / Ω \u\p dx = 1} satisfies
the Palais-Smale condition for Μχ < c < Μχ. Invoking Theorem 7.4.4, we can
now state the existence result for problem (8.14). •
Theorem 8.5.1. Let xa € R". For every λ > 0 there exists ρ = ρ (λ) such that if
R w — Ω C B(x0, p), then problem (8.14) has at least one positive solution.
8.6 The Palais-Smale condition

The key ingredient in the proof of Theorem 8.5.1 was the fact that the Palais-Smale
condition holds for every level of the functional F in the interval
which was a consequence of Proposition 8.4.1. We now give a proof of this fact based
on Proposition 8.1.1 for the functional G defined in Section 8.2, with Ω = Mrt.
Proposition 8.6.1. Suppose that limî-xx,

b(x) = b(oo) > 0. Let {um} C
be a sequence of nonnegative functions such that G(um) c with c satisfying
( } - l ) M * < e < ( > - ! ) ( „ * + „ * ) (8.24)
and G'(um) 0 in W _ 1 - 2 (R"). Then {um} is relatively compact in W 1 i 2 ( R " ) . (Here

Mb,χ and M^ denote constrained infima defined in Sections 8.2 and 8.3, respectively.)
Proof. Using the argument from the proof of Theorem 8.2.1, we show that there exists
a sequence {ym} c Z„ such that u m (·) = um(· + ym) u φ 0 in W 1 , 2 (R"). First, we
show that if {yOT} is bounded, then [um] must be relatively compact in W 1 , 2 (R"). In
the second step of the proof we show that {_ym} must bounded. If {;ym} is bounded, we

Authenticated
8.6 The Palais-Smale condition 219
may assume that um u in WI,2(Rn). It is sufficient to show that «oo = 0. Arguing

indirectly let us assume that α,χ, > 0. We obviously have
G(um) = (i - - ) f (Vu m \ 2 + ku2m)dx+o(l)

Ρ ' J R"
= ( \ - - ) f Kx)\um\pdxdx+o(l).
\2 p/ JRn
It follows from Lemma 8.2.1 that
(i - J;) ( / J V M ) ^ ) (8.25)
<c=Q-±) ^ b(x)\u\Pdx +fc(oo)aoo)·
Since lirn m ^. O Ü (G / (« m ), = 0 uniformly in R > 1 we get that βοο = « ^ ( ο ο ) .

This implies that
f (\Wu\2+ ku2)dx < f b(x)\u\p dx. (8.26)

JR" JR"
It follows from the definition of M ^ that
2
Moo( [ b(oo)\<pRum\P dx)P < ί (I V(um<j>R)\2 + k(um(t>R)2)dx.

\J R" / J R"
Letting m —• oo and then R —• oo, we get
2
Moo(fc(oo)a;oo)p < ßoo = b(oo)aoo,
that is,
M£2 < b(οο)αοο. (8.27)
Also, we have
Mb,x([ b(x)\u\Pdx]P < f (| Vw|2 + Aw2)dx,

\J R" / JW
which combined with (8.26) gives
ΜζΙ* < f b(x)\u\p dx. (8.28)

•/R"
Inequalities (8.25), (8.27) and (8.28) lead to the following inequality

Authenticated
and we have arrived at a contradiction. We now proceed to show that the sequence
{y m } must be bounded. Suppose that {>*„,} is unbounded. We put
ab,oo= Hm lim sup / b(x + ym)\vm(x)\2 dx.

«-»•00 m—>oo J\x\> R
We commence by showing that a/,iCX) = 0. Suppose that ab,oo > 0. We have
( I - j (|Vum|2 + λ ν ΐ ) dx + θ{ 1) = C = ( I - 1 ) J dx + O(l)
and this implies that
- i ) ( j [ W + λ " 2 ) ^ + Α») (8.29)
C=
~ G ~ (jL ,
where
ßoo = lim lim sup / (\Vvm\2 + λν^) dx.
R-yoo m_>oo J|jc|>/f
It is easy to check that μ is a solution of equation (8.2) on K " with b(x) = b{oo) and
hence
I (|Vw| 2 + ku2)dx = b(oo) I \u\p dx. (8.30)
J R" JR"
This combined with (8.29) gives ßoo < a b l 0 0 . It follows from the definition of Mb
that
M b , J f b(x + ym)\4>Rvm\P d x ) " < ί {\ν{φ κ ν η )\ 2 +λ{φ κ υ η ι ) 1 )άχ

\JW J J R"
which yields
2
M b X a b , o o ^ ß o o < OCb,oo.
that is,
Λ 4 α < Κ oo)^. (8.31)

The obvious inequality
2
Moo( I b(oo)\u\p d x ) < I (\Wu\2+ ku2)dx

\J R" / JR"
combined with (8.30) gives
M ^ < [ b(oo)\u\Pdx.
J R"

Authenticated
8.7 Concentration-compactness principle I 221
A contradiction is derived from (8.31) and (8.29). So vm u in W U ( R " ) and u = u

up to a translation, where ü is a ground state solution from Proposition 4.1.1. Hence
= / (|VM| 2 + kü)dx = Μ ,oo

JR"
Inspection of the proof shows that if
3
G(um)-+ce (o, ( i - i ) A f ^ ^
and G'(um) 0 in W~ 1 , 2 (R n ), then {wm} is relatively compact in W U ( R " ) . Also,

Proposition 8.6.1 can be easily extended large interior domains.
8.7 Concentration-compactness principle I

Proposition 8.1.1 is closely related to the concentration-compactness principle I dis-
covered by P. L. Lions [158].
Theorem 8.7.1 (Concentration-compactness principle I). Suppose that {um} is a

bounded sequence in W^'^R"), 2 < ρ < n, and let pm = \um\p, with /R„ pmdx — λ
for all m. Then there exists a subsequence {/0mjl} satisfying one of the three following
possibilities:
(i) (Compactness) There exists a sequence {.y*} in R" such that pmk is tight, that is,
for every € > 0 there exists 0 < R < oo such that
/ Pmk(x)dx >X-e
JB{yk,R)
(ii) (Vanishing)
lim sup I pmk(x)dx = 0 forallR>0.

t->OOyeRn Jß(y,R)
(iii) (Dichotomy) There exists a G (0, λ) such that for all € > 0, there exists kQ > 1,
bounded sequences {«£} and {ufy in Wl-P($in) satisfying fork > k0
\\umt - ( « J + u2k)II, < 8q(€) for ρ < q < p* =

η — Ό

Authenticated
with 8g(e) —• 0 as e —>· 0,
1/ \ulk(x)\p dx - a\ < € and \ f \u2k(x)\p dx - ( λ - α ) | < 6,

J R" JW
dist(supp«{, suppu^) ->• oo as k -»· oo
and
liminf / (|Viimt|p -\Vu[\ p

-\Vu2k\p) dx > 0.
oo J^n \ /
We briefly explain how Proposition 8.1.1 leads to Theorem 8.7.1. Let {um } be a
bounded sequence in W 1 · 2 ^ " ) such that
f 2η
0 1. We may assume that um u in W 1 , 2 ( R n ) . According to Proposition

8.1.1 (c) we have
p = I \u(x)\p dx + aoo.
J R"
We now distinguish three cases:

(1) aoo — p,u =0,
(2) aoo = 0, fRn \u\p dx = p, and

p
(3) a o o > 0 j R n \ u \ d x >0.
If (1) holds, then either lim i n f m ^ o o sup y e R n fB(y r^ \um(x)\p dx = 0 for all r > 0
p
or limm^-oo sup^gjjn fB^y r^ \um(x)\ dx > 0 for some r > 0. In the first case, by
Lions' lemma (Lemma 1.1 in [158], um 0 in for all ρ < q < 2*. In
the second case there exists a subsequence of {um}, relabelled again by {um}, and a
sequence {>>,„} c Μ such that um (· + )>»,) u φ 0 i n L p ( R w ) . In case (2) the sequence
{\um\p} is tight (compactness). Finally, in case (3) we introduce the Levy concentration
functions Qm (t) defined by
Qm(t) - sup / \um(y)\pdyt m > 1, t > 0 .

jeR" JB(x,t)
Each function Qm is increasing on [0, oo) and by Helly's selection theorem Q(t) —
oo Qm(t) is an increasing function on [0, oo). Since 0 < aoo < p, it is easy
to check that 0 < l i m ^ o o 0 ( 0 < P· This obviously leads to a dichotomy of the
sequence {um}.
It is an interesting fact that a dichotomy for minimizing sequences of problem (8.1)

never occurs. This is a consequence of Lemma 8.3.1. Indeed, using notations from this

Authenticated
lemma, we can distinguish the following three cases for a minimizing sequence {u m } C
W 1 , 2 ( M " ) of problem (8.1) with um u in and 1 = fRn b(x)\u\P dx+abt00
(1) oo = 0 and /R„ b(x)I u\p dx = 1. In this case problem (8.1) is solvable
(compactness).
(2) u = 0 and α^ ι00 = 1 (vanishing)
(3) /R„ b(x)\u\p dx > 0 and α^,οο > 0. This is not possible, because in this case
um u φ 0 in W l , 2 ( R " ) and by Lemma 8.3.1, problem (8.1) has a solution and
necessarily αί,,οο = 0.

Proposition 8.1.1 is due to Chabrowski [70]. The proof of Lemma 8.2.1 is taken from
Weng Ching Lien, Shyuh Yaur Tzeng and Huai Ch'iian Wang [154]. The existence
results in Section 8.3.1 were noticed for the first time by P. L. Lions [158], [159].
However our approach based on Proposition 8.1.1 seems to be simpler. The proof of
Proposition 8.4.1 is patterned after works of Benci-Cerami [27] and Weng Ching Lien,
Shyuh Yaur Tzeng and Huai Ch'iian Wang [154], Results in Section 8.5 are taken from
Benci-Cerami [28]. The existence of infinitely many solutions in the case where Ω is
a complement of a ball can be found in Esteban-Cerami [114]. Grossi [130] extended
Theorem 8.5.1 to the case where Ω is a complement of k distinct balls and obtained
the existence of k distinct solutions. The effect of the domain topology on number of
solutions of the exterior Dirichlet problem can be found in the papers [62], [63]. For
applications of the P. L. Lions' concentration-compactness principle we refer to papers
[22], [55], [54], [53], [57], [56], [151], [152], [239], [240], [205], [97], [241], [242],

Authenticated
Chapter 9
Concentration-compactness principle — critical
case
In this chapter we examine weakly convergent minimizing sequences of constrained

minimization problems involving critical Sobolev exponent. In Section 2 we prove
P. L. Lions' concentration-compactness principle II. This principle does not provide
any information about a possible loss of mass at infinity. To overcome this difficulty we
establish the extended version of this principle, namely the concentration-compactness
principle at infinity in critical case.
9.1 Critical Sobolev exponent

Nonlinearities of boundary value problems, presented in previous chapters to illustrate
various methods of nonlinear functional analysis, have mainly subcritical growth at
infinity. This final chapter is primarily devoted to the study of weakly convergent
minimizing sequences of constrained variational problems involving critical Sobolev
exponent. We commence by analyzing the following Dirichlet problem which has
considerably stimulated interest in weakly convergent minimizing sequences
-Au = \u\2*~2u +ku in β

(9.1)
u(x) = 0 on 3 Q , u > 0 on β ,
where λ > 0, 2* = 2 < η and β is a bounded domain in R n .

Nontrivial solutions of this problem will be found as critical points of the functional
F '• W*-2(Q) R given by
F(u) = i J \Vu(x)\2dx - ± J \u(x)\2dx \u(x)\2*dx.
The main difficulty encountered in the search for critical points of F stems from the fact
that W 0 1,2 (ß) is not compactly embedded in L2* (Q). Consequently, the (PS) condition
does not hold. We show that the (PS) condition only holds for some levels of F which
are controlled by the best Sobolev constant defined by
5 = inf{|| Μ II; u e ^ ( ß ) , ||u|| 2 . = 1}, (9.2)

Authenticated
where || · || denotes the usual norm in W^'2(Q).

It is known that the infimum in (9.2) is never achieved for a bounded domain Q.
However, it is achieved, when Q = R", by a function
n—2
2
C/ e U) = C e ( e + k | ) (9.3)
where e > 0 and C€ > 0 is a normalizing constant.

Problem (9.1) has an extensive literature which started with the pioneering work of
Brezis-Nirenberg [42].
They proved the following results:
(1) If η > 4, then for λ e (0, λι) there exists a positive solution of (9.1).
(2) If η = 3, then there exists λ* e [0, λι) such that for every λ e (λ*, λ ι ) problem
(9.1) has a solution.
(3) If η = 3 and Q = 5(0, 1), then λ , =
Here λι denotes the first eigenvalue of the operator Δ. Also, in this case using the
Pohozaev identity [178], one can show that if Q is strictly star-shaped with respect to
the origin and λ < 0, then there is no nontrivial solution of problem (9.1) (see [42]).
In bibliographical notes to this chapter we provide more detailed description of the
history of the problem (9.1).
We now describe the main ideas of the Brezis-Nirenberg's approach to prove as-
sertions (1), (2) and (3).
To establish the existence of solutions to problem (9.1) we consider the minimizing
problem
5λ= inf | | ν « | | 2 - λ | | « | | 2 , λ e R. (9.4)
ueW^lQ)
|u|2«=l
The main step is to prove that
Sk< S for λ > 0, (9.5)
and the result will follow from Theorem 1.11.1. To show (9.5) we set
2 2
βλ(κ) = -
Il"ll2*
and
,\
U((X) =
Φ(χ)
ft
^2", € > 0,
where φ g C<J (Q) with φ(χ) = 1 in a neighbourhood of 0. In order to prove (9.5) we

show that
Q\ < S for € > 0 sufficiently small. (9.6)

Authenticated
226 9 Concentration-compactness principle — critical case
The following asymptotic relations are needed to show (9.6):
||V«e||| = + 0(1), (9.7)
\luef2. = - ^ + 0(€), (9.8)

€ 2
2 [ " B r + 0(1) ifn>5,

\\ue\\l={e-r (9.9)
I ff3|log€| + 0 ( l ) if η = 4 ,
where K\ > Ο, K.2 > 0 and > 0 are constants depending on η and moreover
ύS —
- κKL
2·
To verify (9.7) we write
„VU ,(X)
λ = V(x) -r (η-2)φ(χ)χ—.
€
(€ + \χ\2)*Τ (€ + \X\2)?
Since φ(χ) = 1 in a neighbourhood of 0, we have
f \Vue\2dx = (n-2)2 f ——τ— dx + 0(1)

Ja L (* + w2)n
= (n-2ff Ac+ 0(1)
Jw (e + \x\2)n
Κι
= +0( 1),
f T
where
K\ = (η — 2)2 f - dx = \\WUi\\l.
/ r - O + W2)" 2
For (9.8) we have
Φ(χ)2* , f φ(χ)2* 1 . f dx
Ja 2
Λ ϊ ( < + 1*1 )" Jn(e + l*l )
2 n
Λι (e + l*l 2 )"
== 00(\)+f
(1) + I — 7 = ^ + 0(1),
•/R" "
where
and we get (9.8) with = \\U\ and = 5. Finally, to show (9.9) we write
f \ue\2 dx = f — f
Ja /a («+ Iii2)""2 Λ; (f + l*l2)"~2
dx
fa (e + W 2 )*

Authenticated
If η > 5, we have
f dx f dx
2 2 =
Ja (e + W )"" L (ί + Ι*!2)"-2 + 0)
and we get (9.9) with K3 = fRn (1+ff)n_i- If η = 4, we have
Γ dx Γ
f dx Γf dx
2 2
JB(0,R\) (e + l*l 2 ) 2 ~ Ja (e + l*l 2 ) 2 ~ J β ,(0,1(6 + |*| )
Ä2)
for some constants Äi > 0 and /?2 > 0. We now observe that
f dx ω
fR r3 , 1
/Jb(0,R)
7ΤΓΠΤα=
(c + 1*1Ψ 1 Jo (€ + r2)2= -a>\\oge\
T-—2^dr 2 + 0(\),
where ω is the area of S 3 . Hence, (9.9) (n = 4), follows with K3 = Estimates

(9.7), (9.8) and (9.9) yield that
n—2
s+
S + 0 (ou~
eV)-xge if η > 5
Qx(ue) =
S+ 0 ( e ) - X f j e | l o g e | i f n = 4
and we see that (9.5) holds for λ > 0. Applying Theorem 1.11.1 we get assertion (1).
A solution to (9.1) can be taken nonnegative, otherwise we can replace u by |«|. The
fact that u > 0 follows from the strong maximum principle.
In the case η = 3 and Ω = B(0, 1), we also consider u€ with φ radially symmetric
such that 0 ( 0 ) = 1,φ'(0) = 0 and φ( 1) = 0. In a similar manner we derive
l|V« e || 2 = f \φ'{Γ)\2άν + 0{.Λ), (9.10)

ζΊ Jo
II u e \ \ l = ^ + 0 ( € h , (9.11)
Μΐ = ω f l φ{τ)2άτ + 0 ( 6 3 ) (9.12)
Jo
for some constants K\ > 0 and K2 > 0 with S = where ω is the area of 3 ß ( 0 , 1).
Estimates (9.10), (9.11) and (9.12) can be used to show that
Sx < S for — < λ .

4
To ensure that > 0 we must assume that λ < λ ι . Also, by the result of G i d a s - N i -
Nirenberg [127] a solution to (9.1) must be spherically symmetric. This fact combined
v/ith a suitably chosen test function can be used to show that (9.1) has no positive
solution for λ < ^ .

Authenticated
9.2 Concentration-compactness principle II

To investigate weakly convergent minimizing sequences we shall extensively apply the
following concentration-compactness principle in D 1 , p (R") due to P. L. Lions [159]
Theorem 9.2.1 (Concentration-compactness principle II). Let {uj} be sequence in

D1,p(R") weakly convergent to u and such that
(i) {IVmj\ p ) converges weak-* to α nonnegative measure μ,
(ii) {\uj\p*} converges weak-* to α nonnegative measure v.
Then there exists an at most countable index set J, sequences {jty} C M", {ßj},
{Vj} C (0, oo), j 6 J, such that
(9 13)
v = \uf + ·
jeJ
μ> + (9.14)
jeJ
and ^
Svf <μ}. (9.15)
where S is the best Sobolev constant and 8XJ are Dirac measures assigned to Xj. If
u = 0 and
f d ß < s ( f
J R" \J R" /
then J is a singleton and ν = γδΧο = S γ n μ for some γ > 0.
Proof We only consider the case ρ = 2. We follow the idea of the proof from [116].
First, we consider the case u = 0. For any φ e C ^ M " ) the Sobolev inequality gives
s U f \uk\2* dxY < ( f \D{uk)\2dx\

\J R" / \J R" /
sU ί \φ\2* dv)2* < ( f m 2

d ß ) 2
(9.16)
\JR" / \JR" /
ι j_ ι
and hence S?v(E) 2* < μ{Ε)ϊ for each Borel set Ε c M". This inequality implies
that ν is absolutely continuous with respect to μ and we have
v(E) = J Όμ,νάμ

Authenticated
for each Borel set Ε c l " , where
DuvO0 = lim μ a.e. x e l " .
We also have
v(B(x,r)) 2* 2
/D/ " < (9.17)
ß(B(x,r))
whenever μ(Β(χ, r)) > 0. We observe that the set .4 = {x e R"; μ({χ}) > 0} must
be at most countable and Λ = {.*/}, j e J). Hence, we derive from (9.17) that
Dßv = 0 μ a.e on R" - A.
To get (9.13) and (9.14) we set vj = Dßv(xj)ßj, where μ] = μ({*;·}). If μ (Μ") <
5(v(R"))2 r , then μ(Κ") = S(v(R n ))2*. Applying the Holder inequality to (9.16) we
get ^ (
55 ( f \φ\2* 2
* < ß(Rn)Ln ( f \φ\2* άμ) 2* ,
\JR" / \JR" /
_ 2* 2
which implies that ν = S This allows us to write (9.16) as
( f \φ\2* dvY v(Rn)1» < ( [ \φ\2άνΥ .

\JR" / VR" /
J_ 1 1
Hence, by approximation we get v(E) 2* υ(Μ")π < υ (Ε) 3 for every Borel set Ε cK".
However this is only possible if ν is a singleton. Consequently, υ = γδΧο for some
constant γ > 0 and jc0 G Rn. If γ > 0, then v(R") = γ = This
-1 2
implies that ν = γδΧο = 5 J γ" μ. If u φ 0, we set υ* = Uk — u and apply the above
argument to the sequence {υ*}. •
9.3 Loss of mass at infinity

The concentration-compactness principle II (Theorem 9.2.1) does not provide any
information about possible loss of mass at infinity of a weakly convergent minimizing
sequence. Theorem 9.3.1 expresses this fact in quantitative terms.
Theorem 9.3.1. Let {um} C Dl'P(Rn) be a sequence such that um u in Dl>P(Rn)

and define
(i) Voo = l i m b e c lim sup m _ >00 fM>R \um\p* dx,
(ii) μοο = l i m / ^ o o lim sup m _ >00 f\x\>R\Dum\P dx.

Authenticated
The quantities i>oo and ßoo are well defined and satisfy
(iii) lim s u pm—too
m ^ o c / RJR"
„ \um\P* dx = l i m ^ o o / R n dv + Voo.
(iv) lim supm—>-oo \Dum \p dx = /R(1 dß + μοο and
m ^ DO / R „ JR"
4
(ν) < ßoo.
The proof of Theorem 9.3.1 is similar to that of Proposition 8.1.1 and is omitted.
We only note that (υ) is a consequence of the Sobolev inequality. Combining assertions
(9.13) and (9.14) of Theorem 9.2.1 with assertions (iii) and (iv) of Theorem 9.3.1 we
deduce that
(9.18)
and
(9.19)
As an application of Theorems 9.2.1 and 9.3.1 we show that the inf in (9.2), with
Q = M", is achieved. Let
The cutoff function 4>r from the proof of Proposition 8.1.1 will be used in the proof
of Theorem 9.3.2 and also on many other occasions throughout this chapter.
Theorem 9.3.2. Let{um} C Dl'2(M.n) be a minimizing sequence for S. Thenfor every

a G (0, 1) and every y e K" there exists a subsequence of {um}, denoted again by
{um}, and a sequence {am} C (0, oo) such that
(9.20)
and
where
and
η
Proof It is clear that for each y e IR" and σ > 0, { u m ( : : ^ - ) a 2*} is also a
minimizing sequence for S. Changing variables we have

Authenticated
and for each m we choose a m such that (9.20) holds. Let
+ <ymyy
w, ,(·) = σ η um[ ).
V Orr, /
As {iü m } is bounded in Z ) 1 , 2 ( R " ) we may assume that wm — u in Z ) 1 , 2 ( M " ) . W e shall

show that u φ 0. Arguing indirectly, suppose that u = 0. L e t ^ : D 1 · 2 ^ " ) ^ Μ be
given by
2
F ( u ) = l f \ D u \ d x - ^ f \u\2*dx.
έ JR" L Jw
1
The sequence vm = S2*~2 wm is such that
1 _L_ f ο 1 η /I 1 \ η
2
Η * . ) = j i ' - » I \ D " » , \ d * - ^ - ( - - - ) j l
as m - > oo and lim m ^.oo = 0 in D 1 ' 2 ^ " ) . Since
l i m {T'(vm), vm(f>R) = 0
m-y oo
uniformly in R > 1, we check that
ßoo = VooS, (9.21)
where v>oo and μ ^ are quantities from Theorem 9.2.1 associated with the sequence
{ w m } . It follows from (iii) and (iv) of Theorem 9.2.1 that
1 == // dv + υ oo (9.22)
/ R"
Jw
and
S= I dß + ß oo. (9.23)
JW>
B y ( 9 . 2 2 ) and ( 9 . 2 3 ) we have that
// R"
JW
άμ. = 5 ( 1 - i>oo). (9.24)
Since 0 < fR„ dv < 1, we see that
f dß = S I dv <S( I
JR" JW \J R" /
According to Theorem 9.2.1, ν must be a singleton, that is, there exist γ > 0 and
Xo e K n such that
v = y8Xo = S-lYnß. (9.25)

Authenticated
It follows from (9.22) and (9.25) that
γ = 1- Voo = I dv
Jr"
and hence by (9.24) and (9.25) we have
(1-ν;00) = 5 ( 1 - υ 0 0 ) 5 - , ( 1 - ν 0 0 ) ^
which implies that Voo = 0 and γ = 1. On the other hand
a = f \wm\2*dx v(B(0,1)) = δΧο(Β(0, 1)),

JB(0,l)
which is impossible. We now show that wm u in Ζ/ (M"). First of all, we observe

that
0 < ρ = f \u\2*dx < 1.
J R"
It is sufficient to show that ρ = 1, because this implies that vj = 0 for j e i and
Voo = 0· Suppose to the contrary that ρ < 1. Then by (9.18) we have
v
Ρ = 1- Σ i ~
jeJ
2. J_
We always have μοο > Sv£, ßj > Svj* and
I \Du\2 dx < S - Y^ßj - μοο·
Therefore, we have
j^n\Du\2dx < S ^ l - ^ v f - v £ j
2_
2*
S
(1 ~ Σ v
i ~ v °°
jeJ
2
= Spi*.
On the other hand it follows from the definition of S that

2
2
Sil \u\ *dx)*<[ \Du\2dx,
\J R" ) J R"

Authenticated
that is,
Sp£ < f \Du\2dx
J R"
We mention here that according to the results of [27] and [221] any positive critical
point of the functional Τ must be of the form
_n_ (X — y \
Uy<a(x)=U 2
where U\ is given by (9.2), j e R " and σ > 0.
9.4 Constrained minimization — critical case

In this section we use Theorems 9.2.1 and 9.3.1 to examine minimizing sequences of
the following problem
(Μκ) Μκ = inf{/ R „ \Du\2 dx\ fRn K(x)\u\r dx = 1},
where Κ is a continuous, positive and bounded function on K". To define a variational
problem at infinity we need a different approach from the subcritical case. A variational
functional F : W 1 , 2 (M n ) R is given by
F(u) = \f \Du\2dx-^f K{x)\ufdx.

I Jri ι Jtsl"
For each y e R " we consider the minimization problem
M/(,y = inf{ /* \Du\2dx·, u eWl'2(Rn),K(y) f \u\2* = l}.

J R" JR"
It is easy to check that Μκ>γ = K(y) 2* S, where S is the best Sobolev constant and
by Theorem 9.3.2 Mfc,y is achieved. We now put M™ = inf^R« Μκ,γ. We always
have Μ κ < M f .
Lemma 9.4.1. Suppose that limî-ôo

K(x) = K(00) > 0 and let {um} C W , , 2 ( K n )
be a minimizing sequence for Μχ. If um u φ 0 in W 1 , 2 (IR") as m 00, then
problem (Μχ) has a solution and um —> u in asm οο.
Proof. It follows from Theorems 9.2.1 and 9.3.1 that
1 = f K(x)\u\2* dx + Σ VkK(xk) + K{oo)uoo. (9.26)

Authenticated
First we show that a concentration at infinity does not occur. Towards this end, we
assume that ^ > 0, then /sT(oo)voo < 1. Since
lim
uniformly in R > 1, we deduce that μ,οο = /sT(oo)vooM^. Since we always have

Μκ(Κ(οο)νoo)2* < μ·οο> we see that V q o ^ ( o o ) > 1, which is impossible. Conse-
quently, the concentration of the sequence {um} can only occur at finite points. To show
that problem (Μκ) is solvable we need to show that / R „ £(jc)|m| 2 * dx = 1. Suppose
that / R „ K(x)\u\2* dx = ρ < 1. Then by the previous part of the proof > 0 for
some k e J. Hence we have
Mk > f \Du\2 dx + s Y ^ v / .
It follows from the definition of M™ that
5 > M^K(xk)^
for each k e J. Therefore we have

<1-2
MK > f \Du\2dx + M ^ T ( v k K ( x k ) ) n
-
JR" /
k&J
>-jJ'RR" \Du\ dx
n
2
+ M%>(\ - p ) ^ .
On the other hand, we always have
MKp2* Μκ(ρ2* +(1-^)2*),

that is,
which is impossible due to the fact that 0 < ρ < 1. •
If a minimizing sequence converges weakly to 0 in W 1 , 2 (M") it must have concentra-

tion points. Proposition 9.4.1 rules out the possibility of concentrating simultaneously
at finite points and at infinity.
Proposition 9.4.1. Suppose that lim|x|_>oo K { x ) = K(oo) > 0 and let {um} c
1,2 2
W (M") be a minimizing sequence f o r ( Μ κ ) such that um —- 0 in W'' (M") as
m o o . Then {um} cannot concentrate simultaneously at finite points and at infinity.

Authenticated
Proof. Let Vk > 0 for some k € J. We must show Uqo = 0. Suppose to the contrary
that i>oo > 0. Then we have
1 = Σ vkK(xk) + VooK(oo)
kzJ
and 1 > VOQK(oo). Since
Mk(VooK(OO))£ <μοο = Κ(οο)νοοΜκ,
we see that AT(oo)voo ^ 1 which is impossible. Let υ<χ> > 0 and suppose that v* > 0
for some k 6 J. This implies that
n—2
MK > M%>J2vkn~ Kixk)^ +K(oo)vooMK
keJ
> MK ν / Κ{xk)n-^ + K(oo)Vo)j .
To complete the proof, we observe that
1 = ^K(xk)vk + K(oo)v00
keJ
and we arrive at a contradiction. •
We now state the main existence result for problem {Μχ).
Theorem 9.4.1. Suppose that l i m ^ ^ o o K{x) = K{oo) > 0 and that Μ κ < Μ™.
Then problem (Μκ) admits a solution.
Proof. Since Μ κ < Μ™ and limîôo Κ (χ) = K{ οο), we see that
Μ κ < K{oo)~^S. (9.27)
Let {um } c W l i 2 ( R n ) be a minimizing sequence for Μ κ · Since {um} is bounded in

we may assume that um u in W 1 ' 2 (R n ). First we show that {um} cannot
concentrate at infinity, that is Vqo = 0. Assume to the contrary that i>oo > 0. It then
follows from Theorem 9.3.1 that
+ ν οο· (9.28)
k&J
ι ι
Since lim m ^.oo (F'(Mx~2 um), umM^~2 </>/?) = 0 uniformly in R > 1, we have
ßoo = Kioo^Mf^2,

Authenticated
that is ßoo = K(oo)VooMk· Since we always have

2
Svlο <ßoo = K(oo)VooMK
2
we deduce S < K(oo)vSqMk· Combining this inequality with ( 9 . 2 7 ) we obtain
K(oo)voo > 1, which is impossible and consequently Vqq = βοο = 0. We now show
that u φ 0. Suppose that u = 0. The assumption that Μ κ < combined with
(9.28) gives
inf K(yy£s >MK> > ν**,

y keJ keJ
that is,
1 > τ—ΤΤ-3ΞΓ Σ ν > Σ Μ Μ 2 ^ ·

lnt-yÄOO « keJ kzJ
l = J2K(xk)vk,
keJ
which is clearly impossible and the result follows from Lemma 9.4.1. •
If the inequality Μ κ < Μ ™ is not satisfied, then the argument o f Theorem 9.4.1
breaks down. In Proposition 9.4.2 we explain what can happen to minimizing sequences
which are not relatively compact in W 1 , 2 ( R " ) when the inequality Μ κ < does
not hold. According to Lemma 9.4.1 we may assume that um —^ 0 in
We denote by Μ κ the infimum in ( M r ) when K(x) = K{oo). Obviously, we have
MK = K(oo)~&S.
Proposition 9.4.2. Suppose that Ιππ^ι-χ» K(x) = K(oo) > 0 and let {um} c
W1-2(RB) be a minimizing sequence for (Μχ ).
(i) If Μ κ = < Μ κ and um — 0 in Wl'2(&n), then there exists a constant
vQ > 0 and x0 e M" such that
I Mm I2* v08Xo
in the sense of measure.
(ii) If Μ κ = Μκ < MK,y for each y e Rn and um ^ 0 in Wl-2(Rn), then {um}
concentrates only at infinity and Vqq = γζ^·
Proof (i) According to Proposition 9.4.1, {um} cannot simultaneously concentrate at

infinity and at finite points. First we exclude a concentration at infinity. Suppose to
the contrary that v>oo > 0. Then ΛΓ(οο)νοο = 1 and βοο = Μ κ Κ { o o ) v o o = Μ κ · B y
the definition o f Μ κ we have
_2_
MK(S K(oo)\um<pR\2* dx)* < f \V(um<j>R)\2dx

\J R" J J R"

Authenticated
and from this we deduce that
Μ κ = M k { K ( O O ) V o o ) * <Hoo = M K
which is impossible. Hence {um} can only concentrate at finite points and we have
mi K{y)~n-^S = MK - Z ^ V ^ "
y
keJ keJ
This implies that

ι
ktJ
On the other hand we always have
feey
Thus this is only possible when the set 7 is a singleton and the result follows.
(ii) We exclude the possibility of concentration of {um} at finite points. Assuming
that {u
m } concentrates at finite points, by Proposition 9.5.1 we must have Voo — /Xoo —
0. Hence K(OO)~£S = MK > > Sj2vk^·
k&J keJ
Since Μ κ < Μκ,γ for each j e R" implies K(oo) > K(y) for each y e R", we
deduce from the previous inequality that
k€J
On the other hand we have that
1 =J2vkK(xk)
k€J
9.5 Palais-Smale sequences in critical case

Functions of the family {uy<(T} (see Section 9.3) are solutions with the least energy
equal to among all nontrivial solutions to the equation
Au = \u\2*~2u inR". (9.29)

Authenticated
It is easy check that any solution u e D 1 , 2 ( R " ) of this equation changing sign satisfies
F{u) > , where JT7 is a functional introduced in the proof of Theorem 9.3.2. Using
these facts and techniques developed in Sections (9.3) and (9.4) we shall examine the
Palais-Smale condition on higher energy level of T .
Proposition 9.5.1. Suppose that {um } C D 1 i 2 (R b ) is a sequence satisfying
F{um) c and f'(«m) 0 in 0 _ 1 · 2 ( Μ " ) (9.30)
as m —»• oo. Then either c = 0orc> £ S 5 . I f c = 0, then um —> 0 in Dl,2(M.n) and

I η Λ Λ ,
whenc e [^S2. then {um} satisfies, up to a subsequence, either um = m^+o(1)
oru~+o( 1) in D1,2(R").
Proof. If {um} satisfies (9.30), then
lim I | V u m | 2 d x — lim I \um\2 dx=nc.

m-*oο jjjn m—>·οο
Hence c > 0 and if c = 0 um 0 in D 1 - 2 (R n ). If c > 0, then the Sobolev inequality

yields
_2_
2
S(nc)£ = lim s f f n \um\ * dx) < lim I \Vum\2dx = nc
m-yoo \Jm ) m-KX>
and consequently c > ^ S 3. Finally, then, up to a subsequence, we

have
and
F{um) c , {F'(um), um) ->· 0.
By the previous part of the proof we see that either c + = 0 and —• 0 in D 1 · 2

or c + > and similar relations hold for c~. Since c = c+ + c~, we obviously
have either c + = 0 or c~ = 0. •
According to Proposition 9.2.1 weakly convergent sequences in Sobolev spaces

may concentrate at finite points. We investigate this fact in some detail for a functional
Ελ : Μ defined by
Ex{u) = \ [ (\Du\2 — λ« 2 ) dx — f Ium\2*dx,

2 Ja 2* Ja
where A e l and Ω c R n , η > 3, is a bounded domain.

Authenticated
Lemma 9.5.1. Let {um} c be a sequence satisfying
Ek{um) c and E'x(um) 0 in Ψ~1'2(Ω). (9.31)
,χι € Ω, a function u € W 0 1 , 2 (fi) and a subsequence of

Then there exist points x\,...
12"
{um}, denoted again by {um}, such that um u in Wj0'c (Ω — { j q , . . . , χή).
Proof First we show that a sequence {um} is bounded in W 0 I , 2 (ß). For sufficiently
large m we have
1 f * 1
- / \um\2* dx = Ek{um) - ~(E'k(um), um) < c+ ||um||
η JQ. 2
and
- I \Dum\2dx <c+l + 1- I u2mdx + 1— I \um\2*dx.
1
JQ JQ JQ
It follows from the Young inequality that
f u2mdx<-e-n + [ \um\2* dx.

JQ Η 2* JN
Taking e > 0 sufficiently small we derive from these inequalities the estimate
/
JQ
\Dum\2dx < Ci+C2\\um\
for some constants C\ > 0 and C2 > and the boundedness of {u m } readily follows.
Since {um} is bounded in ν^01,2(Ω) we may assume that um —- u in ν^ 0 '' 2 (Ω). The
function u satisfies
I DiuDidx = I (|m| 2 *~ 2 u0 + λ«</>) (9.32)

JQ JQ
for every φ e W 0 1,2 (Q). By virtue of Theorem 9.2.1 there exist at most countable
sequence of points {jci , Χ2,...} C Ω and constants Vj > 0, j = 1, 2 , . . . , such that
\u m \ 2 * ^ v = \u\2* + J 2 v j 8 X j
j
and
\Dum\2-^ß> |Z>m|2 + 5 Y^vf SXj
j
in the sense of weak-* convergence. We show that the sequence [x\,x2,...} is finite.
Let ψ = « m 0 , where φ e ( ^ ( Ω ) . Since (E' k (u m ), ψ) = o ( l ) | | ^ | | , we obtain letting
m —• 00
Ι φάμ= Ι φάν + λ Ι ι^φάχ— I uDûDiφdx. (9.33)
JQ JQ JQ JQ

Authenticated
Let φ& e Co(R n ) be such that φ&(χ) = 1 on B(xk, 8), φδ(χ) = 0 on R" - B(xk, 28)
and 0 < φ&(χ) < 1 on R". Substituting for φ = φ& in (9.33) and letting 8 0 we
get_/x ({**}) = If v({;c*}) > 0, then by (9.15) we have > S3. Since
ν(Ω) < oo, the sequence {jcj, JC2,...} must be finite, say .. .*/}. Let ψ e C 1 (Ω)
with ψ > 0, f { x j ) = 0 7 = 1 , . . . , / . Then
f \\Jrum\2* dx —»· ί \ψΗ\2*άχ + Σν]Ψ(*])2* = f If u f d x .

Jo, Jn j Jn
Hence \l/um —> ψιι in Ζ,2*(Ω). Finally, we observe that by (9.31) we have
f ifr\Dum — Du\2 dx = f (\um\2*~2um - \u\2*~2u)(um - u)dx

Jn Jq
+ λ I (um - u)2f dx + o{ 1)
Jo.
as m —> oo and consequently Dum —> Du in L20C(Q - {χι jc/}). •
To proceed further we recall the Pohozaev identity for unbounded domains. Let
β be a smooth unbounded domain in R". Suppose that u e W 0 1,2 (ß) satisfies the
equation
- Au = f(u) in Q, (9.34)
where / € C ! ( R , R). Let F(u) = f j f f(s)dx. If F(u) € Ll(Q), then
f \Du\2(x,v)dax = n f F ( u ) d x - ^ - f \Du\2dx.
4 JdQ JQ ί JQ
In particular, if β = R " + = {x e R"; xn > 0}, then equation (9.34) with / ( « ) =

\u\2*~2u has only trivial solutions in W 0 1,2 (R n+ ).
We denote by Ε* : W u ( R n ) R a functional defined by
E*(u) = \ f \Du\2dx-±[ \ufdx.

I Jrh 1 Jfljn
Lemma 9.5.2. Suppose that {um} C W01,2(Q) is such that um 0 in W01,2(Q) and
IfEoiu m) c and E'0{um) 0 in W 1,2 (Q), then there exist
1,2
sequences {xm} C Ω, Rm oo and {uim} C W 0 (fi) such that
η-2
Wm(x) = um(x) - Uo(Rm(x - x0)) + o(l),
I E 0 ( u m ) - E0(wm) - E*(u0)| 0,
and
E'0(wm) o, Rm dist(j: m , 9Ω) oo,

Authenticated
where o( 1) —> 0 in D1·2^") and m0 is a solution in Z>1,2(Rn) of the equation
-Au = \u\2*~2u inRn.
Proof. Since um 0 and um 0 in ^ 0 1 , 2 (Ω), we may assume that
l"m|2* Σν18χ1' X
J €
^
j
with Vj > 0 for some j. In the contrary case um —> 0 in L (Ω) and this combined
with the fact that E'0(u
1,2
m ) —> 0 yields um —> 0 in W 0 (n) which is impossible. Let
Qm(r) be the Levy concentration functions defined by
ß m ( r ) = sup I (IDu m \ 2 + \um\2') dx.
*€Ω JB(x,r)
For each r e (0, small we can find Rm = /? m (t) > 0 and xm e Ω so that
f {\Dum\2 + \um\2*)dx = Q(-^-) = T.
We put
2-m ( X \
Üm(x) = RrrS "ml — + Xm)
\Km /
f o r * g Ωm = {x\ η?- + xm e Ω} and
"171
Qm(r) = sup Ι (\Düm\2 + \üm\2*) dx

xeR" JB(x,r)
= sup f (\Dum\2 + \um\r)dx = qJ^-).

xe nJB(x,^-)
Obviously, we have
f (\Düm\2 + \üm\2*)dx = Qm(\) = T.

Jb(o,i)
We show that for τ e ( 0 , 5 5 ) sufficiently small limm-ôo Rm (r) = oo. In the contrary
case for every e > 0 there exists a constant Μe > 0 such that Rm(€) < M€ and
f \um\2* dx < sup f (\Dum\2+ \um\2*)dx = Qm(4~)

v
=e
J B ( x x e a J B i x , · ^ ) «m'
for all χ e Ω. It then follows that
vj · Ω°° = Ε " , and
(ii) Rm dist(x OT , 3Ω) —> Μ < oo and in this case, up to an orthogonal transforma-
tion, Ω°° = R " .
We extend üm by 0 for χ G W1 - Ω η . Since {üm} is bounded in D 1 , 2 ( M n ) we
may assume that üm u0 in D 1 · 2 ^ " ) . Let φ G then φ G for m
sufficiently large and we have
ί Όύ,ηΏφάχ - ί Iüm\r~2ü^dx (9.35)

JR " J R"
= / Z)w m D0* dx - / \um\2*~2u^^dx

Jn Jn
= Ι Ι 2 . Ω = o(1)II0IID1,2(RI),
where
φ*η{χ) = R^φ{Κη{χ - xm)).
We claim that ü m —>• u 0 in D 1 , 2 ( R " ) . This will follow if we prove that ü m u Q in

L ^ C ( R " ) . Towards this end we choose ψ eC\ ( 5 ( 0 , 2 R ) ) , with φ = 1 on 5 ( 0 , 5 ) and
0 < φ < 1 on 5 ( 0 , 2 5 ) . By Theorem 9.2.1 we may assume that
\φΰη\2* ^ v = ΙςοΜοΙ2* + Σ vJ8xJ
and
|D(îim)|2 - μ > \D(<pu0)\2 +
j
As in Lemma 5.1 we show that if vj = Vj([xj}) > 0 for some Xj G 5 ( 0 , R), then
vj > . Hence
Si >τ = Qm( 1) > I \Düm\2 dx > ß({xj}) > Sf

JB(xj, 1)
and we have arrived at a contradiction. Hence V({JC7 }) = 0 for xj G 5 ( 0 , 5 ) and our

claim follows. We are now in a position to exclude the case (ii). Indeed, by virtue of
12
(9.35) and the fact that üm —• u0 in D |o ' c (M") we see that u0 satisfies the equation
— Alio = \u0\r~2u0 in R n + .
By the Pohozaev identity u0 = 0 in On the other hand
f (\Du0\2 + \u0\2*)dx= lim f (\Düm\2 + \üm\r) dx = τ > 0,

JB{0,1) ^"^(Ο,Ι)
which is impossible. Therefore the case (i) prevails, i.e., lim^-yc» Rm dist(x m , 3Ω) —>
oo. L e t a e C\ ( 5 ( 0 , 2)) be such t h a t « = l o n 5 ( 0 , l ) a n d 0 < a < 1 on 5 ( 0 , 2). For

Authenticated
each m we choose Rm such that limm_>.00 Rm dist(x m , 3Ω) = oo and l i m ^ , - ^ ^ =

"m
oo. We put
n—2
wm(x) = um(x) - u0(Rm(x - xm))a(Rm(x - xm))
and
wm(x) = üm(x) - H0(*)a( — ),
— η
where Rm = -J"·. It is easy to check that
"m
n—2
wm(x) = um(x) - u0(Rm(x - xm)) + o(l),

with o ( l ) -> 0 in D 1 , 2 ( R n ) . Since üm uQ in D^(W) we have
2 2
fa (\Dum\ -\Dwm\ )dx
= f \Dum\2dx- I \D(um-u0(Rm(x - xm)))\2 dx + o(l)
Jq Jn
= f \Düm\ dx — ί \D(üm-u0)\2dx+o(\)
2
J R" Jw
= 2 1n DümDu0dx- / \Du0\2 dx I \Dua\2dx.
jR J R" J Rn
It follows from Corollary A.7.1 that
f Ium\2*dx-f \wm\2'dx=f \u0\rdx + o(\).

Jn Jn Jw
Hence
E0(um) = E0(wm) + E*(w ) + o ( l ) . 0
1,2
We now show that E'0(wn) = E'0(um) + o(l). To show this we write for φ e \νο (Ω)
(E'0(um),4>)-{E'0(wm),4>)
= / (D«mD0 - DwmD<t>)dx - / (\um\r~2um - \wm\r~2wm) dx
Jn Jn
l 2
= J +J
1 2
Finally, using the fact that Um —• Wo in
£> loc (R") and Corollary A.7.1 we show that
limm-ôo J^
= 0, ι = 1,2, uniformly in φe B(0,1) and this completes the proof. •
We can now formulate the global compactness result for the functional χ. Ε
Authenticated
Theorem 9.5.1. Let {um} be a sequence in W01,2(Q) satisfying (9.31). Then there exist
a subsequnce of{um}, denoted again by {um}, an integer k > 0, sequences of points
{xJm} C Ω andfunctions uj e D1'2(W), j = 1 , . . . , k, such thatum u in
Ium-u - Γ1)!^^-) o,
7=1
k
Ek(um) = Ek(u) + J2E 0 V),
j=1
RJm dist(*i,9n) oo,

and uy are solutions of the equation
—Au = \u\2*~2u inR".
Since {um} is bounded in W01,2(ß) we may assume that um u in W01,2(ß). To

prove Theorem 9.5.1 we set vm = um — u. Then by Corollary A.7.1 we have
Ek(um) = Ek(u) + E0(vm) + o(l)
and
E'0(vm) = Ε'λ(μη) + o( 1) = o(l) in ^ · 2 ( Ω )
as m ->· oo. If vm —>· 0 in W01,2(fl), the result follows with k = 0. If vm 0 in
Ψ01,2(Ω) we apply Lemma 9.5.2 a finite number of times.
9.6 Symmetric solutions

As we already observed that problems with subcritical and critical Sobolev exponent
have also radially symmetric solutions. In the final part of this book we discuss the ex-
istence of symmetric solutions with respect to given subgroup G C 0(n), where O(n)
is the group of orthogonal linear transformations in K n . We consider the following
problem
2 2 n
- Δμ = K(x)\u\ *~ u in R , u G D^'2(Rn), (9.36)
where η > 2, Κ is a bounded and continuous function in M", which is somewhere

positive, and satisfies some symmetry conditions with respect to a group G.
For χ φ 0 we denote the cardinality of Gx = {gx; g e G] by and set
|G| = infjtgRiô 16*1·
We say that / : M" R is a G-symmetric function if f{gx) = f(x) for all
g g G and χ e R" and in the context of Sobolev spaces this equality is understood

Authenticated
a.e. on R". For example, if G = {/,—/}, then |G| = 2 and G-symmetric functions
12 ιο
are even functions. We denote by D c ' (W) the subspace of Dl-z(W) consisting of
all G-symmetric functions and its dual space by D^ 1 , 2 (M r t ), that is, D g 2 ( R n ) * =
ι9
Dg ' (R n ). Solutions of problem (9.31) will be found as critical points of a functional
F : £>^' 2 (R n ) ->· R given by
F(u) = ]:i \Vu(x)\2dx-± [ K(x)\u(x)\2'dx.

I J Rn z Jw
From the form of F we see that this functional may have non-zero critical points if
Κ is somewhere positive. To find critical points of F , we first find levels of F for
12
which the Palais-Smale condition holds in Dq (R n ). It turns out that level sets for
which the Palais-Smalecondition holds depend on /£+(0), K+(oo) and ||AT+ H^, where
a+ = max(0, a) and AT+(oo) = limsupîôo AT+(jc).
12
Lemma 9.6.1. Let Κ be a. G-symmetricfiinction and let {um } C Dq(W) be such that
then F
F'(um) 0 in '("m) 0 in D~l2(Rn). Moreover, F'(u) = 0 in
DlQ (R ) implies F'(u) = 0 in Ζ)'· (Κ").
2 n 2
11 ίο
Proof. Since Dq (R rt ) is a closed subspace of a Hilbert space D 1 , Z (R"), we can write
D U ( R " ) = £>c'2(Mw) θ Z>c 2 (R' i )" L ·
Then, for each ν e D 1 , 2 ( R n ) we have a decomposition
V = VG + Vq,
with v G e D ^ 2 ( E " ) and ν£ e D ^ R " ) 1 . Since Z>^ 2 (R") is also a Hilbert space,
1 0
we can identify F {um ), through the duality, with an element in Dq (Rn) and hence
f
{F'(um), v^) = 0 . Consequently

<F'(um),v) = (F'(um),vG)•
On the other hand ( F ' { u m ) , vG) -*• 0 uniformly on ß(0, 1) c D^2(Rn) and the result
easily follows. •
t 9
By virtue of this lemma, any critical point of F in Dq (R n ) is also a solution of
(9.31) in D 1 , 2 (R"). This means that u e £>^ 2 (R") satisfies (9.31) if and only if
I VuVvdx- I n K\u\2*~2uvdx = 0
J R" jR
for all υ € D 1 - 2 (R").
12
To find conditions under which the Palais-Smale condition holds in Dq (R"), we
use Theorems 9.2.1 and 9.3.1.

Authenticated
1 2
Proposition 9.6.1. The (PS)C condition in £>G' ( R n ) holds for
c < ^-minflGIII^+H^^^+iO) 1 -?,^^) 1 -!). (9.37)
1 2
Proof.
I 2Let {um} be a sequence in D c ' ( R " ) such that F(um) c and F'(um) -> 0
in DG ' ( R " ) with c satisfying (9.37). It is now routine to show that [um} is bounded
12 12
in Dq ( R " ) and we may assume that UM U in Dq ( R n ) . B y the concentration-
compactness principle II (Theorem 9.2.1) there exist measures μ and ν such that re-
lations (9.13), (9.14) and (9.15) hold. Let xk be a singular point of measures μ and ν
and let φ be C 1 -function such that0(jc) = 1 in B{xk, €), φ(χ) = 0 on R " - B{xk, 2e)
and | V 0 ( x ) | < ~ on R n . Using the fact that ( F ' ( u m ) , 0 w m ) 0 we derive that
K(xk)vk > ß k . (9.38)
This inequality says that the concentration of the measure ν cannot occur at points
where K(xk) < 0, that is, if K(xk) < 0, then vk = μ * = 0. Combining (9.38) with
(9.15) o f Theorem 9.2.1, either ( i ) vk = 0 o r ( i i ) v * > > (j^jf^) 1 · Since
{ u m } is a sequence on R " w e must also consider a possible concentration at infinity.

Accordingly w e associate with the sequence [um} quantities μ χ and ι>οο· It follows
from Theorem 9.3.1 ( v ) that
ßoo > S v £ . (9.39)
Given e > 0, w e find R0 = /?o(e) such that
f K\um\2* dx < [ (K+(00) + €)\um\2* dx

J\x\>R J\x\>R
for all R > Ra and consequently
lim lim sup / K\um\2* dx < K+(oo)Voo. (9.40)

Λ->00 m—nX) J\x\>R
Since the sequence {u m 0/{} is bounded D 1 , 2 ( R n ) , w e see that
0 = lim {F\um),4>RUm) (9.41)

m—>oo
= lim / I V « « 1 2 φ ϋ ά χ + / M/ M Vu m V0/ f dx - / K\um\2^Rdx\

m->0O L^JJ/I J^n J-^n J
W e now observe that um u in L2(R < |jc| < R + 1). Consequently, using the
Holder inequality we easily verify that
lim lim sup | / ι ι ^ ί Λ η ν φ κ ά χ ] < C 2 lim ll"mllL2*(/f<U|</?+n = 0

R—ÔO M-,ΟΟ JRN R-YOO ^

Authenticated
for some constant C j > 0. Finally, taking into account the definition of Voo and μ ^ ,
we easily deduce from (9.40) and (9.41) that μ < £+(oo)Voo. This, combined with
(9.39), implies that Uqq = 0 if K+(oo) = 0 ; otherwise either (iii) Voo = 0 or (iv)
η
ι>οο > ^ αγ+(oo)) 5 · n o w show that (ii) and (iv) cannot occur. For every continuous
nonnegative function ψ such that 0 < ψ(χ) < 1 on R " we have
c = lim ΓF(u ) - ^ - { F ' { u ) , wm)l = - lim f \Vu \ 2

dx
m->oo J
m m m
2* Π rn-*oo J^n
1
> - lim sup I ifr(x)\Vu m \2dx.
Η m—>-OQ JwJw
If (ii) occurs, then the set J must be finite because the measure ν is bounded. Since
functions um are G-symmetric, the measure υ must be G-invariant. This means that if
Xk φ 0 is a singular point of u, so is gxk for each g e G and the mass of ν concentrated
at gxk is the same for each g e G. Assuming that (ii) holds for some k e J with
x k φ 0, we choose ψ with a compact support so that i / f ( g x k ) = 1 for each g e G and
we get
η
η η η
which is impossible. Similarly, if (ii) holds for χ* = 0, we choose ψ with a compact
support, so that ψ { 0 ) = 1 and we get
1 5 Ä 2_ sf , η
2*
c > - μ ο > -Vo 2 > — Λ Γ + (0) 2.
η η η
Finally, if (iv) occurs we take ψ = φβ to get

1 f 1 5 —
c > - lim lim sup Ι \νιιη\2φϋάχ = -μοο > -ν£>
η R->oo m-yoo Jw η η
η
5^ , η
> — Κ + ( ο ο γ ~ τ ,
η
which is impossible. Consequently, v0 = ν* = Voo = 0 for each k e J and this implies
lim / \u m \2'dx = lim lim / \um\2*(I - φΗ) dx + / \ΐΛ,η\2*φκάχ

ffl-ÔOjjjn R—>00 rn-+00 L y j j n Jjjn
= / IM I 2 * dx
J R
and therefore, by the uniform convexity of Z/ ( W ) , u m - > w in L ( R " ) . To complete

the proof, we observe that F'(u) = 0 and hence
( F ' ( u m ) - F ' { u ) , u m - u)
— I | V ( « m — u)\2 dx — I K(\um\2 ~ 2
u m — \u\2 ~ 2
u ) ( u m — u) d x .
Jw Jw

Authenticated
Using the fact that um —u in L 2 *(R"), we easily check by the Holder inequality that
the second integral on the right-hand side converges to 0 as m -> oo. Finally, since
lim m ^.oo(F'(M m ) — F'(u), um — u)= 0, we immediately deduce from the last identity
that um —>· μ in D 1 , 2 (R"). •
As an immediate consequence of Proposition 9.6.1 we obtain the following result.
Proposition 9.6.2. If Κ+(0) = K+(oo) = 0 and |G| = oo, then the (PS)C condition
holds for every c.
To establish the existence result we use the extremal function (9.3), in the form
Va(x) = Cna^ (a2 + \x\2)^, a > 0,
where a constant cn depending only on η satisfying | | ν ν α | | 2 = 1. Moreover, Va

satisfies the equation
I V2*~lvdx = S~T I WaVvdx

Jw JR"
for all ν e Dl'2(R"). Letting ν = Va, we get
f V2'dx = S~T.
Theorem 9.6.1. Suppose that
/
Jw
'r
ΚV2* dx > m a x { / r + (0), K+(oo), ||ΑΓ+||οο) > 0 (9-42)
12
for some a > 0. Then problem (9.36) has at least one positive solution in DQ (
Proof First, we choose a > 0 so that (9.42) is satisfied. It is clear that there exist
constants a > 0 and ρ > 0 such that F{u) > a for all ||u|| = p. An easy computation
shows that there exists t > 0 such that
12 72
t2" f
F(tVa) = -t - — / K(x)Va(x)2*dx = maxF(tVa)
Δ I J^n
>W t>0
and
F(tVa) = i [J KV2* dx^ 2

. (9.43)
We now choose t0 such that F(t0Va) < 0 and ||ί ο ν α || > ρ and set
c = inf max F(v(t)),

yef fe[0,l]

Authenticated
where
Γ = { γ G C([0, 1], D j j 2 ( R n ) ) ; y(0) = 0, | y ( l ) | > p , F ( y ( t ) ) < 0}.
Setting
- S i m i n { Ä " + ( 0 ) 1 _
5 ; K + ( o o ) l
~ % , |G|||tf+||Jo ! } ,
we deduce from (9.42) and (9.43) that
c < F ( t V a ) < c 0 .
If c < c0, according to Proposition 9.6.1 the (PS) C condition holds and the conclusion
follows from the mountain pass theorem. I f c = c 0 , t h e n y ( i ) = f f o V ^ w i t h O < t < 1,
is a path in Γ such that max / e [o,i] F ( y ( t ) ) = c . Therefore, either F ' ( t V ) = 0 and we a
are done, or γ can be deformed to a path γ e Γ with max ie [o, i] F(y (t)) < c and we get
a contradiction. This part of the proof shows that a nontrivial solution u0 e £>g(R") of
problem (9.36) exists. We now show that the solution u 0 can be chosen to be positive
on M". Obviously, we have F(u0) = F(|m 0 |)· Since
we deduce that JRn K\u0\2* d x > 0. This implies that
c = F(|«0|) = maxF(f|H0|).
f>0
Consequently, either |u 0 | is a critical point of F or the path y ( t ) = t t \ u \ , with 0 0
F ' ( t \ u \ ) < 0, can be deformed, as in the first part of the proof, to a path y { t ) with
0 0
max / e [o,i] F ( y ( t ) ) < c , which is impossible. Therefore, we may assume that u is 0
nonnegative on M" and the fact that u0 > 0 on R" follows from the Harnack inequality.
•
As an immediate consequence of this theorem we obtain:
Corollary 9.6.1. If K(x) > K(oo) = K(Q) > 0 on R" and

2
K ( o o ) = K ( 0 ) > I G r ^ H A T I I OO'
then problem (9.36) has at least one positive solution.
In the cases where
K ( 0 ) > 0, K ( 0 ) > max(/sT + (oo), ||tf+|loc)
or
K(oo) > max(^+(0), IGr^HAT+H«,)

Authenticated
one can deduce some existence results under additional conditions controlling the
behaviour of Κ for small |*| and large |jc|. For more details we refer to the paper [34],
Finally, in the case where
max(K+(0),K+(oo)) < IGp&Utf+H«,, (9.44)

we show how to construct a G-symmetric function satisfying (9.42). For simplicity,
we take a = 1 and set for 0 \\k\Ub,c (9.45)
on (b < |jc| < c). We then extend k continuously to a nonnegative function on M"
and we denote this extension again by £(*). We choose this extension so that relation
(9.45) holds for k and so that HfcH^ = k{x) on |x| = d for some b < d < c. Finally
we define a G-symmetrization Κ of k by
K(x) = ^(k(gxx) + '-' + k(gsx)).

It is obvious that Κ satisfies (9.44) and (9.45). Since
[ Kvfdx>[ WKooiu^vfdxîGr^WK+i^s-^,
J R" Jb<\x\<c
inequality (9.42) is satisfied. If |G| > 1, then lb,c < 1, provided b is small and c is
large, because
lim / V?*dx = S~^.
™ *b<\x\<c
9.7 Remarks on compact embeddings into L (Q)

andL|*(R w )
The methods presented in Section 9.6 can be easily extended to the Dirichlet problem
in a bounded G-symmetric domain. We formulate only two compactness results that
can be deduced by inspecting the proof of Proposition 9.7.1.
An open set β C 1 " is G-symmetric if gx e Q for each g G G and χ e Q. We
19 19
set DQ (<2) = W0'C(Q), where Wo'c(Q) is a subspace of all G-symmetric functions
in W l H Q ) .
Authenticated
9.7 Remarks on compact embeddings into L2*(Q) and L2*(R") 251
Proposition 9.7.1. If Q is G-symmetric bounded domain in R" such that 0 £ Q and

— |2 -y*
\GX I = oo for each χ G Q, then Dq (Q) w compactly embedded in L (Q).
For a continuous, bounded and positive almost everywhere function Κ on RM we

define a weighted Lebesgue space 1 < ρ < oo, equipped with a norm
MK.P = (J KMLUWDX)'.
Proposition 9.7.2. Suppose that Κ is continuous, bounded and positive almost every-
where G-symmetric function in R" with K{0) = K{oo) = 0 and |G| = oo. Then
dJ.' 2 (R") can be compactly embedded in L2* (R").
1 1
Proof If um —^ u in D c ' (R"), then it follows from the proof of Proposition 9.6.1
that a concentration of a measure ν can occur at 0 and oo. Consequently, um u in
Lr(r < \x\ < R) for all 0 < r < R. Since K(0) = K(oo) = 0 the result easily
follows. •
As an application of Proposition 9.7.2 we consider the following minimization

problem
/ = inf{- f \Vu\2dx\ u e D^ 2 (M n ) and f K\u\2* dx = 1}.

2 JR" JR"
Theorem 9.7.1. Suppose that Κ is continuous, almost everywhere positive, bounded

and G-symmetric, with |G| = oo, such that Κ {oo) = K{ 0) = 0. Then problem (9.35)
12
has at least one nontrivial solution in Dq (R").
1 1
Since Dq (R") is compactly embedded in L (R"), the result follows from Theorem
1.2.2(ii) (seeconsider
Finally, also thethe
proof of Theorem
Dirichlet 1.9.1.
problem in an annulus Q = {jc; r < |x| < i?}, for
some 0 < r < R,
Au = K(x)\u\2*~2u in Q
(9.46)
u(x) = 0 on 9 ß .
Again, applying Proposition 9.7.1 and Theorem 1.2.2(ii), we readily obtain the follow-
ing existence result.
Theorem 9.7.2. Suppose that Κ is radially symmetric, continuous function on Q,

which is somewhere positive. Then the Dirichlet problem (9.46) has at least one
nontrivial solution.

Authenticated

Problem (9.1), which over the last 10 years has attracted a lot of attention, has an
extensive literature. The monograph by Struwe [212] and articles of Brezis [46] and
Brezis-Nirenberg [42] contain a large number of historical and bibliographical notes
and comments. Extensions of the Brezis-Nirenberg result for polyharmonic operators
can be found in [131], [33], [106], [232], [183]. If λ = 0 and Q is star-shaped, there is
no solution, by Pohozaev's result [178]. However, if β is an annulus, then Kazdan and
Warner [146] proved that there exists a radial solution for λ e (—oo, λι) for problem
(9.1). According to the work of Bahri [23] and Bahri-Coron [24], if a domain Q has
a nontrivial topology, then problem (9.1), with λ = 0, has at least one solution. By
contrast, Passaseo [175] proved that for every integer k > 1, there exists a contractible
bounded domain β C 1 " , with η > 3, in which problem (9.1), with ρ = 2 and
λ = 0, has at least k solutions. For further results regarding the effects of a topology
on the number of solutions for elliptic equations with critical Sobolev exponents, we
refer to papers by Benci-Cerami [22] and Candela [52]. For results concerning the
best Sobolev constants we refer to the works of Talenti [221], Adimurthi-Yadava [5],
Lions-Pacella-Tricarico [160] and Swanson [219].
For results concerning bifurcation from eigenvalues of higher order, we refer the
reader to the papers by Capozzi-Fortunato-Palmieri [58] and Cerami-Fortunato-
Struwe [61]. The results of Brezis-Nirenberg [42] are concerned with the existence
of positive solutions. Cerami-Solimini-Struwe showed the existence of solutions
varying in sign for λ G (0, λι) and η > 6. Further extensions can be found in
Capozzi-Fortunato-Struwe [61] and Ambrosetti-Struwe [12]. The results in Sections
(9.2)-(9.4) were obtained by P. L. Lions [159]; however we modified his approach by
introducing the concentration-compactness principle at infinity [29], [34], [70]. The
reader is referred to the works [55], [54], [56], [151], [239], [102], [244], [205], [97] for
further applications of the concentration-compactness principle. A global compact-
ness result in Section 9.5 is due to Struwe [212], [215] and we followed the approach
from the work of Shu Sen Yan [238]. Proposition 9.5 was established in Troestler
[228]. The proof of the Pohozaev identity in unbounded domains can be found the
monograph of Willem [236].
It is also worth mentioning that problem (9.1), with ρ = 2, stems from Yamabe's
problem [237], [148], which was the main impetus for studying nonlinear elliptic
problems involving critical and subcritical Sobolev exponent. Yamabe himself was
not successful in solving it. An advance was made by Trudinger [230] and Aubin
[20] and a complete solution was given by Schoen [202]. For the extensions to the p-
Laplacian we refer to work of Azorero and Alonso [16], [17] and Kabaya [138], Egnell
[107], Guedda and Veron [132]. The approach to symmetric solutions presented in
Sections 9.7 and 9.8 is due to Bianchi-Chabrowski-Szulkin [34] (see also [26], [133]
and [134]).

Authenticated
Appendix
A.l Sobolev spaces

We recall fundamental definitions and results from the theory of Sobolev spaces (see
[1]). These spaces are defined over an arbitrary domain Ω c M". Let u e Ι , ' ^ ί Ω ) . A
function v a e ίΙ ( Κ (Ω) such that
I u{x)Da(}){x)dx = {- 1) |α| Ι να{χ)φ{χ)άχ

Ja Ja
for any φ e is called the weak or distributional derivative of u and is denoted
a
by D u. Here a = ( a j , . . . , an), where a, (i = 1, . . . , n) are nonnegative integers
•)|a|
and Dau = tst2·—r^r> with |α| = αϊ + · · · + a„. It is clear that if such a va exists,
όχ j dxn
it is unique up to sets of measure zero.
To define a Sobolev space we introduce a functional || · ||m p , where m is a nonneg-
ative integer and 1 < ρ < oo, as follows
II" II m,p=( Ε f I Dau(x)\PdxY ,
for 1 < ρ < oo and

IMU.oo = max sup \Dau(x)\
0<|a|<w q
if ρ = oo. It is obvious that || · \\m p and || · || m i 0 0 define norms on any vector space
of functions for which values of these functionals are finite, provided functions are
identified in the space if they are equal almost everywhere.
For any integer 1 < m and any 1 < ρ < oo we can define the following spaces
Η η · ρ ( Ω ) = the completion of [u e C m ( f i ) ; ||«||„, ρ < σο}
with respect to the norm || · ||m p ,
Wm'p(£l) = {u e L ί '(Ω); Dau e Ζ / ( Ω ) for 0 < |a| < m],
where Da denotes the weak partial derivative of u,
\ν"·ρ(Ω.) = the closure of in the space Wm'p(Q).

Authenticated
254 Appendix
The above spaces equipped with the norms || · \\m p are called Sobolev spaces over Ω.
It is clear that W°<ρ = Wo,p = Ι Λ It is also known that Hm'P{Q) = W 1 · ^ ) for
every domain Ω. The spaces Wm'P(Q) and \ν™'ρ(Ω) are Banach spaces, these spaces
are reflexive if and only if 1 < ρ < oo. Moreover, Wk>2(Q.) and W*>2 (Ω) are Hilbert
spaces with scalar product
(u,v)= J2 f Dau{x)Dav{x)dx,
|α|<*
where D°u = u. Also, Wm'p(Q) and W o ' p ( £ i ) are separable for 1 < ρ < oo.
By W~m-P'(£l), with ρ' = 1 < ρ < oo (if ρ = 1, ρ ' = oo) we denote the
dual space of W™'p(£l) and we write
W~m'P'(Q) = (Wm'p(Q))*.
It is well known that every element Τ 6 W~m'p'(Q) has the form
T(u)= Σ I Dauvadx,
|a|<m
where va are suitable elements in LP (Ω).
A.2 Embedding theorems

Let X and Y be Banach spaces with norms \\ • \\χ and || • ||y, respectively. We say that
X is continuously embedded into Y if there exists an injective linear map i : X —>· Y
and a constant C such that
||i(x)||y <C||*||jf
for all χ e X. We identify X with the image i(X).

X is compactly embedded into Y if i is a compact map, that is, i maps bounded
subsets of X into relatively compact subsets of Y.
Theorem A.2.1 (Sobolev embedding theorem). Suppose that Ω c M" is a bounded

domain with Lipschitz boundary. Then
(i) I f k p < n, then Wk'p(Q) is continuously embedded into Lq (Ω) for each 1 < q <
n"fkp; this embedding is compact, if q <
(ii) // 0 < m < k — ^ < m + 1, then Wk-P(n) is continuously embedded into

Cm'a(Q),for 0 < a < k — m — —, this embedding is compact if a < k — m — —.

Authenticated
A.3 Compact embeddings of spaces WÔR") and D ' ^ R " ) 255
Here by C m ^(Ω) we denote the set of all functions u belonging to C ( £ l ) and m
whose partial derivatives Dau, with |or| = m, are Holder continuous with exponent
0 < β < 1.
For a bounded domain Ω, C m 'P{£l) becomes a Banach space with a norm
a a
\ D u { x ) - D u ( y ) \
Mlcm,= Σ IID-HU+ Σ sup
M<m |a|=m*/yeQ \ x - y \ P
For an arbitrary domain Ω c M" and u e we have
s\\uf p , < Σ f (A.l)
where p* = and S = S(k, η, ρ) > 0 is a constant (the best Sobolev constant).

k D *
p
This inequality says that W0 (Ω) is continuously embedded in L (Ω).
If u e W ' ( R ) , then the best Sobolev constant S is given by
k p n
i - i
Γ(1 + § ) Γ ( η )
ΓφΓ(1 + η - ρ
and the equality sign holds in (A.l) if μ has the form
u ( x ) = +
where a and b are positive constants (see [221]).

We denote by D ' ( W ) completion of
k p
with respect to the norm
\W\\PDk.p = Ε f \ D a
u ( x ) \ p
d x .
According to the inequality (A.l) D k

- p
( W ) is continuously embedded in L / '*(R n ).
A.3 Compact embeddings of spaces and

It is well known that the space W l p ( E n ) is not compactly embedded into Lq(W) for
Ρ < Q< However, this embedding is compact if we replace the space L 9 ( K " )
by a weighted Lebesgue space L ? ( R n ) defined as
= f \ u { x ) \ « r { x ) d x < o o } ,
JW

Authenticated
256 Appendix
where r is a nonnegative, φ Ο and measurable function on Κ " , and equipped with the
norm
\\uf.q = f \u(x)\«r(x)dx.
J R"
We denote by Q(x, I) the cube o f the form
Q(x, l) = {ye E"; \yj - Xj\ < j = 1,..., n).
Theorem A.3.1.
(i) Let η > p. Suppose that r € (Kn), with 1 < ρ < q < q-\-€ < ~~ for some
r q+t ι
€ > 0, and limî-Hxi Jq(x i)r(y) ( dy = 0 for some I > 0. Then ^^^(M") is
compactly embedded in Lf(Rn).
(ii) Let η = p. Suppose that r e L^R") for some s > 1 and
lim f r{y)sdy = 0 (A.2)

1*1-» oo Jq(xj)
for some I > 0. Then is compactly embedded in Lqr(Rn) for every

q > n.
(iii) Let η < p. Suppose that r e /.^(Μ") and
lim I r(y)dy= 0 (A.3)

kHoo Jq(xJ)
for some I > 0. Then W 1 ' p (IR") is compactly embedded in for each
1> P-
Proof Case (i) is a special case o f a slightly more general version o f a result due to
Berger and Schechter [32]. We follow the method from [168] to show (ii) and (iii).
Obviously, the proof o f (ii) and (iii), presented here, can also be used to prove (i). In
both cases it is suffices to show that for every S > 0 there exists R > 0 such that
l l / - / X ß ( 0 , Ä ) l l L ? <«5 (A.4)
for all / suchthat ||/|| < 1, where χ ρ is the characteristic function o f the cube. Indeed,
let ifm) be abounded sequence in W 1,p (lR n ). We assume that ||/m|| < l f o r a l l m > 1.
Consequently, we may assume that fm —>- / in
W ^ i R " ) and in view o f the Sobolev
compactess theorem there exists a subsequence o f { / m } , denoted again by { f m } , such
that fm ^ f in Lq (0, R)) in case (ii) and uniformly in β(Ό, R) in case (iii). On the
other hand by (A.4) we have
( f \fm-f\grdx)q <28.
\JR"-Q(O,R) /

Authenticated
Α.3 Compact embeddings of spaces Wl-P(Rn) and D' ^ R " ) 257
Combining this with the previous observation, we easily conclude that fm —• / in

L?(R n ).
To show (A.4) we cover R" with cubes ß ( z , l ) , z e Z " , where Ζ = { . . . , - 2 , - 1 ,
0, 1, 2 , . . . } . We may also assume that (ii) and (iii) hold with / = 1. For η > 0, in
case (ii), we use (A.2) to find Ν > 0 such that JQ r(x)s dx < η for each Q = Q{z, 1)
outside β ( 0 , N). We now use the fact that if f e Wl n(Q) then / € L^(Q) for each
n < q < oo and
for some constant C(q, n) > 0. Hence by the Holder inequality we have
j \f\<rdx< (f r
' d x
)' (fQlfl<iS'dxY iVcÜ>n>s')\\f\\qwi*{Qy
We now choose C(q,n, χ')η* < δ and add these inequalities over all Q(z, 1) outside
0 ( 0 , N) to obtain (A.4) with R = N. In case (iii) we use (A.3) to get JQT dx < η for
each Q = Q(z, 1) outside β ( 0 , Ν). We now repeat the previous argument using the
inequality ||/||/,«>((2) - C | | / | | w i , P ( ß ) , which holds for all / G W l p ( < 2 ) , w i t h ρ > n,
for some constant C > 0. •
Theorem A.3.1 establishes compact embeddings of W 1 , p ( R " ) into L? (R") with

ρ < q. In case q < ρ it is more difficult to obtain compact embeddings of W l p ( R w )
into (R n ). In Proposition A.3.1 we give some simple conditions guaranteeing the
existence of a compact embedding of W ^ ' ^ R " ) into Lqr (R").
Proposition A.3.1.
ϊ±ί
(i) Let ρ < n. Suppose that r € Z,,^ (R n ) for some p<q<q+€<
r G L'(M") and that
lim I rix)^ dx = 0
for some I > 0. Then W 1,p (lR") is compactly embedded into Lqr {W1) for each
1 <q < p.
(ii) Let ρ = n. Suppose that r £ Lf 0C (R") for some s > r e L 1 (R") and that
lim f r(y)sdy=0
kKoo Jq(xJ)
for some I > 0. Then W 1 " ( R " ) is compactly embedded in Lqr(ß.n) for each
1 < q < p.
(iii) Let ρ > n. Suppose that r e L[(R"). Then W 1 , / 7 (R n ) is compactly embedded in
Lqr{W) for each 1 < q < p.

Authenticated
258 Appendix
Proof. Case (iii) is immediate due to the fact that
||w|| L oo < const ||u||
for u e with ρ > n. Parts (i) and (ii) can be derived from Theorem A.3.1.
We only show (i). Let {um} be bounded sequence in W ^ ' ^ R " ) . By Theorem A.3.1(i)
we may assume that um —• u in Lqr (R"). Applying the Holder inequality we get
I ,
q
f \um-u\«rdx <( f \um -u\ rdxY ( f rd*V
J R" \J R" / \J R" /
To extend this result to the space Dl'p(M.n) we need the following estimate:
Let u € Wip(Q) and UQ = JQ U(X) dx, where β is a cube of volume 1, then
J \u(x)-uQ\r dx <C ( ^ j \Du(x)\p dx^j" (A.5)
for some constant C > 0 for all ρ < r < (see [147]).
Theorem A.3.2. Let ρ < η and suppose that r satisfies (i) of Theorem A.3.1 and that
r € L ' ( R " ) . Then the space D 1 , p ( R " ) is compactly embedded in L?(R").
Proof. The proof is similar to that of Theorem A.3.1. It suffices to show that for
every S > 0 there exists R > 0 such that the inequality (A.4) holds for all / such that
\\Df\\LP < 1. Indeed, let {/ m } be a bounded sequence in Di p(R"). We may assume
that ||D/ m ||î> < 1 for all m > 1. Since ρ < q + € < we may assume that
there exists / € D ' - ^ R " ) such that fm / in L « + C ( ß ( 0 , R)) and Dfm Df in
Lp(Q{0, R)). Thus
q t
9
f \fm-f\ rdx<([ I fn - f\q+e dx)'" ( f r ^ ^ V ^ .
J Q(0,R) νρ(Ο,Λ) / \JQ(0,R) /
On the other hand by (A.4) we have
Since fm
α R"-ß(0,«)
\fm- f\qrdx\
/
<28.
f in Lq+€(Q(0, R)), the last two inequalities give the convergence of

{fm} in L?(R").
To prove (A.4) we cover R n with cubes Q(z, 1), ζ € Ζ". For η > 0 we use (i) to
r 2Ü
find Ν > 0 such that Jq r(y) * dy < η for every Q = Q(z, 1) outside Q(0, N) and

Authenticated
A.4 Conditions of concentration and uniform decay at infinity 259
so that / R n_g(ο n) r ( y ) dy < η. If Q is any such cube we have by the Sobolev and
Holder inequalities that
(n-p)(q+e)
np q+e
q+€
f I f \ q + €
d x < ( J \ f \ — p d x ) < S ~ ρ \\Df\\YP
Q \ J Q
and consequently, setting f q = Jq f ( x ) dx, we obtain by (A.5)
q
J \ f \ ' r d x < V - * [ f \ f ~ f Q \ r d x + j ( j \ f ( x ) \ d x y r ( y ) d y ]
'Q JQ \ J Q
, n χ ^ ε ΐ f
p
+ { J \ f \ ^ ~ d x j "" j r ( y ) d y
* *( J w r * ) ' { J 0 r *
+2q' ^ \ D f \ P d x y J r d x ,
where AT is a constant. We now add all these inequalities over Q(z, 1) outside Q(0, Ν)
to get
f \ f \ q
r d x < Κ η Τ * + 2 q
- x
S ~ 1
p f r ( x ) d x
j R n
- Q ( P , N ) J R Κ"-β(0,ΛΟ
< Κ η ^ + 2
1
_£
We now choose η so that Κ η ΐ + (
+ 2 q
5 ρ η < δ and this completes the proof. •
A.4 Conditions of concentration and uniform decay

at infinity
In Section A.3 we have proved some results on compact embeddings of W 1 • p (W1) into
L ? { M " ) . In this section we present a slightly more general approach to establish a
strong sequential continuity of an operator on W ^ ' ^ R " ) generated by a Caratheodory
condition. The results discussed here are due to Brüning [48].

Authenticated
260 Appendix
We recall that a function Η : R " χ R m R satisfies the Caratheodory condition if

for ally e R m H{·, y) -*• R is a measurable function and for a.e. χ eW H(x, ·) R
is a continuous function. This ensures that the Nemytsky operator Η associated with Η
1 A
maps R ) into set of measurable functions, that is, H(u)(x)
m = H(x, u(x))
is a measurable function for each u e W ^ C R " , R m ) .
We need the following result from the theory of Lebesgue integrals:

Let Fj : R " —• R, j = 1 , . . . be a sequence of measurable functions which
converges a.e. on R " to a function F : R " R, then Fj F in Ll(W) if and only
if
(a) for every e > 0 there exists a compact set Κ c R " such that
sup I |Fy(jc)| dx < e

j Jw-K
and
(b) fK I Fj (x) — F(x)\dx ->• 0 as j oo for any compact set Κ C R " .
Theorem A.4.1. Let Η : R " χ R m ->· R be a Caratheodory function such that for
any λ > 0 there exists a function αχ € L^Qc (Mn) such that \H(x, < αχ(χ) for a.e.
χ in R " and all < λ.
A «
LetUj : R n —> R m be a sequence of measurable functions, with H(uj) 6 L (IR"),

which converges a.e. to a function u : R " —> R w .
Then H(uj) -> H(u) in L 1 ( R " ) if and only if the following two conditions are
satisfied:
( C ) (Condition of concentration) For every € > 0 there is a compact set Κ C R " such
that
sup I |//(«y)| dx < €,
j Jw—K
( D ) (Condition of incomplete decay at infinity) For every compact set Κ C R " and
every € > 0 there is λ 0 € (0, oo) such that for every λ > λ σ there is j0 such that
f \H(Uj(x))\dx <6
JKn(\uj\>x)
for all j > jQ.

Λ A .
Proof (i) Suppose that H(uj) -> H(u) in L ( R n ) . The condition (a) implies the
concentration condition (C).
To show condition (D) we choose a compact set Κ c R " , λ > 0 and observe that
1/ H(x,Uj(x))dx\ k) JKn(\u\>k)

Authenticated
A.5 Compact embedding for H} (R") 261
+ f \H(x,Uj(x))~ H(x,u(x))\dx
JΚ
+| I H(x,u(x))dx — I H(x, Uj(x)) dx\ = i\ + 12 + 13.

JKn(\u\<k) JKr\(\uj\<k)
Since supy,|Μ>|<λ IH(x, μ(λ))| < αχ a.e. on R" and H(x, Uj{x)) converges a.e. on W
to H(x, u(x)), we see that, by the dominated convergence theorem, for every compact
set Κ cRn
II H(x,uj(x))dx - J H(x,u(x))dx|0 (A.6)

JKn(\Uj\<x)
as j —> 00. Given a compact set Κ cW1 and e > 0, we can find λ σ > 0 such that
n = lf H{x,u{x))dx\<\
JKn<\u\>n
Ά:η(|Μ|>λ) j
for all λ > λ 0 and there exists j0 such that 12 < §6 11
for j > j0. Now, using (A.6), for a
fixed λ > λ 0 there exists j\ = ;'ι(λ) such that 13 < e| for j > j0(k). This shows that
(D) holds.
(ii) Suppose that (C) and (D) hold. The condition (C) gives (a) for H(uj). Since
H{x, Uj(x)) —• H{x, u(x)) a.e. on R", it is sufficient to show that for every compact
Κ cW1
lim f \H(x,ui(x))~ H(x,uk(x))\dx =0.
This follows from the following estimate
L\H(x, uic(x)) - H(x, ui(x))\dx

κ
< / \H(x,ui(x)) - H(x, Uk(x))\dx
J Kn(\uk\<k)n«\ui\<k)
+ [ \H(x,ui(x))\dx+ f \H(x,uk(x))\dx.
Jkd(\ui\>),) JKn(\uk\>k)
By (D), given e > 0 and a compact set Κ cW1 there exist λ and j0 such that for all
k, I > jo the last two integrals are smaller that Using again (A.6), we find that there
exists j\ = jι(λ, Κ) such that the first integral is less then | for all k, I > j\ and our
claim follows. •
A.5 Compact embedding for H}(Rn)

Let Hrl(Rn) = {u G W 1 ' 2 (E"); U = m(|x|)}, that is, / / / ( R " ) isasubspaceofallradial
functions u(\x\) in L 2 ( R " ) whose partial derivatives of the first order also belong to
L 2 (R").

Authenticated
262 Appendix
Lemma A.5.1. Every function u in is almost everywhere on Μ" — {0} equal

to a continuous function U such that
\U(x)\<(—Y \u(y)\2dyY(f W t f d y Y (A.7)
for all χ φ Q.
Proof We follow Rother [189]. Let φ e be a radially symmetric function.

Integrating by parts we obtain
r"~V(r)2 = (n — 1) ί sn~2(p(s)2dx +2 f sn~l(p{s)(p\s)ds

Jo Jo
for 0 < r < oo and also

r•oo
oo r oo
/>oo
n 2 2
0 = (n — 1) I s ~ <p(s) ds + 2 sn~l(p(s)<p\s)ds.
Jo Jo
Combining these two equations together we get

f 00 rr
rn~l(p(r)2 < (n - 1) / J j + 2/ rfj
Jo
oo
/
1 . 1
<—([ <p(y)2dyY([
\J\y\>r / V·'|y|>r /
If μ e //,!(M n ) we establish (A.7) by approximating u in H}{M") by a sequence of

radially symmetric functions {<pm} c C£°(R n ). •
To proceed further we need the following compactness result due to Strauss [218].
Theorem A.5.1. Let Ρ and Q be two continuous functions satisfying
lim ^ = 0 (A.8)
M->°o Q{s)
and let {um} be a sequence of measurable functions on W1 such that
sup I \Q(um(x))\dx <oo (A.9)

m J R"
and
lim P{u {x)) = υ(χ) a.e. in R",
m-+ oo m

Authenticated
A.5 Compact embedding for H} (R") 263
then for any bounded Bore I set Β we have
lim f \P(um(x))-v(x)\dx = 0. (A.10)

m^-oojß
Moreover, if we assume that
lim = 0 (A.ll)
iÔ Q{s)
and
lim um(x)= 0 (A. 12)
l^hoo
uniformly in m, then P(um) —> ν in Ll(W) as m —• 00.
Proof. We present here the proof due to Berestycki-Lions [30]. To show (A. 10), we
check that [P(um)} is uniformly integrable on B. It follows from (A.8) that
\P(um(x))\<C(\ + \Q(um(x))\) in R"
for some constant C > 0. We also have
f \P(um(x))\dx < f \P(um(x))\dx

J Bn(\P(um(x)\>k) J(\um(x)\><p(k))nB
for some function <p(k) such that l i m ^ o o <p(k) = 00. Consequently, by (A.8) we have
f \P(um(x))\dx < €(k) f \Q(um(x))\dx < Ce(k)

J(\P(um(x))\>k)nB Jb
with limjt-foo ^(k) = 0. This proves the uniform integrability. By (A.l 1) and (A. 12),
given € > 0, there exists R0 > 0 such that
\P(um(x))\<e\Q(um(x))\
for all |jc| > R0 and all m. This combined with (A.9) and Fatou's lemma shows that
ν € Ll(R") and that
I \v(x)\dx<eC (A. 13)
J\x\>Ro
and
f \P(um{x))\dx < e sup f \Q(um(x))\dx. (A.14)
The first part of the proof implies that
I \P(um(x))-v(x)\dx <€
j Q x l < * o )
for all η > n 0 . Combining (A. 13) and (A.14) with the last inequality we get
/
Jw
ι R"
I P(um(x)) - υ (χ) I dx <€+ 2 eC

Authenticated
264 Appendix
Theorem A.5.2. If2<q< then H}{E") is compactly embedded in Lq(W),

η > 3.
Proof. We apply Lemma A.5.1 and Theorem A.5.1 with
P(s) = \s\<1 and Q(s) = |i| 2 +

2/1
and use the fact that a bounded sequence in Hrl (R") is also bounded in L« 32 (R").
1
•
Theorem A.5.2 does not hold if q = 2 or q = (see [113]).
A.6 Schwarz symmetrization

Let / <E Ll(Rn), then the Schwarz symmetrization f* : Μ" Μ of / : Rn Μ is
a measurable, radial and nonincreasing function such that
|{/* > « } | = | { | / | > α » |

for all a > 0. From this we immediately obtain that
f F(f(x))dx=i F(f*(\x\)dx (A. 15)

J R" J R"
for every continuous function F : R R such that F ( f ) e L^W1).
If / and g are in L 2 (R rt ), then
f f{x)g{x)dx < ί f*(\x\)g*(\x\)dx

J R" J R"
and this inequality implies that
I I / * - * 1 l 2 < ll/-gll L 2.
Moreover, if u e Hl(R"), then u* g // r '(IR n ) and
I \Vu*(x)\2dx < f IVu(x)\2dx.

J R" JR"
For the proofs we refer to Talenti's paper [221] and Polya-Szegö's book [179].
A.7 Pointwise convergence

The results presented in this section are taken from [30].

Authenticated
A.7 Pointwise convergence 265
Theorem A.7.1. Let (Ω, Σ, μ) be a measure space. Suppose that h : R R w

continuous function, with h (0) = 0, such thatfor every € > 0 there exist two continuous
nonnegative functions φ€ and ψβ such that
Ih(a + b)~ h(b)I < €<p€(a) + ψ€φ) (A. 16)
for all a, b e R. Moreover, let fn = f + gnbea sequence of measurable functions in

R satisfying the following conditions:
(i) gn 0 a.e. on Ω,
(ii) A(/)eL'(fi),
(iii) JQ <p€(gn(x)) dß(x) < C for some constant C > 0 independent oft and n,
/ω (/(*)) άμ(χ) < oo for all € > 0.
Then
lim f \h(f + gn)-h(gn)-h(f)\dß = 0.
Proof Let € > 0 and set
We,n01) = [Ih(fn(x)) - h(gn(x)) - h(f(x))\ - €<pe(gn{x))]+.
Then limnôo We<n(x) = 0 a.e. on Ω. Since
\h(fn) ~ Hgn) - h(f)I < Ih(fn) - h(gn)\ + |A(/)|

< €<Pe(gn) + t A f ) + h(f),
we see that W€>n < ^ e { f ) + \h(f)\ and consequently W€ g Ζ,*(Ω). It then follows
from the dominated convergence theorem that lim„_*oo /Ω We,n(x) dß(x) = 0. To
complete the proof we observe that
f \h(fn)-h(gn)-h(f)\dß< f {We,n + e<p€(.gn))dv

Jsi Jo.
and the result easily follows. •
Condition (A. 16) is satisfied for convex functions.
Proposition A.7.1. Suppose that h : R —> R is a convex function with h( 0) = 0. For

every R > 1 and 0 < € < £ we have
Ih{a + b)~ h(a)I < € [h(ka) - kh{a)] + \h(C€b)\ + \h(-Ceb)\,
where C€ =

Authenticated
266 Appendix
Proof. Letting a = 1 — k€, β = €, γ = (Je — l ) e , we have a + β + γ = 1 and

a + b = act + ßka + yCeb. Since h is convex we get
h(a +b)< ah(a) + ßh(ka) + yh(Ceb).
This implies that
h(a + b)~ h(a) < € [h(ka) - kh(a)] + \h{C€b)\.
Repeating the same argument with
1 η g . €(*-!)
α = 1 , . , β = τ—r- and γ =
1 + ke 1+ 1 +ke
and writing a = a(a + b) + ßka + γ(—C€b), we obtain
h(a) — h(a + b) < e [h(ka) - kh(a)] + e(Jk - l)fc(-C € fc)
and condition (A. 16) is satisfied with
(pe(t) — h(kt) — kh(t) and fe(t) = \h(Cet)\ + \h(-C€t)\.
Applying Theorem A.7.1 with h(t) = \t\p, 0 < ρ < oo, <pe(r) = \t\p and
\j/€(t) = C€\t\p we obtain the following improvement of Fatou's lemma.
Corollary A.7.1. Let 0 < ρ < oo and suppose that /„ / on Ω and that
{\\fn\\p} is bounded. Then
Hm {\\fn\\
«-+00
1
Pp-\\fn- f\\Pp) = \\f\\Pp.
'
A.8 Gateaux derivatives

LetG : M^xK" R be a Caratheodory function and suppose that for a.e. Λ; E IR^ and
y # 0 G(x, y) is differentiable in y and that g(x, y) = V^G(χ, y) is also Caratheodory
function. Moreover, we assume that
l ^ y i l f ^ C O ^ y l ^ + lyr1) (A. 17)
and
y)| < e{x) (\y\p + \y\q) (A. 18)

Authenticated
A.8 Gateaux derivatives 267
for a.e. χ G R d and all y G R", for some 1 < ρ < q < oo and some functions d and
e in with s > q. We set
b(u)= / G( χ , u(x))dx.
JR"
It is obvious that C0°°(Rd, R n ) C D(b), where D(b) is a domain of b.
In what follows we denote by G the Nemytsky operator induced by G, that is,
G(u) = G(x, u(x))
for u G D{b). For a subset A cRd, χ a denotes the characteristic function of A.
The proof of the following result is taken from the paper [48].
Proposition A . 8 . 1 . Let ( A . 17) and ( A . 18) hold. Then the functional b has a linear
continuous Gateaux derivative at every u e D{b) Π L^0C(M.d\ R N ) in all directions
ψ e CîM^; R") given by
(.B(u),<p)=\ g(x, u(x)) · φ{χ)άχ.

J&d
I f u G D(b) η L^0C(Md·, R n ) and φ G C^CR^; R"), thenu + <pe D(b).
Proof. Let us fix u G D(b) Π Lqloc(Rd; R") and φ G C f (R^; R"). We define the
following sets
M0 = (u φ 0) (Ί {ψ φ 0),
Mt = Mo η (μ + ίφ Φ 0) for |ί| < 1.
Letting xt = χμ, for |ί| < 1, we see that l i m ^ o χ( = χ0 in the sense of pointwise
convergence. We have the following decomposition
1
= Xm-'(O) + XM 0 -M R +Xt + X,
where χ is the characteristic function of (φ = 0) — (u = 0). If JC G M 0 — Mt, then

u{χ) = —ίφ(χ) φ 0 and we have
G(u + ίφ) - G(u) = X„-i(0)G(^) - XM0-M,G{~t<P) ( A -!9)
+ Xt [g(m + ^)-G(m)].
Assumption (A.18) implies that G(t<p) G L 1 and IIGCi^)!!! = o(t). Since G is

differentiate in y, we see that for every χ G Mt there exists τ = τ (χ, t ) e [0, 1] such
that
(G(u + ίφ) - G ( m ) ) (x) = t (g(u) • φ) (χ) + ΐ ([G(« + τίφ) - G(«)] • φ) (χ),

Authenticated
268 Appendix
where g is the Nemytsky operator associated with g. Let Κ = supp φ, it then follows
from (A. 17) and the Holder inequality that
f \g(u).<p\dx < IMloo [lIx^^llpHxArwIlp"1 + ΙΙχ#τ<*ΙΙ9ΙΙχ*ΙΙ?_1] (α·2°)
and consequently g(u) • φ £ L 1 ( R d ) . In a similar way we prove that g(u + τίφ) • φ €

L l ( R d ) . This shows that G(u + ίφ) - G(u) e L l ( R d ) for |f| < 1 and consequently
1
G{u + φ) C L ^), since u € D(b). We now define
g(x,y) i f \y\ < λ , χ e

gx(x, y) =
0 ϊί|3Ί>λ, x €
and gk = g - #λ· It follows from (A. 17) that
Ι#λ(μ + τίφ) · φ(χ)\ < ά(χ)\φ(χ)$λΡ~ι + λ«" 1 ).
l i m £ λ ( « + τίφ) •φ(χ) = (gx(u) ·φ)(χ).

t-f 0
Since ά\φ\ € L l ( R d ) , we can apply the dominated convergence theorem to gx(u +

τίφ) • φ. Using (A. 17) and the Holder inequality we get the following estimate for
8k(u)
ΙΙΙ λ («)·?ΙΙι < ΙΙ^ΙΙοοΙΙΧΑ:^ΙΙί[ΐΙΧΑ:»ΙΐΓ1ΙΙΧλ<ΐχ^ιΙΙίο (A.21)

-t- IIΧΑΓΜΙΙΧλ<ΐχ*«ιΙΙ Γο ],
with 7- = 7- — 7 > 0 and J- = i — j > 0. We now observe that |{λ <

ίο ρ J Fq (J S
\xku$ <
λ-ΊΙχκ"ΙΙ? forr = p, r = q. Since
Hxa : (u + tx<p)\\r < \\χκ"\\Γ < ||χκ"ΙΙ Γ + \\<p\\r
for r = ρ, r = q and |r| < 1, the estimate similar to (A.21) also applies to
||gx(w + ίτφ) · φ\\χ and this shows that
lim sup ||£λ(Μ + Ιτφ) · φ\\χ = 0.

λ->00 |,|<1
This implies that

g(u + ίτφ) · φ g(u) •φ inLl(R d
)
and hence
t / [g(u + ίτφ) - £(«)] · φ ά χ = ο(ί).
Juä

Authenticated
Α.8 Gateaux derivatives 269
Applying our estimates to (A. 19) we obtain
b(u + ΐφ) - b(u) = / xu-\,0)G(t<p)dx- I G(-t(p)dx

J JMo-M,
+ / d Xtg{")
Xtg(u) -<pdx
-(pdx ++ tt // d Xt[g(u + ίτφ) - g(u)] · φάχ
JR JU
= * Id Xtg(u)-(pdx+o(t).
Ju
This implies that
lim ~[b(u + t<p) - b(u)] = [ x0g(u)-<pdx= f g(u)-<pdx.

t->0 t JRd JRd
According to estimate (A.20) φ -> /Rd g(u) -<pdx isa. linear continuous functional on
C™(Rd·, M") with respect to sup norm and this completes the proof. •

Authenticated
Bibliography
[1] Adams, R. Α., Sobolev spaces, Academic Press, New York 1975.
[2] Adimurthi, Existence of positive solutions of the semilinear Dirichlet problem

with critical growth for the n-Laplacian, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa CI. Sei.
(4)12(1990), 393^113.
[3] Adimurthi, and S. L. Yadava, Multiplicity for semilinear elliptic equations in

bounded domain of R 2 involving critical Sobolev exponent, Ann. Scuola Norm.
Sup. Pisa CI. Sei. (4)17 (1990), 481-504.
[4] , An elementary proof of the uniqueness of positive radial solutions of a

quasilinear Dirichlet problem, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 127 (1994), 219-228.
[5] , Some remarks on Sobolev type inequalities, Calc. Var. Partial Differ-
ential Equations 2 (1994), 427-442.
[6] Alama, S., and Yan Yan Li, Existence of solutions for semilinear elliptic equa-
tions with indefinite linear part, J. Differential Equations 96 (1992), 89-115.
[7] Alama, S., and G. Tarantello, On semilinear elliptic equations with indefinite
nonlinearities, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 1 (1993), 439-475.
[8] Ambrosetti, Α., and M. Badiale, The dual variational principle and elliptic equa-
tions with discontinuous nonlinearities, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 140 (1989), 363-
373.
[9] Ambrosetti, Α., and G. Prodi, A primer of nonlinear analysis, Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1993.
[10] Ambrosetti, Α., and P. Rabinowitz, Dual variational methods in critical point
theory and applications, J. Differential Equations 14 (1973), 349-381.
[11] Ambrosetti, Α., and P. N. Spikanth, Superlinear elliptic problems and the dual
principle in critical point theory, J. Math. Phys. Sei. 18 (1989), 363-373.
[12] Ambrosetti, Α., and M. Struwe, A note on the problem —Δu = ku + u\u\2*~2,
Manuscripta Math. 54 (1986), 373-379.
[ 13] Amann, H., Lusternik-Schnirelman theory and non-linear eigenvalue problems,

Math. Ann. 199 (1972), 55-72.

Authenticated
Bibliography 271
[14] Anane, Aomar, Simplicite et isolation de la premiere valeur propre de p-

laplacien avec poids, C. R. Acad. Sei. Paris Sir. I Math. 305 (1987), 725-228.
[15] Arcoya, D., and L. Boccardo, A min-max theorem for multiple integrals of the
calculus of variations and applications, AttiAccad. Naz. Lincei CI. Sei. Fis. Mat.
Natur. Rend. Lincei (9) Mat. Appl. 6 (1995), 29-35.
[16] Azorero, J. P. Garcia, and I. Peral Alonso, Existence and nonuniqueness for the
p-Laplacian; nonlinear eigenvalues, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 12
(1987), 1387-1430.
[17] , Multiplicity of solutions for elliptic problems with critical exponents

or with non symmetric term, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 323 (1991), 877-895.
[18] , On limits of solutions of elliptic problems with nearly critical exponent,

Comm. Partial Differential Equations 17 (1992), 2113-2126.
[19] Aubin, J. P., and I. Ekeland, Applied Nonlinear Analysis, Wiley-Interscience,

New York 1984.
[20] Aubin, T., Equationes differentielles nonlineaires et probleme de Yamabe con-

cernant la courbure scalaire, J. Math. Pures Appl. 55 (1976), 269-296.
[21] Badiale, M., Critical exponent and discontinuous nonlinearities, Differential

Integral Equations 6 (1993), 1173-1185.
[22] Badiale, M., and G. Citti, Concentration compactness principle and quasilinear
elliptic equations in R", Comm. Partial Differential Equations 16 (1991), 1795—
1818.
[23] Bahri, Α., Critical points at infinity in some variational problems, Pitman Res.
Notes Math. Ser. 182, Longman Sei. Tech., Harlow 1989.
[24] Bahri, Α., and J. M. Coron, On a nonlinear elliptic equation involving the critical
Sobolev exponent, the effect of the topology of the domain, Comm. Pure Appl.
Math. 41 (1988), 253-294.
[25] Bahri, Α., and Yan Yan Li, On a min-max procedure for the existence of a positive
solution for certain scalar field equations in M.N, Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana 6
(1990), 1-15.
[26] Bartsch, Τ., and Μ. Willem, Infinitely many radial solutions of semilinear elliptic
problem in RN ,Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 124 (1993), 261-276.
[27] Benci, V., and G. Cerami, Positive solutions of some nonlinear elliptic problems
in exterior domains, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 99 (1987), 282-300.
[28] , The effect of topology on the number of positive sulutions of nonlinear

elliptic problems, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 114 (1991), 79-93.

Authenticated
272 Bibliography
[29] Ben-Naoum, Α. Κ., C. Troestler, and Μ. Willem, Extrema problems with critical
Sobolev exponents on unbounded domains, Nonlinear Anal. 26 (1996), 823-
833.
[30] Berestycki, H., and P.-L. Lions, Nonlinear scalar field equations, I, Existence of
ground state, II, Existence of infinitely many solutions, Arch. Rational Mech.
Anal. 82 (1983), 313-345; 347-375.
[31] Berger, M. S., Nonlinearity andfunctional analysis, Academic Press, New York
1978.
[32] Berger, M. S., and M. Schechter, Embedding theorems and quasi-linear elliptic
boundary value problems for unbounded domains, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 172
(1972), 261-278.
[33] Bernis, F., and H. Ch. Grunau, Critical exponents and multiple critical dimen-
sions for polyharmonic operators, J. Differential Equations 117 (1995), 4 6 9 -
486.
[34] Bianchi, G., J. Chabrowski, and A. Szulkin, On symmetric solutions of an elliptic

equation with a nonlinearity involving critical Sobolev exponent, Nonlinear
Anal. 25 (1995), 41-59.
[35] Binding, P. Α., and Yin Xi Huang, The principal eigencurve for the p-Laplacian,
Differential Integral Equations 8 (1995), 405^4-14.
[36] , Bifurcation from eigencurves of the p-Laplacian, Differential Integral

Equations 8 (1995), 415-428.
[37] Brezis, H., Elliptic equations with limiting Sobolev exponents—the impact of
topology, Proc. Sympos. 50th Anniversary of the Courant Insitute, Comm. Pure
Appl. Math. 39 (1986), S17-S39.
[38] , Points critiques dans les problemes variationnels sans compacite, Sem.
Bourbaki, Vol. 1987/88. Asterisque 161-162 (1988), Exp. No. 698, 239-256.
[39] Brezis, H., and F. Browder, A general ordering principle in nonlinear functional
analysis, Adv. Math. 21 (1976), 355-364.
[40] Brezis, H., and E. H. Lieb, A relation between pointwise convergence of func-
tions and convergence of functionals, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 88 (1983), 486-
490.
[41] , Minimum action solutions of some vector field equations, Comm. Math.
Phys. 96(1984), 97-113.
[42] Brezis, H., and L. Nirenberg, Positive solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations
involving critical Sobolev exponents, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 36 (1983), 437-
477.

Authenticated
Bibliography 273
[43] , A minimization problem with critical exponent and nonzero data, Sym-
metry in nature, a volume in honour of Luigi A. Radicati di Brozolo on his 70th
birthday, Symposium, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy, 11 October 1989,
129-140, Pisa 1989.
[44] Remarks in finding critical points, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 44 (1991),
939-963.
[45] Browder, F. E., Non linear eigenvalue problems and Galerkin approximations,
Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 74 (1968), 651-656.
[46] , Existence theorems for nonlinear partial differential equations, in

Global analysis, part III, ed. S. S. Chern and S. Smale, Proc. Sympos. Pure
Math. 16(1970), 1-60.
[47] , Nonlinear eigenvalue problems and group invariance, in Functional

Analysis and Related Fields, ed. F. E. Browder, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-
Heidelberg-New York 1970, 1-58.
[48] Brüning, Ε., On the variational approach to semilinear elliptic equations with
scale-covariance, J. Differential Equations 83 (1990), 109-144.
[49] Buffoni, B., and L. Jeanjean, Minimax characterization of solutions for semi-
linear elliptic equation with lack of compactness, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Anal.
Non Lineaire 10 (1993), 377^04.
[50] Buffoni, B., L. Jeanjean, and C. A. Stuart, Existence of nontrivial solution to

a strongly indefinite semilinear equation, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 119 (1993),
179-186.
[51] Caklovic, L., Shu Jie Li, and M. Willem, A note on Palais-Smale condition and
coercivity, Differential Integral Equations 3 (1990), 799-800.
[52] Candela, A. M., Remarks on the number of positive solutions for a class of
nonlinear elliptic problems, Differential Integral Equations 5 (1992), 553-560.
[53] Cao, Dao Min, Yamabe problem in R n and related problems, Acta Math. Sei.
(English Ed.) 10 (1990), 201-216.
[54] , Bifurcation for quasilinear elliptic systems on R" with natural growth
conditions, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 44 (1991), 514-524.
[55] , Existence of positive solutions of semilinear elliptic equations in M N ,

Differential Integral Equations 6 (1993), 655-661.
[56] Cao, Dao Min, Gong Bao Li, and Shu Sen Yan, Bifurcation for quasilinear elliptic
equations on with natural growth conditions, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect.
A 113 (1989), 215-228.

Authenticated
274 Bibliography
[57] Cao, Dao Min, and Xi Ping Zhu, The concentration-compactness principle in
nonlinear elliptic equations, Acta Mat. Sei. (English Ed.) 9 (1989), 307-328.
[58] Capozzi, Α., D. Fortunata, and G. Palmieri, An existence result for nonlinear
elliptic problems involving critical Sobolev exponent, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare
Anal. Νon Lineaire 2 (1985), 4 6 3 ^ 7 0 .
[59] Capozzi, Α., and G. Palmieri, Multiplicity results for nonlinear elliptic equations
involving critical Sobolev exponent, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 103
(1986), 275-285.
[60] Castro, R., and M. Zuluaga, Existence results for a class of nonhomogeneous
elliptic equations with critical Sobolev exponent, Note Mat. 13(1993), 269-276.
[61] Cerami, G., D. Fortunato, and M. Struwe, Bifurcation and multiplicity results
for non linear elliptic problems involving critical Sobolev exponents, Ann. Inst.
H. Poincare Anal. Non Lineaire 1 (1984), 341-350.
[62] Cerami, G., and D. Passaseo, Existence and multiplicity of positive solutions for
nonlinear elliptic problems in exterior domains with "rich" topology, Nonlinear
Anal. 18(1992), 109-119.
[63] , Existence and multiplicity results for semilinear elliptic Dirichlet prob-
lems in exterior domains, Nonlinear Anal. 24 (1995), 1533-1547.
[64] Cerami, G., S. Solimini, and M. Struwe, Some existence results for superlinear
elliptic boundary value problems involving critical exponents, J. Fund. Anal.
69 (1986), 289-306.
[65] Chabrowski, J., On entire solutions of the p-Laplacian, Proc. Centre Math. Appl.
Austral. Nat. Univ. 26 (1991), 27-61.
[66] , On compact embeddings of radial Sobolev spaces and their applications,

Comm. Partial Differential Equations 17 (1992), 941-952.
[67] , On the existence of G-symmetric entire solutions for semilinear elliptic

equations, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 41 (1992), 4 1 3 ^ 4 0 .
[68] , On nonlinear eigenvalue problem, Forum Math. 4 (1992), 359-375.
[69] , On multiple solutions of the nonhomogeneous p-Laplacian with a crit-

ical Sobolev exponent, Differential Integral Equations 8 (1995), 705-716,
[70] , Concentration-compactness principle at infinity and semilinear elliptic

equations involving critical and subcritical Sobolev exponents, Calc. Var. Partial
Differential Equations 3 (1995), 493-512.
[71] , Degenerate elliptic equation involving a subcritical Sobolev exponent,

Portugal. Math. 53 (1996), 167-177.

Authenticated
Bibliography 275
[72] Chang, Κ. C., The obstacle problem and partial differential equations with dis-
continuous nonlinearities, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 33 (1980), 117-146.
[73] , Variational methods for non-differentiable functionals and their appli-

cations to partial differential equations, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 80(1981), 102-129.
[74] , Free boundary problems and the set valued mappings, J. Differential
Equations 49 (1983), 1-28.
[75] Chow, S. N., and J. K. Hale, Methods of bifurcation theory, Grundlehren Math.
Wiss. 251, Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg-Berlin 1988.
[76] Chiappinelli, R., On the eigenvalues and the spectrum for a class of semilinear
elliptic operators, Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. Β (6) 4 (1985), 867-882.
[77] , On spectral asymptotics and bifurcation for elliptic operators with su-
perlinear term, Nonlinear Anal. 13 (1987), 871-878.
[78] , Remarks on bifurcation for elliptic operators with odd nonlinearity,

Israel J. Math. 65 (1989), 285-292.
[79] , Estimates on the eigenvalues for some nonlinear ordinary differential

operators, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin. 30 (1989), 441-446.
[80] Choulli, M., R. Deville, and A. Rhandi, A general mountain pass principle for
non differentiable functionals, Rev. Mat. Apl. 13 (1992), 45-58.
[81 ] Citti, G., Positive solutions for a quasilinear degenerate elliptic equations in Μ",
Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo (2) 35 (1986), 364-375.
[82] , Existence of infinitely many solutions for a quasilinear degenerate el-

liptic equation in R \ Nonlinear Anal. 12 (1988), 871-879.
[83] , Existence of positive solutions of quasilinear degenerate elliptic equa-

tions on unbounded domains, Ann. Mat. PuraAppl. 158 (1991), 315-330.
[84] Clark, D. C., A variant of the Lusternik-Schnirelman theory, Indiana Univ.

Math. J. 22 (1972), 65-74.
[85] Clarke, F. H., Optimization and nonsmooth analysis, Les publications CRM,
Universite de Montreal, 1989.
[86] Coffman, Ch. V., A minimum-maximum principle for a class of non-linear in-
tegral equations, J. Anal. Math. 22 (1969), 3 9 2 ^ 1 9 .
[87] Coleman, S., V. Glaser, and A. Martin, Action minima among solutions to class
of Euclidean scalar field equations, Comm. Math. Phys. 58 (1978), 211-221.

Authenticated
276 Bibliography
[88] Coron, J. M., Topologie et case limite des injections de Sobolev, C. R. Acad.
Sei. Paris Ser. I Math. 299 (1984), 209-212.
[89] Corvellec, J. Ν., M. Degiovanni, and M. Marzocchi, Deformation properties

for continuous functionals and critical point theory, Topol. Methods Nonlinear
Anal. 1 (1993), 151-171.
[90] Costa, D., and G. Liao, Existence and multiplicity results for a class of elliptic
problems with critical Sobolev exponents, Rocky Mountain J. Math. 21 (1991),
1027-1223.
[91] Costa, D., and E. A. de Β. e Silva, The Palais-Smale condition versus coercivity,
Nonlinear Anal. 16 (1991), 371-381.
[92] Dacorogna, B., Direct methods in the calculus of variations, Appl. Math. Sei.
78, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York 1989.
[93] Danes, J., Equivalence of some geometric and related results of nonlinear func-
tional analysis, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin. 26 (1985), 443-454.
[94] Degiovanni, M., and M. Marzocchi, A critical point theory for nonsmooth func-
tionals, preprint Quaderni Sem. Mat. Brescia 11 (1991).
[95] Deimling, Κ., Nonlinear Functional Analysis, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-

Heidelberg-New York 1985.
[96] Deng, Yin Bing, Existence of multiple positive solutions of inhomogeneous

semilinear elliptic problems involving critical exponents, Comm. Partial Differ-
ential Equations 17 (1992), 33-53.
[97] Deng, Yin Bing, Huan Song Zhou, and Xi Ping Zhu, On the existence and
Lp(Rn) bifurcation for the semilinear elliptic equation, J. Math. Anal. Appl.
154(1991), 116-133.
[98] Deville, R., G. Godefroy, and V. Zizler, A smooth variational principle with
applications to Hamilton-Jacobi equations in infinite dimensions, J. Funct. Anal.
I l l (1993), 197-212.
[99] , Smoothness and renormings in Banach spaces, Pitman Monographs

Surveys Pure Appl. Math. 64, Harlow 1993.
[100] Di Benedetto, E., C 1 ·" local regularity of weak solutions of degenerate elliptic
equations, Nonlinear Anal. 7 (1983), 827-850.
[101] Ding, Wei Yue, and Wei-Ming Ni, On the existence of positive entire solutions of
a semilinear elliptic equation, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 91 (1986), 283-308.
[ 102] Ding, Xia Xi, and Yi Ding, The concentration-compactness principle and inverse
power method, Acta Math. Sei. (English Ed.) 10 (1990), 383-395.

Authenticated
Bibliography 277
[103] Ding, Yan Sheng, and Shu Jie Li, Some existence results of solutions for the
semilinear elliptic equations on RN, J. Differential Equations 119 (1995), 401-
425.
[ 104] Eastham, M. S. P., The spectral theory of periodic differential equations, Scotti sh
Academy Press, Edinburgh 1973.
[105] Ebihara, Yukiyoshi, and Tomas P. Schonbek, On the (non)compactness of radial

Sobolev spaces, Hiroshima Math. J. 16 (1986), 665-669.
[106] Edmunds, D. E., D. Fortunato, and E. Jannelli, Critical exponents, critical di-
mensions and the biharmonic operator, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 112 (1990),
269-289.
[107] Egnell, H., Semilinear elliptic equations involving critical Sobolev exponents,
Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 104 (1988), 27-56.
[108] , Existence and nonexistence results for m-Laplace equations involving

critical Sobolev exponents, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 104 (1988), 57-77.
[109] Ekeland, I., On the variational principle, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 47 (1974), 324-
353.
[110] , Non convex minimization problems, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (1979),
443—473.
[111] Ekeland, I., and A. Szulkin, Minimax results of Lustemik-Schnirelman type and
applications, Sem. Math. Superieures, Les Presses de l'Universite de Montreal,
1989.
[112] Escobar, J. F., Positive solutions for some semilinear elliptic equations with
critical Sobolev exponent, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 40 (1987), 627-657.
[113] Escobar, J. F., and R. Shoen, Conformal metrics with prescribed scalar curvature,
Invent. Math. 86 (1986), 243-254.
[114] Esteban, M. J., and P. L. Lions, Existence and non-existence results for nonlinear
elliptic problems in unbounded domains, Proc. Roy. Edinburgh Soc. Sect. A 93
(1982), 1-14.
[115] , Γ-convergence and the concentration-compactness method for some

variational problems with lack of compactness, Ricerche Mat. 36 (1987), 7 3 -
101.
[116] Evans, L. C., Weak convergence methods for nonlinear partial differential equa-
tions, CBMS Regional Conf. Ser. in Math. 74, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence
1990.

Authenticated
278 Bibliography
[117] Figueiredo, D. G. de, Ο. Η. Miyagaki, and Β. Ruf, Elliptic equations in M2 with

nonlinearities in the critical range, Calc. War. Partial Differential Equations 3
(1995), 139-153.
[118] Fournier, G., and M. Willem, The mountain circle theorem, in Delay Differential
Equations and Dynamical Systems, Proc. Conf. Claremont, Jan. 13-16,1990, ed.
S. Busenberg and M. Martelli, 147-160, Lecture Notes Math. 1475, Springer-
Verlag, New York 1991.
[119] Frattarolo, W., Condizioni necessarie e sufficienti per la compattezza di immer-

sioni fra spazi di Sobolev con peso, Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. Β (6) 5 (1986), 1-16.
[120] Friedlander, L., Asymptotic behavior of the eigenvalues of the p-Laplacian,

Comm. Partial Differential Equations 14(1989), 1059-1069.
[121] Fucik, S., J. Necas, J. Soucek, and V. Soucek, Spectral Analysis of Nonlinear
Operators, Lecture Notes Math. 346, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New
York 1973.
[122] G?ba, L., and T. Pruszko, Some applications of minimax and topological degree
to the study of the Dirichlet problem for elliptic partial differential equations,
Ann. Polon. Math. 66 (1991), 49-61.
[123] Georgiev, P. G., The strong Ekeland variational principle, the strong drop theo-
rem and applications, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 131 (1988), 1-21.
[ 124] Ghoussoub, N., Duality and perturbation methods in critical point theory, Cam-
bridge Tracts in Math. 107, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1993.
[ 125] Ghoussoub, N., and D. Preiss, A general mountain pass principle for locating and
classifying critical points, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Anal. Νon Lineaire 6 (1989),
321-330.
[126] Giaquinta, M., Multiple integrals in the calculus of variations and nonlinear
elliptic systems, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey 1983.
[ 127] Gidas, Β., Wei-Ming Ni, and L. Nirenberg, Symmetry and related properties via
the maximum principle, Comm. Math. Phys. 68 (1978), 209-243.
[128] Glowinski, R., and A. Marrocco, Sur Γ approximation, par elements fini d'ordre
un, et la resolution, par penalisation-dualite, d'une classe de problemes de
Dirichlet non lineaires, RAIRO Anal. Numer. 9 (1975), 41-76.
[ 129] Goeleven, D., A note on Palais-Smale condition in the sense of Szulkin, Differ-
ential Integral Equations 6 (1993), 1042-1043.
[130] Grossi, Massimo, Multiplicity results for semilinear elliptic equations with lack
of compactness, Differential Integral Equations 6 (1993), 807-823.

Authenticated
Bibliography 279
[131] Grunau, Η. Ch., Positive solutions to semilinear polyharmonic Dirichlet prob-

lems involving critical Sobolev exponents, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equa-
tions 3 (1995), 243-252.
[132] Guedda, M., and L. Veron, Quasilinear elliptic equations involving critical
Sobolev exponents, Nonlinear Anal. 13 (1989), 879-902.
[133] Hebey, E., La methode d'isometries-concentration dans le cas d'un probleme

non lineaire sur les varietes compactes ä bord avec exposant critique de Sobolev,
Bull. Sei. Math. (2) 116 (1992), 35-51.
[ 134] , Changements de metriques conformes sur la sphere. Le probleme de

Nirenberg, Bull. Sei. Math. (2) 114 (1990), 215-242.
[135] Heinz, H. P., Lacunary bifurcation for operator equations and nonlinear boundary
value problems on RN, Proc. Roy. Soe. Edinburgh Sect. Λ 118 (1991), 237-270.
[136] Il'yasov, Ya. Sh., An approximation to "ground state solution" for the equation
— Δ = g(u) in RN+\ Differential Equations 30 (1994), 570-579.
[137] Jeanjean, L., Solutions in spectral gaps for a nonlinear equation of Schrödinger
type, J. Differential Equations 112 (1994), 53-80.
[138] Kabaya, Y., On some quasilinear elliptic problems involving critical Sobolev
exponents, Funkcial. Ekvac. 36 (1993), 385-404.
[139] Kazdan, J., and F. Warner, Remarks on some quasilinear elliptic equations,
Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 28 (1975), 567-597.
[140] Krasnoselskii, Μ. Α., Topological methods in the theory of nonlinear integral

equations, Internat. Ser. Monographs Pure Appl. Math. 45, Pergamon Press,
Oxford-London-New York 1964.
[141] Kratochvil, Α., and J. Necas, Gradient methods for the construction of
Ljusternik-Schnirelman critical values, RAIRO Anal. Numer. 14 (1980), 43-54.
[142] , Secant modulus method for the construction of a solution of nonlinear

eigenvalue problems, Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. Β (5) 16 (1979), 694-710.
[143] Küpper, Τ., and C. A. Stuart, Gap-bifurcation for nonlinear perturbations of

Hill's equation, J. reine angew. Math. 410 (1990), 23-52.
[144] , Bifurcation into gaps in the essential spectrum, J. reine angew. Math.
409(1990), 1-34.
[145] Kuzin, I. Α., Solvability of some elliptic problems with a critical exponent of
nonlinearity, Math. USSR-Sb. 68 (1991), 339-349.

Authenticated
280 Bibliography
[146] Kwong, Μ. Κ., Uniqueness of positive solutions of Au — u + up = 0 in R",

Arch. Rational Meek Anal. 105 (1989), 243-266.
[147] Ladyzhenskaya, Ο. Α., and O.A. Ural'ceva, Linear and quasilinear elliptic equa-
tions, Academic Press, New York 1968.
[148] Lee, J., and T. Parker, The Yamabe problem, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 17 (1987),
37-91.
[149] Lehtonen, Α., On the construction of Ljusternik-Schnirelmann critical values

in Banach spaces, Acta Math. Hungar. 57 (1991), 33-39.
[150] Lembcke, J., On infinitely many solutions of a semilinear elliptic eigenvalue

problem, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin. 30 (1989), 727-731.
[151] Li, Gong Bao, and Shu Sen Yan, Eigenvalue problems for quasilinear elliptic
equations on RN, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 14 (1989), 1291-1314.
[152] , A minimization problem involving a critical Sobolev exponents and

its related Euler-Lagrange equation, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 114 (1991),
353-377.
[153] Li, Yi, Remarks on a semilinear elliptic equation on R", J. Differential Equations
74(1988), 34-49.
[154] Lien, Weng Ching, Shyuh Yaur Tzeng, and Huai Ch'iian Wang, Existence of
solutions of semilinear elliptic problems in unbounded domains, Differential
Integral Equations 6 (1993), 1281-1298.
[155] Lindqvist, P., On the equation d i v O V u l ^ V « ) + k\u\P~2u = 0, Proc. Amer.

Math. Soc. 109 (1990), 157-165.
[156] Lions, J. L., Quelques methodes de resolution des problemes aux limites non-
lineaires, Dunod, Gauthier-Villars, Paris 1969.
[157] Lions, P. L., Symetrie et compacite dans les espaces de Sobolev, J. Funct. Anal.
49 (1982), 315-334.
[158] , The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations.

The locally compact case. I, II, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Anal. Non Lineaire 1
(1984), 109-145; 223-283.
[159] , The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations.

The limit case. I, II, Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana 1, No. 1 (1985), 145-201; No. 2
(1985), 45-121.
[160] Lions, P. L., F. Pacella, and M. Tricarico, Best constants in Sobolev inequalities
for functions vanishing on some part of the boundary and related questions,
Indiana Univ. Math. J. 37 (1988), 301-324.

Authenticated
Bibliography 281
[161] Marano, S.A., Existence theorems for semilinear elliptic boundary value prob-
lems, Ann. Polon. Math. 60 (1994), 57-67.
[162] Marchi, V., and F. Pacella, On the existence of nodal solutions of the equa-
tion —Au = \u\2*u with Dirichlet boundary conditions, Differential Integral
Equations 6 (1993), 849-862.
[163] Marcos B. do 0 , Joäo, Semilinear Dirichlet problem for iV-Laplacian in R N

with nonlinearities in the critical growth range, Differential Integral Equations
9 (1996), 967-979.
[164] Mawhin, J., and M. Willem, Critical point theory and Hamiltonian systems,
Appl. Math. Sei. 74, Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin-Heidelberg 1989.
[165] Mercaldo, Α., Su un'equazione ellitica non lineare in presenza dell'esponente

critico di Sobolev, Rend. Accad. Sei. Fis. Mat. Napoli (4) 57 (1990), 109-119.
[166] Moscatelli, V. B., and M. Thompson, Asymptotic distribution of Liusternik-

Schnirelman eigenvalues for elliptic nonlinear operators, Proc. Edinburgh Math.
Soc. 33 (1990), 381-403.
[167] Moser, J., A sharp form of an inequality by N. Trudinger, Indiana Univ. Math.
J. 11 (1971), 1077-1092.
[168] Muraz, G., and P. Szeptycki, Inclusions o f / / 1 in L 2 , Prepublications de l'lnstitut

Fourier Laboratoire Mathematiques, Grenoble, no. 120 (Annee 1988).
[169] Necas, J., An approximate method of finding critical points of even functionals,
Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 134 (1975), 267-272.
[170] Necas, J., A. Lehtonen, and P. Neittaanmäki, On the construction of Lusternik-

Schnirelmann critical values with application to bifurcation problems, Applica-
ble Analysis 25 (1987), 253-268.
[171] Nehari, Z., On a class of nonlinear second-order differential equations, Trans.

Amer. Math. Soc. 95 (1960), 101-123.
[172] Nirenberg, L., Variational and topological methods in nonlinear problems, Bull.
Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 4 (1981), 267-302.
[173] Noussair, E. S., Ch. A. Swanson, and Jian Fu Yang, Critical semilinear bihar-
monic equations, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 121 (1992), 139-148.
[174] Palais, R. S., and S. Smale, A generalized Morse theory, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.
70(1964), 165-171.
[175] Passaseo, D., Multiplicity of positive solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations

with critical Sobolev exponent in some contractible domains, Manuscripta Math.
65 (1989), 147-169.

Authenticated
282 Bibliography
[176] Penot, J. P., The drop theorem, the petal theorem and Ekeland's variational
principle, Nonlinear Anal. 10 (1986), 811-822.
[177] Phelps, R., Convex functions, monotone operators and differentiability, 2nd ed.,
Lecture Notes in Math. 1364, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1993.
[178] Pohozaev, S. I., Eigenfunctions of the equation Au + A/(u) = 0, Soviet Math.

Dokl. 6(1965), 1408-1411.
[179] Polya, G., and G. Szegö, Isoperimetric inequalities in Mathematical Physics,

Princeton University Press, Princeton 1951.
[180] Pucci, P., and J. Serrin, Extensions of the mountain pass theorem, J. Fund.
Analysis 59 (1984), 185-210.
[181] , A mountain pass theorem, J. Differential Equations 60 (1985), 142-

149.
[182] , The structure of the critical set in the mountain pass theorem, Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 299 (1987), 142-129.
[ 183] , Critical exponents and critical dimensions for polyharmonic operators,

J. Math. Pures Appl. 69 (1990), 55-83.
[ 184] Rabinowitz, P., Some aspects of nonlinear eigenvalue problems, Rocky Mountain
J. Math. 3 (1973), 161-202.
[ 185] , Variational methods for nonlinear eigenvalue problems, in Eigenvalues

of nonlinear problems, ed. G. Prodi, C.I.M.E., Edizioni Cremonese, Roma, 1975,
141-195.
[ 186] Reed, M., and B. Simon, Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics, Academic
Press, New York 1978.
[ 187] Ribarska, Ν. K., Ts. Y. Tsachev, and Μ. I. Krastanov, On the generalized moun-
tain pass principle of Ghoussoub-Preiss, Math. Balkanica 4 (1991), 348-353.
[188] Rother, W., Bifurcation of nonlinear elliptic equations on RN, Bull. London
Math. Soc. 21 (1989), 567-572.
[ 189] , Bifurcation for a semilinear elliptic equation on R ^ with radially sym-

metric coefficients, Manuscripta Math. 65 (1989), 413-426.
[190] , Some existence results for the equation ΔU + K(x)up = 0, Comm.

Partial Differential Equations 15 (1990), 1461-1473.
[191] , Existence and bifurcation for a class of nonlinear boundary value prob-
lems in (0, oo), Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin. 32 (1991), 297-305.

Authenticated
Bibliography 283
[192] , The existence of infinitely many solutions all bifurcating from λ = 0,

Proc. Royal Soc. Edinburgh Sect. Λ 118 (1991), 295-303.
[ 193] Ruppen, Hans-Jörg, The existence of infinitely many bifurcating branches, Proc.
Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 101 (1985), 307-320.
[194] Schechter, M., The Hampwile theorem for nonlinear eigenvalues, Duke Math.
J. 59 (1989), 325-335.
[195] , The mountain pass alternative, Adv. Math. 12 (1991), 91-105.
[ 196] , The mountain cliff theorem, in Differential equations and mathematical

physics (Birmingham, AL, 1990), 263-279, Math. Sei. Engrg. 186, Academic
Press, Boston 1992.
[197] , A variation of the mountain pass lemma and applications, J. London

Math. Soc. (2) (1991), 491-502.
[198] , Superlinear elliptic boundary value problems, Manuscripta Math. 86

(1995), 253-265.
[ 199] Schechter, M., and K. Tintarev, Spherical maxima in Hilbert space and semilinear
elliptic eigenvalue problems, Differential Integral Equations 3 (1990), 889-899.
[200] , Families of "first eigenfunctions" for semilinear elliptic eigenvalue

problems, Duke Math. J. 62 (1991), 453^165.
[201] , Eigenvalues for semilinear boundary value problems, Arch. Rational

Mech. Anal. 113 (1991), 197-208.
[202] Schoen, R., Conformal deformation of a Riemannian metric to constant scalar

curvature, J. Differential Geom. 20 (1984), 4 7 9 ^ 9 6 .
[203] Schwartz, J. T., Nonlinearfunctional analysis, Gordon and Breach Science Pub-
lishers, New York-London-Paris 1953.
[204] Shafrir, I., A deformation lemma, C. R. Acad. Sei. Paris Ser. I Math. 313 (1994),
599-602.
[205] Shen, Yao Tian, and Shu Sen Yan, Existence and boundedness of a minimizer
for a constrained minimization problem on R" with limiting exponent, Proc.
Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 122 (1992), 221-235.
[206] Shi, Shu Zhong, Ekeland's variational principle and the mountain pass lemma,
Acta Math. Sinica (N.S.) 1 (1985), 348-355.
[207] Shibata, T., Asymptotic properties of variational eigenvalues for semilinear el-
liptic operators, Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. Β (7) 2 (1988), 4 1 1 ^ 2 5 .

Authenticated
284 Bibliography
[208] , The relationship between variational eigenvalues and its critical values
for semilinear Sturm-Liouville problems, Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. Β (7) 5 (1991),
315-325.
[209] Simon, B. Schrödinger semigroups, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 7 (1982),
447-526.
[210] Simon, J., Regularite de la solution d'un probleme aux limites non lineaires,
Ann. Fac. Sei. Toulouse Math. 3 (1981), 247-274.
[211] Spagnolo, S., Sulla convergenza di soluzioni di equazioni paraboliche ed ellit-

tiche, Ann. ScuolaNorm. Sup. Pisa CI. Sei. (4) 22 (1968), 571-591.
[212] Struwe, M., Variational Methods, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New

York 1990.
[213] , A global compactness result for elliptic boundary values problems in-
volving limiting nonlinearities, Math. Z. 187 (1984), 511-517.
[214] , Quasilinear elliptic eigenvalue problems, Comment. Math. Helv. 58

(1983), 509-527.
[215] Stuart, C. Α., Bifurcation in Lp(M.N) for a semilinear elliptic equation, Proc.
London Math. Soc. (3) 57 (1988), 511-541.
[216] , Bifurcation for Dirichlet problems without eigenvalues, Proc. London

Math. Soc. (3), 45 (1982), 169-192.
[217] , Bifurcation for the essential spectrum, in Equadiff 82, Internat. Conf.
Würzburg, August 23-28, 1982, ed. H. W. Knobloch and K. Schmitt, 573-596,
Lecture Notes in Math. 1017, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1983.
[218] Strauss, W. Α., Existence of solitary waves in higher dimensions, Comm. Math.
Phys. 55 (1977), 149-162.
[219] Swanson, Ch. Α., The best Sobolev constant, Appl. Anal. 47 (1992), 227-239.
[220] Szulkin, Α., Minimax principles for lower semicontinuous functions and appli-
cations to nonlinear boundary value problem, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Anal. Non
Lineaire 3 (1986), 77-109.
[221] Talenti, G., Best constant in Sobolev inequality, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 101
(1976), 353-372.
[222] Tarantello, G., On nonhomogeneous elliptic equations involving critical Sobolev

exponent, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Anal. Non Lineaire 9 (1992), 281-304.
[223] Tintarev, K., Level set maxima and quasilinear elliptic problems, Pacific J. Math.
153 (1992), 185-200.

Authenticated
Bibliography 285
[224] , A relation between critical values and eigenvalues in nonlinear minmax

problems, Appl. Anal. 54 (1994), 57-71.
[225] , A theorem of the "Mountain Impasse" type and semilinear elliptic

problems on manifolds, J. Differential Equations 113 (1994), 234-245.
[226] Tolksdorf, P. P., On the Dirichlet problem for quasilinear equations in domain
with conical boundary points, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 8 (1983),
773-817.
[227] , Regularity for a more general class of quasilinear elliptic equations, J.

Differential Equations 51 (1984), 126-150.
[228] Troestler, Ch., Noncompact variational problems, Ph.D. Thesis, Universite

Catholique de Louvain, Departement de mathematique, Louvain 1995-1996.
[229] Trudinger, N. S., On imbeddings into Orlicz spaces and some applications, J.
Math. Mech. 17 (1967), 4 7 3 ^ 8 4 .
[230] , Remarks concerning the conformal deformation of Riemannian struc-

ture on compact manifolds, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa CI. Sei. 22 (1968),
265-274.
[231] Vainberg, Μ. M., Variational method and method of monotone operators, John
Wiley & Sons, New York-Toronto 1973.
[232] Vorst, R.C. A. M. van der, Fourth order elliptic equation with critical growth, C.
R. Acad. Sei. Paris Sir. I Math. 320 (1995), 295-299.
[233] , Fourth order elliptic equations with subcritical and critical growth,
preprint, 1994.
[234] Wei, Zhi Hui, and Xin Min Wu, A multiplicity result for quasilinear elliptic
equations involving critical Sobolev exponents, Nonlinear Anal. 18 (1991), 5 5 9 -
567.
[235] Wilcox, C. H., Theory of Bloch waves, J. Anal. Math. 33 (1978), 146-167.
[236] Willem, Μ., Minimax theorems, Birkäuser Verlag, Basel, to appear.
[237] Yamabe, Hu, On the deformation of Riemannian structures on compact mani-

folds, Osaka J. Math. 12 (1960), 21-37.
[238] Yan, Shu Sen, A global compactness result for quasilinear elliptic equation
involving critical Sobolev exponent, Chinese J. Contemp. Math. 16 (1995), 2 2 7 -
234.

Authenticated
286 Bibliography
[239] Yan, Shu Sen, and Gong Bao Li, Existence of nontrivial solution of quasilinear
elliptic eigenvalue problem on M" with natural growth conditions, Acta Math.
Sei. (English Ed.) 10(1990), 121-133.
[240] , Eigenvalue problem for field equation involving limiting nonlinearity,

Acta Math. Sei. (English Ed.) 10 (1990), 432^147.
[241] Yang, Jian Fu, and Xi Ping Zhu, On the existence of nontrivial solution of a
quasilinear elliptic boundary value problem for unbounded domains, I, Positive
mass case, II, Zero mass case, Acta Math. Sei. (English Ed.) 7 (1987), 341-359;
447-459.
[242] , The quasilinear elliptic equation on an unbounded domain involving

critical Sobolev exponent, J. Partial Differential Equations 2 (1989), 53-64.
[243] Zeidler, E., Ljusternik-Schnirelman theory on general sets, Math. Nachr. 129
(1986), 235-259.
[244] Zhu, Xi Ping, A perturbation result on positive entire solutions of a semilinear

elliptic equation, J. Differential Equations 92 (1991), 163-178.
[245] Zhu, Xi Ping, and Huan Song Zhou, Existence of multiple positive solutions
of inhomogeneous semilinear elliptic problems in unbounded domains, Proc.
Royal Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 115 (1990), 301-318
[246] Zuluaga, M., Existence of solutions for some elliptic problems with critical
Sobolev exponents, Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana 5 (1989), 183-191.

Authenticated
Glossary
<·,·> ι κ(ί) 128

1 D+a(t0) 132
-> 1 D+a(t0) 132
S(xo, R) 1 D~a(t0) 132
B(xo, R) 1 £>_σ(ί0) 132
ΔΡ 3 I(A,B) 135
Γ7 Gc 136
/ 8 /(A,ß) 141
10 βΛι5 150
•V« 11 v(w) 154
Κ 13 £(«) 154
V 14 X(w) 154
m 14 Γ« 157
f°(x;v) 167
Λ 19 9/(*) 168
/λ 29
Q(x,D 31 A(jc) 168
7Φ 41 Φ °(f,z) 172
y(A) 47 df 185
49 ccoo 198
a ßoo 198
F 49
b(u) 75 Μλ(Ω) 199
5 (Μ) 75 ΜΜ(Ω) 200
F*(u) 81 Moo 209
g*(u) 81 5 224
b\(u) 81 5λ 225
b*(u) 81 0λ 225
V* 81 Voo 229
M* 81 Moo 229
Tu 92 M*·^ 233
LA(Q) 101 Mf 233
A(Q) 101 Ma: 236
Τσ 115 O(n)2 244
Spq 121 £>^1,(Μ") 245
2 n
σ(ί) 128 D~ (R ) 245
Authenticated
288 Glossary
DQ2(Q) 250 W~m<P'(a) 254

Lj(M") 251 255
II« II», ρ 253 Dk'P(Rn) 255
llwllm.oo 253 255
Hm'P(Sl) 253 255
W -P{Q.)
m 253 H^(R )
n 261
W?' (0)
p 253 |{/*>a}| 264

Authenticated
Index
artificial constraint 14 effective domain 185

eigenfunction 66
best Sobolev constant 11,35, 224 eigenvalue 148
bounded mapping 4 eigenvalue problem 8, 66
Ekeland's variational principle 4,
Caratheodory condition 161, 259 elliptic equation 143
Clarkson's inequality 68 embedding theorems 101
coercive functional 3 exterior Dirichlet problem 211
concentration-compactness
principle I 221 Frechet differentiable 1
concentration-compactness functions with critical growth
principle II 228 at infinity 101
concentration-compactness
principle at infinity 198 Gateaux derivative 2
condition (PS) 6, 39,46 Gateaux differentiable 1
condition (S)i 2 generalized directional
condition of concentration 260 derivative 167
constrained minimization 8, 24, 76, generalized gradient 168,173
115,120 genus 47
covariance condition 115 global compactness 244
critical point 4 8 , 1 7 5 , 1 8 7 ground-state solution 15
critical points of higher order 70 group of orthogonal linear
critical problem 35 transformations 244
critical Sobolev exponent 224 G-symmetric function 244
critical value 53, 58, 89
hemicontinuous mapping 2
homogeneous mapping 2
deformation 190
deformation lemma 7, 45, 49, 136, incomplete decay at infinity 260
190 iterative method 67
deformation mapping 7
Dirichlet problem 64, 102, 161, 224 Lagrange multiplier 8
Dini's derivatives 132 large-interior domains 200
dual method 13,120 level set 43
duality mapping 40, 44 Levy concentration
duality mapping relative 41 functions 222,241

Authenticated
290 Index
locally Lipschitz Pohozaev identity 240

continuous functional 169 potential operator 2
(PS) condition 6
measure of uniform convexity 67 pseudogradient 7,48
monotone mapping 2
mountain pass alternative 154, 157 Schrödinger equation 96
mountain pass theorem 7, 138, 155, Schwarz symmetrization 33,118,264
183 Sobolev inequality 10
mountain pass theorem without the Sobolev embedding theorems 254
(PS) condition 7 Sobolev inequality 121
Sobolev space 42, 253
Nemytsky operator 259, 266 strict differentiability 171
n-Laplacian 102 strictly monotone mapping 2
nonhomogeneous equation 17, 19 strongly continuous mapping 3
strongly monotone mapping 2
odd mapping 4
subcritical problem 29
Orlicz space 98 subdifferential 171, 185
superpositionally measurable 173
Palais-Smale condition 103, 175,
support function 168
181, 187,218
periodic domain 204 weakly continuous functional 3
perturbation of the functional a 85 weakly continuous mapping 3
perturbation theorem 81 weighted Lebesgue space 251
p-Laplacian 30, 63, 79

Authenticated

Cha Brow Ski 1997

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cha Brow Ski 1997

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics 24

Editors: Heinz Bauer · Jerry L. Kazdan · Eduard Zehnder

Brought to you by | Cornell University Library

Brought to you by | Cornell University Library

Variational Methods for

G Berlin · New York 1997

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Chabrowski, Jan, 1941 —

Die Deutsche Bibliothek — Cataloging-in-Publication Data

© Copyright 1997 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-10785 Berlin.

Brought to you by | Cornell University Library

c = inf max7 F(u),

where JF is a suitable class of subsets of X. The choice of Τ depends on the nature of a

Brought to you by | Cornell University Library

Chapter 4 is concerned with variational problems where both potential operators

Brought to you by | Cornell University Library

2 Applications of Lusternik-Schnirelman theory 39

Brought to you by | Cornell University Library

3.7 General minimization — case ρ > q 90

4 Potentials with covariance condition 115

5 Eigenvalues and level sets 128

6 Generalizations of the mountain pass theorem 149

7 Nondifferentiable functionals 167

Brought to you by | Cornell University Library

7.8 Application to variational inequalities 195

8 Concentration-compactness principle — subcritical case 198

9 Concentration-compactness principle — critical case 224

Brought to you by | Cornell University Library

The purpose of this chapter is to describe various minimization techniques involving

F(u0 + h) = F(u0) + F'(u0)h + ω(κ0, h)

anda>(w0, h) = ο(||Λ||) as/i 0. Herεω(« 0 , h) = ο(||Λ||) denotes Landau's symbol.

lim t~1 (a(u0 + th) - a(ua)) = {u*, h) = u*(h)

Brought to you by | Cornell University Library

for all A e X. The functional u* is called the Gateaux derivative of a at u0 and we

lim t~l (a(u + tv) — a(u)) = (A(u), υ)

for all u and ν in X. For a potential we always assume that α (0) = 0.

a(u) = f (A(tu),u)dt for all u € X.

Brought to you by | Cornell University Library

We say that a mapping A : X —>· X* is strongly continuous if for every Uj —^ u

be the p-Laplacian defined for u in the Sobolev space where Ω c M" is a

we define a potential operator A : τν 0 1,ρ (Ω) - * ± + j? = 1, with a

(\X\P~2X - \y\P-2y, χ - y) > ax \x - y\p

if 2 < ρ < oo and

<A(M) - A ( v ) , u - v ) - I (\Vu\p~2Du -\Vv\p~2Dv)(Du - Dv)dx,

Brought to you by | Cornell University Library

Lemma 1.1.1. Let X be a reflexive Banach space. If A : X —»• X* is a strongly

\\uj-vj\\<- and \\A(uj)~A(vj)\\>€

for all j > 1. Since S is bounded we may assume that Uj u and vj v.

b(u„)= (A(aun), un) da

Theorem 1.1.1 (Ekeland's variational principle). Let (M, d) be a complete metric

F(u) < inf F + e

F(v) < F(u),

F(w) > F(v) — ekd(w, ν).

Brought to you by | Cornell University Library

w < ν F ( w ) + €d(v, w) < F(v).

and choose un+1 e Sn so that

ed(w, un+1) < F(un+1) - F(w) < inf F Η - inf F = — .

This estimate implies that

for some υ e M. In particular, υ e S0, that is,

d ( u , v ) < e - 1 ( F ( « ) - F(v)) < e _ 1 (inf F + e — inf F ) = 1.

As an immediate consequence one obtains the existence of a minimizing sequence

Brought to you by | Cornell University Library

Theorem 1.1.2. If X is a Banach space and F e Cl(X, R) is bounded from below,

lim t~1 (a(u0 + th) - a(ua)) = {u, h) = u(h)