- Research
- Open access
- Published:
The existence and concentration of ground-state solutions for a class of Kirchhoff type problems in \({\mathbb{R}^{3}}\) involving critical Sobolev exponents
Boundary Value Problems volume 2017, Article number: 64 (2017)
Abstract
We are concerned with ground-state solutions for the following Kirchhoff type equation with critical nonlinearity:
where ε is a small positive parameter, \(a,b>0\), \(\lambda > 0\), \(2 < p \le4\), V and W are two potentials. Under proper assumptions, we prove that, for \(\varepsilon > 0\) sufficiently small, the above problem has a positive ground-state solution \({u_{\varepsilon}}\) by using a monotonicity trick and a new version of global compactness lemma. Moreover, we use another global compactness method due to Gui (Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 21:787-820, 1996) to show that \({u_{\varepsilon}}\) is concentrated around a set which is related to the set where the potential \(V(x)\) attains its global minima or the set where the potential \(W(x)\) attains its global maxima as \(\varepsilon \to0\).
1 Introduction
In this paper, we study the following Kirchhoff type equation with critical nonlinearity:
where ε is a small positive parameter, \(a,b>0\), \(\lambda > 0\), \(2 < p \le4\).
Problem (1.1) is a variant type of the following Dirichlet problem of Kirchhoff type:
where \(\Omega \subset{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\) is a smooth domain. Such problems are often referred to as nonlocal because of the presence of the term \(( {\int_{\Omega}{ \vert \nabla u \vert ^{2}} } )\Delta u\), which implies that equation (1.2) is no longer a pointwise identity. This phenomenon provokes some mathematical difficulties, which make the study of such a class of problems particularly interesting. On the other hand, problem (1.2) is related to the stationary analog of the equation
proposed by Kirchhoff in [2] as the existence of the classical D’Alembert wave equations for free vibration of elastic strings. Kirchhoff’s model takes into account the changes in length of the string produced by transverse vibrations. In (1.3), u denotes the displacement, \(f({x,u})\) the external force and b the initial tension, while a is related to the intrinsic properties of the string (such as Young’s modulus). We have to point out that nonlocal problems also appear in other fields as biological systems, where u describes a process which depends on the average of itself (for example, the population density). After the pioneer work of Lions [3], where a functional analysis approach was proposed, the Kirchhoff type equations began to arouse the attention of researchers.
In [4], Alves, Corrêa and Ma used the mountain pass theorem to get the existence result of the following Kirchhoff type problem:
where Ω is a smooth bounded domain in \({\mathbb{R}^{N}}\), M is a positive function, and f is of subcritical growth.
In [5], Arosio and Panizzi proved the well-posedness (existence, uniqueness and continuous dependence of the local solution upon the initial data) of the Cauchy-Dirichlet type problem related to (1.3) in the Hadamard sense as a special case of an abstract second-order Cauchy problem in a Hilbert space.
In [6], Perera and Zhang studied (1.2) under the conditions \(N=1,2,3\), f is a Carathéodory function on \(\Omega \times R\) and satisfies \(\lim_{t \to0} \frac{{f(x,t)}}{ {at}} = \lambda\), \(\lim_{ \vert t \vert \to\infty} \frac{{f(x,t)}}{ {b{t^{3}}}} = \mu\) uniformly for \(x \in\Omega\). They used the Yang index and critical group to obtain a nontrivial solution of (1.2).
In [7], He and Zou considered and obtained infinitely many solutions of (1.2) by using a local minimum method and the fountain theorem.
In [8], Chen et al. considered the following Kirchhoff type equation:
where Ω is a smooth bounded domain in \({\mathbb{R}^{N}}\) with \(1 < q < 2 < p < {2^{*} }\) (\({2^{*} } = \frac{{2N}}{ {N - 2}}\) if \(N \ge3\), \({2^{*} } = \infty\) if \(N=1,2\)), the weight function \(f,g \in C(\bar{\Omega})\) satisfies \(\max\{ f,0\} \ne0\) and \(\max\{ g, 0\} \ne0\). By using the Nehari manifold and fibering map methods, multiple positive solutions were obtained under proper assumptions.
Recently, in [9], Li and Ye studied
and the potential V satisfies
- (\(V_{1}\)):
-
\(V(x) \in C({\mathbb{R}^{3}},\mathbb{R})\) is weakly differentiable and satisfies \((\nabla V(x),x) \in{L^{\frac{3}{2}}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}}) \cup{L^{\infty}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\) and \(V(x) - (\nabla V(x),x) \ge0\) a.e. \(x \in{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\).
- (\(V_{2}\)):
-
\(V(x) \le\lim\inf_{ \vert y \vert \to + \infty} V(y) < + \infty\) and the inequality is strict in a subset of positive Lebesgue measure.
- (\(V_{3}\)):
-
\(\inf_{u \in{H^{1}}({\mathbb {R}^{3}})\backslash\{ 0\} } \frac{{\int_{{\mathbb{R}^{3}}} { \vert \nabla u \vert ^{2} + V(x){u^{2}}} }}{ {\int_{{\mathbb{R}^{3}}} {{u^{2}}} }} > 0\).
They proved that (1.4) has a positive ground-state solution. For more results, we can refer to [7, 10–13] and the references therein.
We note that problem (1.4) with \(b = 0\) is motivated by the search for standing wave solutions for the nonlinear Schrödinger equation, which is one of the main subjects in nonlinear analysis. Different approaches have been taken to deal with this problem under various hypotheses on the potentials and the nonlinearities (see [14, 15] and so on).
Our motivation to study (1.1) mainly comes from the results of perturbed Schrödinger equations, i.e.
where \(2 < q < {2^{*} }\), \(N \ge1\).
Many mathematicians proved the existence, concentration and multiplicity of solutions for (1.5), we refer to [1, 16–18].
Under the condition
- (\(V_{4}\)):
-
\({V_{\infty}} = \lim\inf_{ \vert x \vert \to\infty} V(x) > {V_{0}} = \inf_{x \in{\mathbb{R}^{N}}} V(x) > 0\)
on \(V(x)\), He and Zou in [19] studied (1.1) with the nonlinearity replaced by \(f(u)\), where \(f \in{C^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{+} },{\mathbb{R}^{+} })\) and satisfies
-
(AR)
\(\exists\mu > 4\) such that
$$0 < \mu \int_{0}^{u} {f(s)} \,ds \le f(u)u\quad {\text{for all }}u \ge0, $$
\(\lim_{s \to0} \frac{{f(s)}}{ {{s^{3}}}} = 0\), \(\lim_{ \vert s \vert \to\infty} \frac{{f(s)}}{ { \vert s \vert ^{q}}} = 0\) for some \(3 < q < 5\) and \(\frac{{f(s)}}{ {{s^{3}}}}\) is strictly increasing for \(s>0\). They obtained the existence, concentration and multiplicity of solutions for (1.1) by the same arguments as in [16–18]. In [20], Wang et al. extended the result of [19] with the case that the nonlinearity is of critical growth.
2 Main results
Before stating our theorem, we first give some notations. Set
We will use the following hypotheses on the potentials:
- \((P_{1})\) :
-
V and W are bounded locally Hölder continuous functions with \(\tau > 0\) and \(\inf_{{\mathbb{R}^{3}}} W > 0\).
- \((P_{2})\) :
-
Either (i) \(\tau < {\tau_{\infty}}\) and there exist \(R > 0\), \({x_{v}} \in\mathcal{V}\) such that \(W( {x_{v}} ) \ge W(x)\) for all \(\vert x \vert \ge R\), or (ii) \(\kappa > {\kappa_{\infty}}\) and there exist \(R > 0\), \({x_{w}} \in\mathcal{W}\) such that \(V( {x_{w}} ) \le V(x)\) for all \(\vert x \vert \ge R\).
- \((P_{3})\) :
-
V and W are weakly differentiable and satisfy
$$\bigl(\nabla V(x),x \bigr) \in{L^{{r_{1}}}} \bigl({\mathbb{R}^{3}} \bigr)\quad {\text{for some }} {r_{1}} \in \biggl[ {\frac{3}{ 2}, \infty} \biggr] $$and
$$\bigl(\nabla W(x),x \bigr) \in{L^{{r_{2}}}} \bigl({\mathbb{R}^{3}} \bigr)\quad {\text{for some }} {r_{2}} \in \biggl[ {\frac{6}{ {6 - p}}, \infty} \biggr] $$with
$$(q - 2)V(x) - 2 \bigl(\nabla V(x),x \bigr) \ge0,\quad\quad (p - q)W(x) + 2 \bigl(\nabla W(x),x \bigr) \ge0,\quad {\text{a.e. }} {\mathbb{R}^{3}} $$for some \(2 < q < p\), where \(( \cdot, \cdot)\) is the usual inner product in \({\mathbb{R}^{3}}\).
Note that the idea of introducing condition \((P_{2})\) is actually due to Ding. In [21], Ding and Liu studied the existence and concentration of semiclassical solutions for Schrödinger equations with magnetic fields under the condition \((P_{2})\). It seems that, under the conditions \((P_{1})\), \((P_{2})\), the existence and concentration behavior of positive solutions to (1.1) have not ever been studied. So in this paper we shall fill this gap. Precisely, we will find a family of positive ground-state solutions for (1.1) with some properties, such as concentration and exponential decay.
Observe that, in case \((P_{2})\)-(i), we can assume that \(W( {x_{v}} ) = \max_{x \in\mathcal{V}} W(x)\) and set
in case \((P_{2})\)-(ii), we can assume that \(V( {x_{w}} ) = \min_{ x \in\mathcal{W}} V(x)\) and set
Obviously, \({\mathcal{A}_{v}}\) and \({\mathcal{A}_{w}}\) are bounded. Moreover, \({\mathcal{A}_{v}} = {\mathcal{A}_{w}} = \mathcal{V} \cap \mathcal{W}\) if \(\mathcal{V} \cap\mathcal{W} \ne\emptyset\). In particular, \({\mathcal{A}_{v}} = \mathcal{V}\) if W is a constant and \({\mathcal{A}_{w}} = \mathcal{W}\) if V is a constant.
Our main results are as follows.
Theorem 2.1
Let \((P_{1})\), \((P_{3})\) holds. (A) Suppose \((P_{2})\)-(i) holds.
- \((a_{1})\) :
-
There exist \({\lambda^{*} } > 0\) and \({\varepsilon^{*} } > 0\) such that, for each \(\lambda \in[{\lambda^{*} },\infty)\) and \(\varepsilon \in(0,{\varepsilon^{*} })\), (1.1) possesses a positive ground-state solution \({u_{\varepsilon}} \in{H^{1}}({\mathbb {R}^{3}})\). If additionally, V and W are uniformly continuous functions on \({\mathbb{R}^{3}}\), then \({u_{\varepsilon}}\) satisfies:
- \((a_{2})\) :
-
there exists a maximum point \({x_{\varepsilon}}\) of \({u_{\varepsilon}}\) with
$$\lim_{\varepsilon \to0} \operatorname{dist}({x_{\varepsilon}},{ \mathcal{A}_{v}}) = 0, $$ - \((a_{3})\) :
-
\(\exists{C_{1}},{C_{2}} > 0\),
$${u_{\varepsilon}}(x) \le{C_{1}}\exp \biggl( { - \frac{{{C_{2}}}}{ \varepsilon} \vert x - {x_{\varepsilon}} \vert } \biggr). $$
(B) Suppose \((P_{2})\)-(ii) holds, then all the conclusions of (A) (with \({\mathcal{A}_{v}}\) replaced by \({\mathcal{A}_{w}}\)) remain true.
The proof is based on the variational method. The main difficulties in proving Theorem 2.1 lie in the fact that the nonlinearity \(\lambda W(x) \vert u \vert ^{{p - 2}}u + \vert u \vert ^{4}u\) (\(2 < p \le4\)) does not satisfy the (AR) condition, which prevents us from obtaining a bounded (PS) sequence and the lack of compactness due to the unboundedness of the domain \(\mathbb{R}^{3}\) and the nonlinearity with the critical Sobolev growth. As we will see later, the competing effect of \(\lambda W(x) \vert u \vert ^{{p - 2}}u + \vert u \vert ^{4}u\) (\(2 < p \le 4\)) and the lack of compactness of the embedding prevent us from using the variational method in a standard way.
To overcome these difficulties, inspired by [22], we use a proposition due to Jeanjean (Proposition 2.2 below) to construct a special bounded (PS) sequence and we recover the compactness by using a version of global compactness lemma (Lemma 3.4 below).
To complete this section, we sketch our proof.
We will work with the following equation, equivalent to (1.1):
with the energy functional
We can easily check that \({I_{\varepsilon}}\) possesses the mountain-pass geometry. But it is difficult to get the boundedness of any (PS) sequence for \(2 < p \le4\). To overcome this difficulty, in the spirit of [9, 13], we use the following proposition due to Jeanjean [22].
Proposition 2.2
Theorem 1.1 of [22]
Let X be a Banach space equipped with a norm \({ \Vert \cdot \Vert _{X}}\) and let \(J \subset{\mathbb{R}^{+} }\) be an interval, we consider a family \({\{ {\Phi_{\mu}}\} _{\mu \in J}}\) of \({C^{1}}\)-functional on X of the form
where \(B(u) \ge0\), \(\forall u \in X\) and such that either \(A(u) \to + \infty\) or \(B(u) \to + \infty\) as \({ \Vert u \Vert _{X}} \to\infty\). We assume that there are two points \({v_{1}}\), \({v_{2}}\) in X such that
where
Then, for almost every \(\mu \in J\), there is a bounded \({({\textit {PS}})_{{c_{\mu}}}}\) sequence for \({\Phi_{\mu}}\), that is, there is a sequence \(\{ {u_{n}}(\mu)\} \subset X\) such that
-
(i)
\(\{ {u_{n}}(\mu)\} \) is bounded in X,
-
(ii)
\({\Phi_{\mu}}({u_{n}}(\mu)) \to{c_{\mu}}\),
-
(iii)
\({{\Phi'}_{\mu}}({u_{n}}(\mu)) \to0\) in \({X^{ - 1}}\), where \({X^{ - 1}}\) is the dual space of X.
Applying Proposition 2.2 to the following functional:
then, for a.e. \(\mu \in[1 - {\delta_{0}},1]\), \(\varepsilon > 0\) small but fixed, there exists a bounded \({({\text{PS}})_{{c_{\varepsilon ,\mu}}}}\) sequence \(\{ {u_{n}}\} \) for \({I_{\varepsilon,\mu}}\) in \({H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\), where \({{c_{\varepsilon,\mu}}}\), \({\delta _{0}}\) are given below.
In order to prove that \({I_{{c_{\varepsilon,\mu}}}}\) satisfies the \({({\text{PS}})_{{c_{\varepsilon,\mu}}}}\) condition, inspired by [9], we will establish a version of global compactness lemma (Lemma 3.4 below).
At last, we note that the concentration result in Theorem 2.1 is obtained by using a similar method which is related to Proposition 2.2 in [1].
3 Proof of Theorem 2.1
The equation
is the limiting equation of (1.1). In view of [23], we have the following.
Proposition 3.1
Equation (3.1) has a positive ground-state solution \(\tilde{u} \in{H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\) with \(c < \frac{1}{ 4}ab{S^{3}} + \frac{1}{ {24}}{b^{3}}{S^{6}} + \frac{1}{ {24}}{({b^{2}}{S^{4}} + 4aS)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \), where c is the least energy level of (3.1).
Equation (1.1) can be rewritten as
and the corresponding energy functional is
Since V is bounded and \(\tau: = \min_{{\mathbb {R}^{3}}} V > 0\),
is an equivalent norm in \({H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\).
By Proposition 3.1, for any \({x_{0}} \in{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\), let \({w_{\mu}}\) be a positive ground-state solution to the equation
with the energy functional
Denote the mountain-pass level of \({I_{V({x_{0}}),W({x_{0}}),\mu}}\) by \({c_{V({x_{0}}),W({x_{0}}),\mu}}\). From [23], we see that
where
and
We have the following lemma.
Lemma 3.2
For any \(\{ {\mu_{n}}\}\) with \({\mu_{n}} \to{1^{-} }\), up to a subsequence, \(\exists\{ {y_{n}}\} \subset{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\) such that \(\{ {w_{{\mu_{n}}}}(x + {y_{n}})\} \) is convergent in \({H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\).
Proof
Since
\(\{ {w_{{\mu_{n}}}}\} \) is bounded in \({H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\).
By the vanishing theorem, \(\exists\{ {y_{n}}\} \subset{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\) and set \({{\tilde{w}}_{{\mu_{n}}}}(x): = {w_{{\mu_{n}}}}(x + {y_{n}})\), we may assume that \(\exists\tilde{w} \in{H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\backslash \{ 0\} \) such that
Moreover, w̃ satisfies
where \({A^{2}} = \lim_{n \to\infty} \int_{{\mathbb {R}^{3}}} {{{ \vert {\nabla{{\tilde{w}}_{{\mu_{n}}}}} \vert }^{2}}} \) and \(\int_{{\mathbb{R}^{3}}} {{{ \vert {\nabla\tilde{w}} \vert }^{2}}} \le{A^{2}}\).
Next, we claim that
Indeed, \(\exists{t_{n}} > 0\) such that \({({w_{1}})_{{t_{n}}}} \in{\mathcal {M}_{V({x_{0}}),W({x_{0}}),{\mu_{n}}}}\), then \(\frac {{d{I_{V({x_{0}}),W({x_{0}}),{\mu_{n}}}}({{({w_{1}})}_{t}})}}{ {dt}}| _{t = {t_{n}}} = 0\) shows that \(\{ {t_{n}}\} \) is bounded. Hence, we have
(3.3) holds.
Since \(\lim_{n \to\infty} \int_{{\mathbb{R}^{3}}} {{{ \vert {\nabla{{\tilde{w}}_{{\mu_{n}}}}} \vert }^{2}}} \ge \int_{{\mathbb{R}^{3}}} {{{ \vert {\nabla\tilde{w}} \vert }^{2}}} \), we check that \({G_{V({x_{0}}),W({x_{0}}),1}}(\tilde{w}) \le0\), then by (3.3), we get \({{\tilde{w}}_{{\mu_{n}}}} \to\tilde{w}\) in \({H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\). □
By Lemma 3.2, \(\tilde{w}_{{\mu_{n}}}^{6}\), \(\tilde{w}_{{\mu_{n}}}^{p}\), \(\tilde{w}_{{\mu_{n}}}^{2}\) are uniformly integrable near ∞. Since \(\{ {\mu_{n}}\} \) is arbitrary, then \(\exists{\delta_{0}} > 0\) small but fixed, \(\{ {y_{\mu}}\} \subset{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\) for all \(\mu \in[1 - {\delta_{0}},1]\),
where \({{\tilde{w}}_{\mu}}(x): = {w_{\mu}}(x + {y_{\mu}})\).
Next, we will show that \(\exists\bar{C} > 0\) which is independent of \(\mu \in[1 - {\delta_{0}},1]\) such that
Indeed, assuming the contrary, \(\exists\{ {\mu_{j}}\} \subset[1 - {\delta_{0}},1]\) with \({\mu_{j}} \to{1^{-} }\) such that
In view of the definition of \({w_{{\mu_{j}}}}\),
then \({ \Vert {{w_{{\mu_{j}}}}} \Vert _{{H^{1}}({\mathbb {R}^{3}})}} \to0\) as \(j \to\infty\), which contradicts \({c_{V({x_{0}}),W({x_{0}}),1}} > 0\) by (3.3).
Consider the following functional:
Denote
and
we will show that \(A(u)\) and \(B(u)\) satisfy the conditions of Proposition 2.2 for \(\varepsilon > 0\) small.
For any \(u \in{H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\),
and
Set \({W_{\varepsilon,\mu,t}}(x): = t\eta ( {\sqrt{\varepsilon}\frac{x}{ {{t^{2}}}} - \frac{{{x_{0}}}}{ {\sqrt{\varepsilon}{t^{2}}}}} ){{\tilde{w}}_{\mu}} ( {\frac{x}{ {{t^{2}}}} - \frac{{{x_{0}}}}{ {\varepsilon{t^{2}}}}} )\), where η is a smooth cut-off function with \(0 \le\eta \le1\), \(\eta = 1\) on \({B_{1}}(0)\), \(\eta = 0\) on \({\mathbb{R}^{3}}\backslash{B_{2}}(0)\), \(\vert \nabla\eta \vert \le C\).
Since \({\delta_{0}} > 0\) is small, we may assume that \(1 - {\delta_{0}} > \frac{1}{ 2}\), then \({I_{\varepsilon,\mu}}(u) \le{I_{{{ \Vert V \Vert }_{{L^{\infty}}}},\inf W,\frac{1}{2}}}(u)\) and
as \(t \to + \infty\) uniformly for all \(\varepsilon > 0\) small and \(\mu \in[1 - {\delta_{0}},1]\), where we have used (3.4) and (3.5). Taking \({t_{0}} > 0\) large, we get
for all \(\mu \in[1 - {\delta_{0}},1]\), \(\varepsilon > 0\) small.
Using the Sobolev embedding theorem, we have
for all \(u \in{H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\) with \({ \Vert u \Vert _{{H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})}}\) small since \(p > 2\).
Hence, we can define
for all \(\mu \in[1 - {\delta_{0}},1]\), \(\varepsilon > 0\) small, where
Lemma 3.3
For any \({x_{0}} \in{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\), \(\lim_{\varepsilon \to0} {c_{\varepsilon,\mu}} \le {c_{V({x_{0}}),W({x_{0}}),\mu}}\) uniformly for all \(\mu \in[1 - {\delta_{0}},1]\).
Proof
Define \({W_{\varepsilon,\mu,0}}: = \lim_{t \to0} {W_{\varepsilon,\mu,t}}\) in \({{H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})}\) sense, then \({W_{\varepsilon,\mu,0}} = 0\). Thus, setting \({\gamma_{\mu}}(s): = {W_{\varepsilon,\mu,s{t_{0}}}}\) (\(0 \le s \le1\)), we have \({\gamma_{\mu}} \in{\Gamma_{\mu}}\), then
and we just need to verify that
uniformly for \(\mu \in[1 - {\delta_{0}},1]\).
Indeed,
where we have used (3.4). Notice that \(o(1) \to0\) as \(\varepsilon \to0\) uniformly for \(\mu \in[1 - {\delta_{0}},1]\), then (3.6) holds, the lemma is proved. □
Suppose that \((P_{1})\)-(i) holds, assume that \({x_{v}} \in\mathcal{V}\) such that
By \((P_{2})\)-(i), \(\tau < {\tau_{\infty}}\) and \(W({x_{v}}) \ge{\kappa _{\infty}}\), then \({c_{\tau,W({x_{v}}),\mu}} < {c_{{\tau_{\infty}},{\kappa_{\infty,\mu}}}}\), and combining with Lemma 3.3, we have
for all \(\mu \in[1 - {\delta_{0}},1]\) and \(\varepsilon > 0\) small. Similarly, if \((P_{2})\)-(ii) holds, (3.7) is still true for all \(\mu \in[1 - {\delta_{0}},1]\) and \(\varepsilon > 0\) small.
Lemma 3.4
Suppose that \((P_{1})\), \((P_{2})\), \((P_{3})\) hold and \(p \in(3,4]\). Fix \(\varepsilon > 0\), for every \(\mu \in[1 - {\delta_{0}},1]\), let \(\{ {u_{n}}\} \subset{H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\) be a bounded \({({\textit {PS}})_{c}}\) sequence for \({I_{\varepsilon,\mu}}\) with \(0 < c < \frac{1}{ 4}ab\frac{{{S^{3}}}}{ \mu} + \frac{1}{ {24}}{b^{3}}\frac{{{S^{6}}}}{ {{\mu^{2}}}} + \frac{1}{ {24}}{ ( {{b^{2}}\frac{{{S^{4}}}}{ {{\mu^{4/3}}}} + 4a\frac{S}{ {{\mu^{1/3}}}}} )^{\frac{3}{2}}}\), then there exists a \(u \in{H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\), a number \(k \in\mathbb{N} \cup\{ 0\} \), k functions \({w_{1}},\ldots,{w_{k}}\) of \({H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\) and k sequences of points \(\{y_{n}^{j}\} \subset {\mathbb{R}^{3}}\), \(1 \le j \le k\) and \(A \in\mathbb{R}\), such that
-
(i)
\({u_{n}} \rightharpoonup u\) in \({H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\) with \({{J'}_{\varepsilon,\mu}}(u) = 0\) and \(\int_{{\mathbb{R}^{3}}} { \vert \nabla{u_{n}} \vert ^{2}} \to{A^{2}}\) as \(n \to\infty\);
-
(ii)
\(\vert y_{n}^{j} \vert \to + \infty\), \(\vert y_{n}^{i} - y_{n}^{j} \vert \to + \infty\) as \(n \to\infty\) if \(i \ne j\);
-
(iii)
\({w_{j}} \ne0\) and \({{J'}_{{\tau_{\infty}},{\kappa_{\infty,\mu }}}}({w_{j}}) = 0\);
-
(iv)
\({ \Vert {{u_{n}} - u - \sum_{j = 1}^{k} {w_{j}}( \cdot - y_{n}^{j})} \Vert _{{H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})}} \to0\) as \(n \to\infty\);
-
(v)
\({I_{\varepsilon,\mu}}({u_{n}}) + \frac{b}{ 4}{A^{4}} = {J_{\varepsilon,\mu}}(u) + \sum_{j = 1}^{k} {{J_{{\tau_{\infty}},{\kappa_{\infty,\mu}}}}({w_{j}})} + o(1)\);
-
(vi)
\({A^{2}} = \int_{{\mathbb{R}^{3}}} { \vert \nabla u \vert ^{2}} + \sum_{j = 1}^{k} {\int_{{\mathbb{R}^{3}}} { \vert \nabla{w_{j}} \vert ^{2}} } \),
where
and
Proof
Since \(\{ {u_{n}}\} \) is bounded in \({H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\), then \(\exists u \in{H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\) and \(A \in\mathbb{R}\), up to a subsequence, such that as \(n \to\infty\),
\({{I'}_{\varepsilon,\mu}}({u_{n}}) \to0\) implies that
i.e. \({{J'}_{\varepsilon,\mu}}(u) = 0\).
Since
and
we conclude that as \(n \to\infty\),
and
Step 1: Set \({u_{n,1}} = {u_{n}} - u\), by the Brezis-Lieb theorem ([24], Theorem 1),
Next, we claim that one of the following conclusions holds for \({u_{n,1}}\):
-
(1)
\({u_{n,1}} \to0\) in \({{H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})}\) or
-
(2)
\(\exists r,\beta > 0\) and a sequence \(\{ y_{n}^{1}\} \subset {\mathbb{R}^{3}}\) such that
$$\int_{{B_{r}}(y_{n}^{1})} {u_{n,1}^{2}} \ge\beta > 0. $$
Indeed, suppose that (2) does not hold, then by the vanishing theorem due to Lion ([25], Lemma 1.1), we have
and combining with \(\langle{{{J'}_{{\tau_{\infty}},{\kappa _{\infty}},\mu}}({u_{n,1}}),{u_{n,1}}} \rangle = o(1)\), we get
Now, we have the following equalities:
The first one comes from the definition of \({J_{\varepsilon,\mu}}\). The second one follows by \(\langle{{{J'}_{\varepsilon,\mu }}(u),u} \rangle = 0\). The third one is the Pohozaev identity applying to \({{J'}_{\varepsilon,\mu}}(u) = 0\). From these equalities and \((P_{3})\), we have
In view of (3.8), (3.10), (3.11), (3.12), (3.14) and (3.16), we have
Using the definition of S, we get
In view of (3.15), we assume that
Equations (3.10), (3.17), (3.18), (3.19), (3.20) and (3.21) yield
and
Combining (3.22) and (3.23), we have
If \({l_{1}} + {l_{2}} \ne0\), we get
then
a contradiction. Hence \({l_{1}} + {l_{2}} = 0\), i.e.
(1) holds.
If (1) holds, the proof is completed for \(k=0\). If (2) holds, denote \({w_{n,1}}(x) = {u_{n,1}}(x + y_{n}^{1})\), then
Up to a subsequence, \({w_{n,1}} \rightharpoonup{w_{1}}\) in \({H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\) with \({w_{1}} \ne0\) and \({{J'}_{{\tau_{\infty}},{\kappa_{\infty}},\mu}}({w_{1}}) = 0\). Moreover, \({u_{n,1}} \rightharpoonup0\) in \({H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\) implies that \(\{ y_{n}^{1}\} \) is unbounded.
Step 2: Set \({u_{n,2}}(x) = {u_{n}}(x) - u(x) - {w_{1}}(x - y_{n}^{1})\), we can similarly check that
Similar to Step 1, if (1) holds for \({u_{n,2}}\), then
and
the lemma holds for \(k=1\).
If (2) holds for \({{u_{n,2}}}\), i.e. \(\exists r',\beta' > 0\) and a sequence \(\{ y_{n}^{2}\} \subset{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\) such that
then
\({u_{n,2}}(x + y_{n}^{1}) \rightharpoonup0\) in \({{H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})}\) implies that \(\vert y_{n}^{2} - y_{n}^{1} \vert \to + \infty\).
Since \(\{ y_{n}^{1}\} \) is unbounded and \({w_{1}} \in{H^{1}}({\mathbb {R}^{3}})\), we can easily check that
then
which implies that \(\{ y_{n}^{2}\} \) must be unbounded. Denote \({w_{n,2}}(x) = {u_{n,2}}(x + y_{n}^{2})\), then
up to a subsequence, \({w_{n,2}} \rightharpoonup{w_{2}}\) in \({H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\) with \({w_{2}} \ne0\) and \({{J'}_{{\tau_{\infty}},{\kappa_{\infty}},\mu}}({w_{2}}) = 0\) and next proceed by iteration. Since \({w_{k}}\) is a nontrivial critical point of \({J_{{\tau_{\infty}},{\kappa_{\infty}},\mu}}\), \({J_{{\tau_{\infty}},{\kappa_{\infty}},\mu }}({w_{k}}) \ge{{c'}_{{\tau_{\infty}},{\kappa_{\infty}},\mu}}\), where \({{c'}_{{\tau_{\infty}},{\kappa_{\infty}},\mu}}\) is the mountain-pass value of the functional \({J_{{\tau_{\infty}},{\kappa_{\infty}},\mu}}\). Hence the iteration must stop at some finite index k. The proof is completed. □
Proof of Theorem 2.1(A)-\((a_{1})\)
We divide the proof into three steps.
Step 1: Since \({I_{\varepsilon,\mu}}\) possesses the geometry of Proposition 2.2 for \(\varepsilon > 0\) small with \(\mu \in[1 - {\delta_{0}},1]\), then by Proposition 2.2, for \(\varepsilon > 0\) small but fixed, for almost every \(\mu \in[1 - {\delta_{0}},1]\), there exists a bounded \({({\text{PS}})_{{c_{\varepsilon,\mu}}}}\) sequence \(\{ {u_{n}}\} \) for \({I_{\varepsilon,\mu}}\). Using the same argument as in the proof of Lemma 3.5 of [23], we can check that
for \(\lambda > 0\) large. Combining with (3.7), we have
for \(\lambda > 0\) large, \(\varepsilon > 0\) small.
In view of Lemma 3.4, there exist a \({u_{\varepsilon,\mu}} \in{H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\), a number \(k \in\mathbb{N} \cup\{ 0\} \), k functions \({w_{1}},\ldots,{w_{k}}\) of \({H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\) and k sequences of points \(\{y_{n}^{j}\} \subset{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\), \(1 \le j \le k\) and \({A_{\varepsilon,\mu}} \in\mathbb{R}\), such that
-
(i)
\({u_{n}} \rightharpoonup{u_{\varepsilon,\mu}}\) in \({H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\) with \({{J'}_{\varepsilon,\mu }}({u_{\varepsilon,\mu}}) = 0\) and \(\int_{{\mathbb{R}^{3}}} { \vert \nabla{u_{n}} \vert ^{2}} \to A_{\varepsilon,\mu}^{2}\) as \(n \to\infty\);
-
(ii)
\(\vert y_{n}^{j} \vert \to + \infty\), \(\vert y_{n}^{i} - y_{n}^{j} \vert \to + \infty\) as \(n \to\infty\) if \(i \ne j\);
-
(iii)
\({w_{j}} \ne0\) and \({{J'}_{{\tau_{\infty}},{\kappa_{\infty,\mu }}}}({w_{j}}) = 0\);
-
(iv)
\({ \Vert {{u_{n}} - {u_{\varepsilon,\mu}} - {w_{j}}( \cdot - y_{n}^{j})} \Vert _{{H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})}} \to0\) as \(n \to \infty\);
-
(v)
\({I_{\varepsilon,\mu}}({u_{n}}) + \frac{b}{ 4}A_{\varepsilon,\mu}^{4} = {J_{\varepsilon,\mu}}({u_{\varepsilon ,\mu}}) + \sum_{j = 1}^{k} {{J_{{\tau_{\infty}},{\kappa _{\infty,\mu}}}}({w_{j}})} + o(1)\);
-
(vi)
\(A_{\varepsilon,\mu}^{2} = \int_{{\mathbb{R}^{3}}} { \vert \nabla{u_{\varepsilon,\mu}} \vert ^{2}} + \sum_{j = 1}^{k} {\int_{{\mathbb{R}^{3}}} { \vert \nabla{w_{j}} \vert ^{2}} } \).
By (3.16), we have
Applying Pohozaev’s identity to \({{J'}_{{\tau_{\infty}},{\kappa_{\infty}},\mu}}({w_{j}}) = 0\), we have
then
Hence, there exists \({t_{j}} \in(0,1]\) such that \({({w_{j}})_{{t_{j}}}}: = {t_{j}}{w_{j}}(t_{j}^{ - 2}x) \in{\mathcal{M}_{{\tau_{\infty}},{\kappa _{\infty}},\mu}}\), we get
and combining with (3.25), we have
If \(k \ge1\), we get \({c_{\varepsilon,\mu}} \ge{c_{{\tau_{\infty}},{\kappa_{\infty}},\mu}}\) for \(\varepsilon > 0\) small, which contradicts (3.7). Hence \(k = 0\), then \({u_{n}} \to {u_{\varepsilon,\mu}}\) in \({H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\) for \(\varepsilon > 0\) small and almost every \(\mu \in[1 - {\delta_{0}},1]\), i.e. for \(\varepsilon > 0\) small and almost every \(\mu \in[1 - {\delta_{0}},1]\), \({{I'}_{\varepsilon,\mu}}({u_{\varepsilon,\mu}}) = 0\) and \({I_{\varepsilon,\mu}}({u_{\varepsilon,\mu}}) = {c_{\varepsilon,\mu}}\).
Step 2: Fix \(\varepsilon > 0\) small, choose a sequence \(\{ {\mu_{n}}\} \subset[1 - {\delta_{0}},1]\) satisfying \({\mu_{n}} \to1\), we get a sequence of nontrivial critical points \(\{ {u_{\varepsilon,{\mu _{n}}}}\} \) of \({I_{\varepsilon,{\mu_{n}}}}\) with \({I_{\varepsilon,{\mu _{n}}}}({u_{\varepsilon,{\mu_{n}}}}) = {c_{\varepsilon,{\mu_{n}}}}\). We have the following equalities:
The first one comes from the definition of \({c_{\varepsilon,{\mu _{n}}}}\). The second one follows by \(\langle{{I'}_{\varepsilon ,{\mu_{n}}}}({u_{\varepsilon,{\mu_{n}}}}), {u_{\varepsilon,{\mu_{n}}}} \rangle = 0\). The third one is the Pohozaev identity applying to \({{I'}_{\varepsilon,{\mu_{n}}}}({u_{\varepsilon,{\mu_{n}}}}) = 0\), then we get
and
By (3.28) and \((P_{3})\), \(\int_{{\mathbb{R}^{3}}} { \vert \nabla{u_{\varepsilon,{\mu_{n}}}} \vert ^{2}} \) must be bounded, then by (3.29), \(a\int_{{\mathbb{R}^{3}}} { \vert \nabla {u_{\varepsilon,{\mu_{n}}}} \vert ^{2}} + \int_{{\mathbb{R}^{3}}} {V(\varepsilon x)u_{\varepsilon,{\mu_{n}}}^{2}} \) is bounded, i.e. \(\{ {u_{\varepsilon,{\mu_{n}}}}\} \) is bounded in \({H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\). Hence, we get
and
i.e. \(\{ {u_{\varepsilon,{\mu_{n}}}}\} \) is, in fact, a bounded \({({\text{PS}})_{{c_{\varepsilon,1}}}}\) sequence for \({I_{\varepsilon}} = {I_{\varepsilon,1}}\). Using the same argument in Step 1 with \(\mu = 1\), we can easily check that \(\exists {u_{\varepsilon,1}} \in{H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\) such that \({u_{\varepsilon,{\mu_{n}}}} \to{u_{\varepsilon,1}}\) in \({H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\) and \({{I'}_{\varepsilon}}({u_{\varepsilon,1}}) = 0\), \({I_{\varepsilon}}({u_{\varepsilon,1}}) = {c_{\varepsilon,1}}\).
Step 3: Next, we prove the existence of a ground-state solution for (3.2). Set
By (3.28) and \((P_{3})\), we see that \(0 \le{m_{\varepsilon}} \le {I_{\varepsilon}}({u_{\varepsilon,1}}) = {c_{\varepsilon,1}} < + \infty\). Let \(\{ {u_{n}}\} \) be a sequence of nontrivial critical points of \({I_{\varepsilon}}\) such that \({I_{\varepsilon}}({u_{n}}) \to {m_{\varepsilon}}\). By the same argument as in Step 2, we see that \(\{ {u_{n}}\} \) is a bounded \({({\text{PS}})_{{m_{\varepsilon}}}}\) sequence of \({I_{\varepsilon}}\). Similar to the argument in Step 1, we see that \(\exists{w_{\varepsilon}} \in{H^{1}}({\mathbb {R}^{3}})\) such that
Next, we will show that \({m_{\varepsilon}} > 0\). Since
which implies that \({ \Vert {{u_{n}}} \Vert _{{H^{1}}({\mathbb {R}^{3}})}} \ge{C^{*} } > 0\), then by (3.30), \({ \Vert {{w_{\varepsilon}}} \Vert _{{H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})}} \ge{C^{*} } > 0\), i.e. \({w_{\varepsilon}} \ne0\). Similar to (3.28), we deduce that \({m_{\varepsilon}} > 0\). Hence \({I_{\varepsilon}}({w_{\varepsilon}}) = {m_{\varepsilon}} > 0\), \({{I'}_{\varepsilon}}({w_{\varepsilon}}) = 0\). By the standard elliptic estimate and the strong maximum principle, we see that \({w_{\varepsilon}} > 0\). Set \({u_{\varepsilon}}(x) = {w_{\varepsilon}}( x/ {\varepsilon} )\), \({u_{\varepsilon}}\) is in fact a positive ground-state solution of (1.1). □
Next, we will prove the concentration result of Theorem 2.1 by using a similar method related to Proposition 2.2 in [1].
Proof of Theorem 2.1(A)-\((a_{2})\)
For any \({\varepsilon_{j}} \to0\), similar to (3.28), (3.29), we can easily check that \({w_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}}\) is bounded in \({H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\).
By the vanishing theorem, we have \(\exists\{ y_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}^{1}\} \subset{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\), \(R,\beta > 0\) such that
Set \({v_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}}(x) = {w_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}}(x + y_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}^{1})\), then \({v_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}}\) satisfies
and, up to a subsequence, \(\exists{v_{1}} \in{H^{1}}({\mathbb {R}^{3}})\backslash\{ 0\} \), such that
Denote \({A^{2}}: = \lim_{j \to\infty} \int _{{\mathbb{R}^{3}}} {{{ \vert {\nabla{v_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}}} \vert }^{2}}} \), and it is trivial that
Since V and W are bounded with \(\tau > 0\) and \(\inf_{{\mathbb{R}^{3}}} W > 0\), then, up to a subsequence, as \(j \to\infty\),
where
In view of the uniformly continuous of V and W in \({\mathbb {R}^{3}}\), we can easily check that
uniformly on any compact set. Consequently, we have
then \({{v_{1}}}\) solves
with the energy functional \({J_{V({x^{1}}),W({x^{1}})}}\), where the functional is defined as
\({a_{0}},{b_{0}}\) are positive constants.
Set
Similar to (3.8), (3.9), we have
and
Now, we consider \({w_{{\varepsilon_{j}},1}}(x) = {w_{{\varepsilon _{j}}}}(x) - {v_{1}}(x - y_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}^{1}){\chi_{{\varepsilon _{j}}}}(x - y_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}^{1})\), where \({\chi_{\varepsilon}}(x) = \chi ( {\sqrt{\varepsilon}x} )\) for \(\varepsilon > 0\) small and \(\chi(x)\) is a smooth cut-off function with \(0 \le\chi(x) \le1\), \(\chi(x) = 1\) on \({B_{1}}(0)\), \(\chi(x) = 0\) on \({\mathbb {R}^{3}}\backslash{B_{2}}(0)\) and \(\vert \nabla\chi \vert \le C\) for some constant \(C > 0\). It is easy to verify that \({w_{{\varepsilon_{j}},1}}(x)\) is bounded in \({{H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})}\). Furthermore, for any \(\varphi \in{H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})\) with \({ \Vert \varphi \Vert _{{H^{1}}({\mathbb{R}^{3}})}} \le1\), we have
First, we see
where we have used (3.33).
Next, we study \((\mathit{II})\),
For any given \(\delta > 0\) small, we can choose a bounded domain \(\Lambda \subset{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\) such that
Hence,
and
In view of (3.32), \({v_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}} \to{v_{1}} {\text{ in }}{L^{p}}(\Lambda)\). Since \(\Lambda \subset{B_{1/\sqrt{{\varepsilon _{j}}} }}(0)\) for \({{\varepsilon_{j}}}\) small, we have
Therefore, (3.37)-(3.40) lead to \((\mathit{II}) = o(1)\). Before studying \((\mathit{III})\), we first claim that
Indeed, in view of (3.32), we may assume that
where μ and ν are two bounded nonnegative measures on \({\mathbb{R}^{3}}\). By the concentration compactness principle II (Lemma 1.1 of [26]), we obtain an at most countable index set Γ, sequence \(\{ {x_{i}}\} \subset{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\) and \(\{ {{\mu_{i}}} \},\{ {{\nu_{i}}} \} \subset( {0,\infty} )\) such that
It suffices to show that, for any bounded domain Ω, \({\{ {x_{i}}\} _{i \in\Gamma}} \cap\Omega = \emptyset\). Suppose, by contradiction, that \({x_{i}} \in\Omega\) for some \(i \in\Gamma\). Define, for \(\rho > 0\), the function \({\psi_{\rho}}( x ): = \psi( {\frac{{x - {x_{i}}}}{ \rho}} )\) where ψ is a smooth cut-off function such that \(\psi = 1\) on \({B_{1}}( 0 )\), \(\psi = 0\) on \({\mathbb{R}^{3}}\backslash {B_{2}}(0)\), \(0 \le\psi \le1\) and \(\vert {\nabla\psi} \vert \le C\). We suppose that ρ is chosen in such a way that the support of \({\psi_{\rho}}\) is contained in Ω. By (3.31), we see
Since
and
we obtain from (3.43)
Combining with (3.42), we have
On the other hand,
where we have used \((P_{3})\) and notice that
is the Pohozaev identity applying to \({{I'}_{{\varepsilon _{j}}}}({w_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}}) = 0\).
Since \({m_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}} \le{c_{{\varepsilon_{j}},1}} \le {c_{V({x_{0}}),W({x_{0}}),1}} + o(1) < \frac{1}{ 4}ab{S^{3}} + \frac{1}{ {24}}{b^{3}}{S^{6}} + \frac{1}{ {24}}{ ( {{b^{2}}{S^{4}} + 4aS} )^{\frac{3}{2}}}\) for any \({x_{0}} \in{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\) and \({\varepsilon_{j}} > 0\) small, then, up to a subsequence, we may assume that, as \(j \to\infty\),
By (3.49),
This leads to a contradiction, hence (3.41) holds.
Similar to the proof of \((\mathit{II})\), we can easily check that \((\mathit{III}) = o(1)\). By (3.35), we have
We also claim that
Indeed,
where we have used (3.32).
Similar to \((V)\), \((\mathit{II})\), \((\mathit{III})\), we can easily check that \((\mathit{VI})=o(1)\), \((\mathit{VII})=o(1)\) and \((\mathit{VIII})=o(1)\), then (3.50) holds.
Next, we repeat the above procedure for \({w_{{\varepsilon_{j}},1}}\) and so on. It is easy to see that \({J_{V({x^{i}}),W({x^{i}})}}({v_{i}})\) obtained in this process is always larger than the mountain-pass value of \({J_{\tau,\kappa}}\), therefore, the process will stop at finite k. Similar to the proof of Lemma 3.4, we see that, for \({\varepsilon_{j}} \to0\), there is a sequence of j, a nonnegative integer k and k sequences \(\{ y_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}^{i}\} \), \(1 \le i \le k\), such that, as \(j \to\infty\),
where \({{v_{i}}}\) is a nontrivial critical point of \({{J_{V({x^{i}}),W({x^{i}})}}}\).
Using the same argument as in (3.27), we get
then in view of (3.52), we have
i.e.
In view of Lemma 3.3 and (3.7), \(\overline{c} \le {c_{V({x^{1}}),W({x^{1}}),1}}\), then we conclude that \(k=1\), i.e.
By (3.51), we have
then by the Sobolev inequality, we get
Hence, \(v_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}^{6}\) is uniformly integrable near ∞, the Brezis-Kato type argument and the maximum principle yield
Next, we assume that \((P_{2})\)-(i) holds.
We claim that \(\{ {\varepsilon_{j}}y_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}^{1}\} \) is bounded. Assuming to the contrary that \(\vert {\varepsilon _{j}}y_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}^{1} \vert \to\infty\), then \(V({x^{1}}) = {\tau_{\infty}} > \tau\) and \(W({x^{1}}) = {\kappa_{\infty}} \le W({x_{v}})\), hence \({c_{V({x^{1}}),W({x^{1}}),1}} = {c_{{\tau_{\infty}},{\kappa_{\infty}},1}} > {c_{\tau,W({x_{v}}),1}}\). But, from Lemma 3.3, we have
a contradiction.
We will show that \({x^{1}} \in{\mathcal{A}_{v}}\). In fact, if \({x^{1}} \in \mathcal{V}\), by (3.54), we have
which implies that \(W({x^{1}}) \ge W({x_{v}})\). By the definition of \(W({x_{v}})\), \(W({x^{1}}) \le\max_{x \in\mathcal{V}} W(x) = W({x_{v}})\), then \(W({x^{1}}) = W({x_{v}})\).
If \({x^{1}} \notin\mathcal{V}\), then \(V({x^{1}}) > \tau\). Assuming to the contrary that \(W({x^{1}}) \le W({x_{v}})\), then \({c_{V({x^{1}}),W({x^{1}}),1}} > {c_{\tau,W({x_{v}}),1}}\), which contradicts (3.54).
Let \({P_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}}\) a maximum point of \({v_{{\varepsilon _{j}}}}\), since \(\Delta{v_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}}({P_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}}) \le0\), (3.31) implies that
which gives \({v_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}}({P_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}}) \ge C > 0\). By (3.53), \({P_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}}\) must be bounded. Denote \({x_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}} = {\varepsilon_{j}}{P_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}} + {\varepsilon_{j}}y_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}^{1}\), it is clear that \({x_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}}\) is a maximum point of \({u_{{\varepsilon _{j}}}}\), then \({x_{{\varepsilon_{j}}}} \to{\mathcal{A}_{v}}\). Since \(\{ {{\varepsilon_{j}}}\}\) is arbitrary, Theorem 2.1(A)-\((a_{2})\) is proved. □
To complete the proof of Theorem 2.1(A), we only need to prove the exponential decay result. Since the proof is standard (see [20], for example), we omit the details for simplicity. Note that all the conclusions of Theorem 2.1(B) can be similarly proved to Theorem 2.1(A). Thus, this completes the proof of Theorem 2.1.
References
Gui, C: Existence of multi-bumb solutions for nonlinear Schrödinger equations via variational method. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 21, 787-820 (1996)
Kirchhoff, G: Mechanik. Teubner, Leipzig (1883)
Lions, JL: On some questions in boundary value problems of mathematical physics. In: Contemporary Developments in Continuum Mechanics and Partial Differential Equations, Proceedings of International Symposium, Inst. Mat., Univ. Fed. Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 1977. North-Holland Math. Stud., vol. 30, pp. 284-346. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1978)
Alves, CO, Corrêa, FJSA, Ma, TF: Positive solutions for a quasilinear elliptic equation of Kirchhoiff type. Comput. Math. Appl. 49, 85-93 (2005)
Arosio, A, Panizzi, S: On the well-posedness of the Kirchhoff string. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 348, 305-330 (1996)
Perera, K, Zhang, Z: Nontrivial solutions of Kirchhoff-type problems via the Yang index. J. Differ. Equ. 221, 246-255 (2006)
He, X, Zou, W: Infinitely many positive solutions for Kirchhoff-type problems. Nonlinear Anal. 70, 1407-1414 (2009)
Chen, CY, Kuo, YC, Wu, TF: The Nehari manifold for a Kirchhoff type problem involving sign-changing weight functions. J. Differ. Equ. 250, 1876-1908 (2011)
Li, G, Ye, H: Existence of positive ground state solutions for the nonlinear Kirchhoff type equations in \({\mathbb{R}^{3}}\). J. Differ. Equ. 257, 566-600 (2014)
D’Ancona, P, Spagnolo, S: Global solvability for the degenerate Kirchhoff equation with real analytic data. Invent. Math. 108, 247-262 (1992)
Ma, TF, Munoz Rivera, JE: Positive solutions for a nonlinear nonlocal elliptic transmission problem. Appl. Math. Lett. 16, 243-248 (2003)
Liu, W, He, X: Multiplicity of high energy solutions for superlinear Kirchhoff equations. J. Appl. Math. Comput. 39, 473-487 (2012)
Li, Y, Li, F, Shi, J: Existence of a positive solution to Kirchhoff type problems without compactness conditions. J. Differ. Equ. 253, 2285-2294 (2012)
Berestycki, H, Lions, PL: Nonlinear scalar field equations, I existence of a ground state. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 82, 313-345 (1983)
Berestycki, H, Lions, PL: Nonlinear scalar field equations, II existence of infinitely many solutions. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 82, 347-375 (1983)
Rabinowitz, P: On a class of nonlinear Schrödinger equations. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 43, 270-291 (1992)
Wang, X: On concentration of positive bound states of nonlinear Schrödinger equations. Commun. Math. Phys. 153, 229-244 (1993)
Cingolani, S, Lazzo, N: Multiple semiclassical standing waves for a class of nonlinear Schrödinger equations. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 10, 1-13 (1997)
He, X, Zou, W: Existence and concentration behavior of positive solutions for a Kirchhoff equation in \(\mathbb{R}^{3}\). J. Differ. Equ. 2, 1813-1834 (2012)
Wang, J, Tian, L, Xu, J, Zhang, F: Multiplicity and concentration of positive solutions for a Kirchhoff type problem with critical growth. J. Differ. Equ. 253, 2314-2351 (2012)
Ding, Y, Liu, X: Semiclassical solutions of Schrödinger equations with magnetic fields and critical nonlinearities. Manuscr. Math. 140, 51-82 (2013)
Jeanjean, L: On the existence of bounded Palais-Smale sequences and application to a Landsman-Lazer-type problem set on \({\mathbb{R}^{N}}\). Proc. R. Soc. Edinb., Sect. A, Math. 129, 787-809 (1999)
He, Y, Li, G: Standing waves for a class of Kirchhoff type problems in \({\mathbb{R}^{3}}\) involving critical Sobolev exponents. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 54, 3067-3106 (2015)
Brezis, H, Lieb, E: A relation between pointwise convergence of functions and convergence of functionals. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 88, 486-490 (1983)
Lions, PL: The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations, the locally compact case, part 2. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré, Anal. Non Linéaire 2, 223-283 (1984)
Lions, PL: The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations, the limit case, part 1. Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 1(1), 145-201 (1985)
Acknowledgements
The author would like to express his sincere gratitude to the referee for all insightful comments and valuable suggestions, based on which the paper was revised.
The author was supported by China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2013M542039).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no competing interests.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Peng, C. The existence and concentration of ground-state solutions for a class of Kirchhoff type problems in \({\mathbb{R}^{3}}\) involving critical Sobolev exponents. Bound Value Probl 2017, 64 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13661-017-0793-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13661-017-0793-x