- Research
- Open access
- Published:
Positive ground states for nonlinearly coupled Choquard type equations with lower critical exponents
Boundary Value Problems volume 2021, Article number: 13 (2021)
Abstract
We study the coupled Choquard type system with lower critical exponents
where \(N\ge 3\), \(\mu _{1}, \mu _{2}, \beta >0\), and \(\lambda _{1}(x)\), \(\lambda _{2}(x)\) are nonnegative functions. The existence of at least one positive ground state of this system is proved under certain assumptions on \(\lambda _{1}\), \(\lambda _{2}\).
1 Introduction
In this paper, we consider the following coupled nonlinear equations of Choquard type:
where \(N\ge 3\), \(\alpha \in (0,N)\), \(\mu _{1}, \mu _{2}, \beta >0\), \(\frac{N+\alpha }{N}\) is the lower critical exponent due to the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality (see [9, Theorem 3.1]), \(I_{\alpha }:{\mathbb{R}}^{N}\setminus \{0\}\mapsto \mathbb{R}\) defined by
is the Riesz potential, and \(\lambda _{1}(x)\) and \(\lambda _{2}(x)\) are nonnegative functions. Elliptic equations of this type have wide application in physical problems, such as in Hartree–Fock theory [8, 10, 12] and in nonlinear optics [13, 14]. The readers can refer to [2, 18, 19] for more physical backgrounds.
Mathematically, Choquard type equations have received considerable attention in the past few years, see [1, 3–5, 7, 8, 11, 15–17] and the reference therein for scale equations. There are also some results concerned with solutions of a nonlinearly coupled Choquard system. In [21], Wang and Shi proved the existence of positive solutions of
for \(\lambda _{1}, \lambda _{2}>0\) and \(\beta \in (-\infty ,\chi _{0})\cup (\min \{\lambda ^{2}\mu ,\lambda ^{ \frac{1}{2}}\nu \},+\infty )\), where \(\lambda =\lambda _{2}/\lambda _{1}\) and \(\chi _{0}>0\) depends on \(\mu _{1}\), \(\mu _{2}\), λ. Particularly, when \(\lambda _{1}=\lambda _{2}>0\), they showed that system (1.2) has a positive ground state \((\sqrt{k}_{0}w_{0},\sqrt{l}_{0} w_{0})\), where \((k_{0},l_{0})\) is the solution of
and \(w_{0}\) is a positive ground state of
In [22], Wang and Yang established the existence and nonexistence of normalized solutions of system (1.2) with trapping potentials. In [20], Wang obtained the multiplicity of nontrivial solutions of a nonlinearly coupled Choquard system with general subcritical exponents and perturbations.
For a Choquard system with upper critical exponents, You, Wang, and Zhao [25, 26] derived the existence of a positive ground state of the following system:
where \(N\ge 5\), Ω is a bounded smooth domain in \({\mathbb{R}}^{N}\), \(-\lambda _{1}(\Omega )<\lambda _{1}\), \(\lambda _{2}<0\), and \(\lambda _{1}(\Omega )\) represents the first eigenvalue of −Δ on Ω with the Dirichlet boundary condition. More precisely, they obtained that system (1.5) has a positive ground state if
For the special case \(-\lambda _{1}(\Omega )<\lambda _{1}=\lambda _{2}<0\), they proved that system (1.5) has a positive ground state \((\sqrt{\bar{k}}w^{*},\sqrt{ \bar{l}} w^{*})\) if
where \(w^{*}\) is a positive ground state of
and k̄, l̄ is a solution of
satisfying
In the current paper, we study the nonlinearly coupled system (1.1) with lower critical exponents. Since system (1.1) with positive constant potentials has no nontrivial solution in \(H:=H^{1}({\mathbb{R}}^{N})\times H ^{1}({\mathbb{R}}^{N})\) by the Pohozaev identity, we assume that \(\lambda _{1}\), \(\lambda _{2}\) are functions dependent on \(x\in {\mathbb{R}}^{N}\). We aim to prove the existence of positive ground states of system (1.1). Furthermore, for the case \(\lambda _{1}(x)=\lambda _{2}(x):=\lambda (x)\), we will introduce an approach which is different with [21, 25, 26] to prove that system (1.1) has a positive ground state of the form \((kw,lw)\), where w is a positive ground state of
For this purpose, we assume that
- \((C1)\):
-
\(\lambda _{i}(x)\ge 0\) for all \(x\in { \mathbb{R}}^{N}\), \(\lambda _{i}(x)\in L^{\infty }({\mathbb{R}}^{N})\) and \(\lim_{|x|\to \infty }\lambda _{i}(x)=1\), \(i=1,2\);
- \((C2)\):
-
\(\liminf_{|x|\to \infty }(1-\lambda _{i}(x))|x|^{2} \ge \frac{N^{2}(N-2)}{4(N+1)}\), \(i=1,2\).
Note that under assumptions \((C1)\) and \((C2)\), the scale equation
has a ground state \(w_{i}\), \(i=1,2\) (see [16, Theorem 3,Theorem 6]). Moreover, we may assume that \(w_{i}\) is positive since \(|w_{i}|\) is also a ground state of (1.9). Clearly, system (1.1) has a trivial solution \((0,0)\) and two semi-trivial solutions \((w_{1},0)\) and \((0,w_{2})\) for all \(\beta \in \mathbb{R}\). Here we deal with the nontrivial solution, that is, a solution \((u,v)\) of (1.1) with \(u\not \equiv 0\) and \(v\not \equiv 0\). Denote \(\int _{{\mathbb{R}}^{N}} \cdot dx\) by ∫⋅ for simplicity, and define the functional \(I: H\mapsto {\mathbb{R}}\) corresponding to system (1.1) by
Set
It is obvious that if \((u,v)\) is a solution of system (1.1), then \((u,v)\in \mathcal{M}\). Define
A solution \((u,v)\) of system (1.1) is called a positive solution if \(u>0\), \(v>0\) and a ground state if \(I(u,v)=\mathcal{B}\). We first show that \(\mathcal{B}\) is attained by some positive ground state of system (1.1) in the case when \(\lambda _{1}(x)=\lambda _{2}(x):=\lambda (x)\).
Theorem 1.1
Assume that \((C1)\) and \((C2)\) hold. If \(\lambda _{1}(x)=\lambda _{2}(x):=\lambda (x)\), then \((t_{m} s_{m}w, t_{m} w)\) is a positive ground state of system (1.1) for all \(\beta >0\), where w is a positive ground state of (1.8), \(t_{m}= (\mu _{2}+\beta s_{m}^{\frac{N+\alpha }{N}} )^{- \frac{N}{2\alpha }}\), and \(s_{m}>0\) is a minimum point of a function \(g(s):{\mathbb{R}}^{+}\mapsto {\mathbb{R}}\) defined by
Remark 1.2
If we apply a method as in the proof of [25, Theorem 1.3] and [26, Theorem 1.3] to our case, we can prove that system (1.1) has a ground state of the form \((kw,lw)\) only if \(\beta \ge \frac{\alpha }{N}\max \{\mu _{1},\mu _{2}\}\). In the current paper, we use an alternative approach inspired by [24], which is based on studying the minimum point of \(g(s)\), and we show that system (1.1) possesses a ground state of this form for all \(\beta >0\).
Remark 1.3
The method we adopted in the proof of Theorem 1.1 is also valid for the upper critical system (1.5). As we mentioned previously, system (1.5) has a ground state of the form \((k w^{*},l w^{*})\) if \(N\ge 5\), \(-\lambda _{1}(\Omega )<\lambda _{1}=\lambda _{2}<0\), and
(see [25, Theorem 1.3] and [26, Theorem 1.3]). However, we can prove that under the same assumptions on \(\lambda _{1}\), \(\lambda _{2}\), N, system (1.5) has a ground state in the same form if
(see Theorem A.1 in Appendix). Although our approach can only deal with the case \(\beta > \max \{\mu _{1},\mu _{2}\}\) for \(\alpha =N-4\), in the case \(\alpha \in (0,N-4)\), the existence of a ground state of \(( k w^{*}, l w^{*})\) type is obtained for all \(\beta >0\).
Next, for any \(\lambda _{1}(x)\), \(\lambda _{2}(x)\) satisfying \((C1)\) and \((C2)\), we have the following result.
Theorem 1.4
Assume that \((C1)\) and \((C2)\) hold. Then system (1.1) has a positive ground state for all \(\beta >0\).
In the proof of Theorem 1.4, we need to give an accurate estimate of the least energy so as to overcome the lack of compactness and show that both components of the solution we obtained are nontrivial. For this purpose, some results of equation (1.9) will be used. Denote the functional associated with (1.9) by
and set
Then, from [16, Theorem 3,Theorem 6] and some calculation, we see that \(B_{i}\) is attained and
where
By [9, Theorem 3.1], \(S_{1}\) has a unique minimizer
We should also study the minimizing problem
where \(L= L^{2}({\mathbb{R}}^{N})\times L^{2}({\mathbb{R}}^{N})\). Problem (1.14) can be seen as an extension of the classical problem (1.12). By a similar approach as in the proof of Theorem 1.1, we obtain the following result.
Theorem 1.5
If \(\beta >0\), then \(S_{0}=g(s_{m})S_{1}\), and \((s_{m}U_{*},U_{*})\) is a solution of (1.14), where \(g(s)\) is defined in (1.10) and \(s_{m}\) is a minimum point of \(g(s)\). If \(\beta <0\), then
and \(S_{0}\) is not attained.
Theorem 1.5 not only plays an important role in the proof of Theorem 1.4, but also extends the classical results of [9, Theorem 3.1].
2 Proof of Theorem 1.1
In order to prove Theorem 1.1, we study the minimizing problem
Up to multiplication by a scalar, we know that a minimizer of A is a ground state of system (1.1) for \(\lambda _{1}(x)=\lambda _{2}(x):=\lambda (x)\). Set
Letting w be a solution of (1.8), we know that \(A_{1}\) is attained by w. By studying a function \(g:{\mathbb{R}}^{+}\mapsto {\mathbb{R}}\) defined by
we are able to obtain the relationship between A and \(A_{1}\) and show that A is attained.
Lemma 2.1
If \(\beta >0\), then there is \(s_{m}>0\) such that \(g(s_{m})=\min_{s\ge 0}g(s)\).
Proof
By simple calculation, we have
Let \(h(s)= \mu _{2}-\mu _{1}s^{\frac{2\alpha }{N}}-\beta s^{ \frac{\alpha -N}{N}}+\beta s^{\frac{N+\alpha }{N}}\). If \(\beta >0\), then \(h(s)\to -\infty \) as \(s\to 0\), and \(h(s)\to +\infty \) as \(s\to +\infty \). Thus, there exists \(s_{m}>0\) such that \(h(s_{m})=0\) and \(g(s_{m})=\min_{s\ge 0}g(s)\). □
Lemma 2.2
Assume that \((C1)\) and \((C2)\) hold. If \(\beta >0\), then \(A=g(s_{m})A_{1}\).
Proof
We follow a similar approach as in [6, Theorem 1.1] and [24, Lemma 2.1] to prove this Lemma. For any \(z\in H^{1}({\mathbb{R}}^{N})\setminus \{0\}\), we set \((u,v):=(s_{m}z,z)\). Then it follows that
which indicates
Let \((u_{n},v_{n})\in H\) be a minimizing sequence of A, and set \(\xi _{n}=\tau _{n}u_{n}\), where
Then we have
From (2.4) and the property of the Riesz potential that \(I_{\alpha }=I_{\frac{\alpha }{2}}*I_{\frac{\alpha }{2}}\), we obtain
Combining (2.3) with (2.6), we conclude that \(A=g(s_{m})A_{1}\). □
Proof of Theorem 1.1
From the proof of Lemma 2.1, we see that there exists \(s_{m}>0\) such that \(h(s_{m})=0\), that is,
From (2.7), we get
Then it follows
which yields
Let \(t_{m}=(1+\beta s_{m}^{\frac{N+\alpha }{N}})^{-\frac{N}{2\alpha }}\), then \(t_{m}(s_{m}w,w)\) is a positive solution of system (1.1). Moreover, by (2.7), (2.8), and Lemma 2.2, we have
On the other hand, \(\forall (u,v)\in \mathcal{M}\), we have
which indicates that \(\mathcal{B}\ge \frac{\alpha }{2(N+\alpha )}A^{ \frac{N+\alpha }{\alpha }}\). Thus, \(\mathcal{B}=\frac{\alpha }{2(N+\alpha )}A^{ \frac{N+\alpha }{\alpha }}=I(t_{m}s_{m}w,t_{m}w)\), that is, \((t_{m}s_{m}w,t_{m}w)\) is a positive ground state of system (1.1). □
3 Proof of Theorem 1.5
In this section, we prove Theorem 1.5, which is essential in the proof of Theorem 1.4. Recalling the definition of \(U_{*}\), we have the following lemma.
Lemma 3.1
If \(\beta >0\), then \(S_{0}=g(s_{m})S_{1}\), and \(S_{0}\) is attained by \((s_{m}U_{*},U_{*})\).
Proof
By a similar approach as that in Lemma 2.2, we see that \(S_{0}=g(s_{m})S_{1}\). Then the conclusion follows from
 □
Lemma 3.2
If \(\beta <0\), then \(S_{0}= (\mu _{1}^{-\frac{N}{\alpha }}+\mu _{2}^{-\frac{N}{\alpha }})^{ \frac{\alpha }{N+\alpha }} S_{1}\), and \(S_{0}\) is not attained.
Proof
Denote \((u_{0},v_{y}):=(\mu _{1}^{-\frac{N}{2\alpha }}U_{*}(x),\mu _{2}^{- \frac{N}{2\alpha }}U_{*}(x+e_{1}y))\), where \(e=(1,0,\ldots,0)\in {\mathbb{R}}^{N}\). Then \(v_{y}^{\frac{N+\alpha }{N}}\rightharpoonup 0 \) in \(L^{\frac{2N}{N+\alpha }}({\mathbb{R}}^{N})\) as \(y\to +\infty \). Taking account of the fact that \(I_{\alpha }*|u_{0}|^{\frac{N+\alpha }{N}}\in L^{\frac{2N}{N-\alpha }}({ \mathbb{R}}^{N})\), we have
Then, for \(|y|\) sufficiently large,
By letting \(y\to +\infty \), we get
On the other hand, since \(\beta <0\), we know that
Therefore,
If \(S_{0}\) is attained by \((u,v)\) with \(u\not \equiv 0\), \(v\not \equiv 0\), then
which contradicts (3.1). Thus, the conclusion holds. □
Proof of Theorem 1.5
4 Proof of Theorem 1.4
In this section, we define
where
Set
By simple calculation and analysis, we see that for any \((u,v)\ne (0,0)\), there exists \(t_{0}>0\) such that \(t_{0}(u,v)\in \mathcal{N}\) and \(I(t_{0}u,t_{0}v)=\max_{t\ge 0}I(tu,tv)\). Then, as in the proof of [23, Theorem 4.2], we know that
Moreover, since \({\mathcal{M}}\subset {\mathcal{N}}\), we have \(B\le \mathcal{B}\). We will show that B is attained by some positive solution \((u,v)\) of system (1.1). To begin with, we give an estimate of the upper bound of B, which is important in recovering the compactness of the Palais–Smale sequence.
Lemma 4.1
Assume that \((C1)\) and \((C2)\) hold. If \(\beta >0\), then
Proof
We first show that
Recall \((s_{m}U_{*}, U_{*})\) defined in Theorem 1.5, and let \(t>0\) be the constant such that \(t(s_{m}U_{*}, U_{*})\in \mathcal{N}\). Then, by Theorem 1.5 and direct calculation, we see that
Denote \(\phi _{i}(u)=\frac{1}{2}\int |\nabla u|^{2}+(\lambda _{i}(x)-1)u^{2}\), \(i=1,2 \). To get (4.1), it suffices to show
for some \(b\in {\mathbb{R}}^{N}\). By the fact that
we obtain
After a transformation \(x=b+a y\), we have
Then from \((C2)\) we see that (4.2) holds for \(b=0\), and (4.1) follows.
Next, we show \(B< B_{i}\), \(i=1,2\). Let \(w_{i}\) be a positive solution of (1.9) for \(i=1, 2\) and \(t(\tau )>0\) such that \((\sqrt{t(\tau )}w_{1},\sqrt{t(\tau )}\tau w_{1})\in \mathcal{N}\). Then
By simple calculation, we get
It follows that
and
Therefore,
Similarly, we have \(B< B_{2}\). □
Next, we prove a Brezis–Lieb type lemma.
Lemma 4.2
Let \(\{(u_{n},v_{n})\}\) be a bounded sequence in H, and \((u_{n},v_{n})\to (u,v)\) a.e on \({\mathbb{R}}^{N}\) as \(n\to \infty \). Then
as \(n\to \infty \).
Proof
From the Brezis–Lieb lemma [23], we know that
as \(n\to \infty \). Then, according to the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality, we have
as \(n\to \infty \). Observing that
and
we see that the conclusion holds. □
Proof of Theorem 1.4
According to the mountain pass theorem [23], we obtain that there is \(\{(u_{n},v_{n})\}\subset \mathcal{N}\) satisfying
It follows that
for n large enough, which combined with assumption \((C1)\) implies that \(\{(u_{n},v_{n})\}\) is bounded in H. Then we may assume that
Since \(|u_{n}|^{\frac{N+\alpha }{N}}\) and \(|v_{n}|^{\frac{N+\alpha }{N}}\) are bounded in \(L^{\frac{2N}{N+\alpha }}({\mathbb{R}}^{N})\), we have
Using the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality, we obtain
Observing that
we have, for any \(\phi \in C_{0}^{\infty }({\mathbb{R}}^{N})\),
as \(n\to \infty \). Taking account of \(I'(u_{n},v_{n})\to 0\), (4.4), and the fact that \(C_{0}^{\infty }({\mathbb{R}}^{N})\) is dense in \(H^{1}({\mathbb{R}}^{N})\), we have \(I'(u,v)=0\). Denote \(z_{n}=u_{n}-u\), \(\omega _{n}=v_{n}-v\), then \((z_{n},\omega _{n})\rightharpoonup (0,0)\) in H, \((z_{n},\omega _{n})\to (0,0)\) in \(L_{loc}^{2}({\mathbb{R}}^{N})\times L_{loc}^{2}({\mathbb{R}}^{N})\), and \((z_{n},\omega _{n})\to (0,0)\) a.e on \({\mathbb{R}}^{N}\). By \((C1)\), there exists \(R>0\) sufficiently large such that
Denote
Combining (4.5) with Lemma 4.2, we have, for n large enough,
and
Set
Then it follows
We will show that \(u\not \equiv 0\), \(v\not \equiv 0\) by excluding the following three cases:
(i) \((u,v)\equiv (0,0)\). By (4.8), we know that
Denote
If \(E_{n}\to 0\), then \(\int (I_{\alpha }*|w_{n}|^{\frac{N+\alpha }{N}})|z_{n}|^{ \frac{N+\alpha }{N}}\to 0\). So we have
which implies
Then, by (4.8) and (1.11), we obtain
which contradicts Lemma 4.1. Similarly, \(F_{n}\to 0\) also leads to a contradiction. Thus, \(E_{n}\ge \delta \) and \(F_{n}\ge \delta \) for some \(\delta >0\) and n large enough. Then there exists \(t_{n}>0\) such that
and
where the last inequality follows by Theorem 1.5. Moreover, by (4.6), we have \(t_{n}\to 1\). Then we have
which also contradicts Lemma 4.1.
(ii) \(u\equiv 0\), \(v\not \equiv 0\). In this case, it is clear that v is a solution of (1.9) for \(i=2\). Then, by (4.7), we have \(B\ge I(0,v)\ge B_{2}\), which contradicts Lemma 4.1.
(iii) \(v\equiv 0\), \(u\not \equiv 0\). By similar arguments as in case (ii), we see that \(B\ge B_{1}\), which also contradicts Lemma 4.1.
Thus, we have proved that \(u\not \equiv 0\), \(v\not \equiv 0\), and \(I'(u,v)=0\). Then \(I(u,v)\ge B\), which combining with (4.7), (4.8) indicates \(I(u,v)=B\). Hence, \((u,v)\) is a ground state of system (1.1). Moreover, since \(I(|u|,|v|)=B\) and \((|u|,|v|)\in \mathcal{N}\), we know that \((|u|,|v|)\) is also a ground state of (1.1). By the strong maximum principle, we have \(|u|>0\), \(|v|>0\). Thus, system (1.1) has a positive ground state \((|u|,|v|)\). □
Remark 4.3
Let \((u,v)\) be a solution obtained in Theorem 1.4. Then it is obvious that \((u,v)\in \mathcal{M}\). Moreover, since \(\mathcal{M}\in \mathcal{N}\), we have
which implies that \(B=\mathcal{B}\).
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
References
Alves, C.O., Gao, F., Squassina, M., Yang, M.: Singularly perturbed critical Choquard equations. J. Differ. Equ. 263, 3943–3988 (2017)
Fröhlich, H.: Electrons in lattice fields. Adv. Phys. 3(11), 325–361 (1954)
Gao, F., Yang, M.: On nonlocal Choquard equations with Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev critical exponents. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 448, 1006–1041 (2017)
Gao, F., Yang, M.: The Brezis-Nirenberg type critical problem for the nonlinear Choquard equation. Sci. China Math. 61, 1219–1242 (2018)
Gui, C., Guo, H.: On nodal solutions of the nonlinear Choquard equation. Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 19(4), 677–691 (2019)
Huang, Y., Kang, D.: On the singular elliptic systems involving multiple critical Sobolev exponents. Nonlinear Anal. 74, 400–412 (2011)
Li, X., Ma, S.: Ground states for Choquard equations with doubly critical exponents. Rocky Mt. J. Math. 49(1), 153–170 (2019)
Lieb, E.H.: Existence and uniqueness of the minimizing solution of Choquard’s nonlinear equation. Stud. Appl. Math. 57, 93–105 (1977)
Lieb, E.H.: Sharp constants in the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev and related inequalities. Ann. Math. 118(2), 349–374 (1983)
Lieb, E.H., Simon, B.: The Hartree-Fock theory for Coulomb systems. Commun. Math. Phys. 53, 185–194 (1977)
Lions, P.L.: The Choquard equation and related questions. Nonlinear Anal. 4(6), 1063–1072 (1980)
Lions, P.L.: Solutions of Hartree-Fock equations for Coulomb systems. Commun. Math. Phys. 109, 33–97 (1987)
Mitchell, M., Chen, Z.G., Shih, M.F., Segev, M.: Self-trapping of partially spatially incoherent light. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 490–493 (1996)
Mitchell, M., Segev, M.: Self-trapping of incoherent white light. Nature 387, 880–883 (1997)
Moroz, V., Van Schaftingen, J.: Groundstates of nonlinear Choquard equations: existence, qualitative properties and decay asymptotics. J. Funct. Anal. 265(2), 153–184 (2013)
Moroz, V., Van Schaftingen, J.: Groundstates of nonlinear Choquard equations: Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev critical exponent. Commun. Contemp. Math. 17, 1550005 (2015)
Moroz, V., Van Schaftingen, J.: A guide to the Choquard equation. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 19(1), 773–813 (2017)
Pekar, S.I.: Untersuchungen über die Elektronentheorie der Kristalle. Akademie Verlag, Berlin (1954)
Penrose, R.: On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 28(5), 581–600 (1996)
Wang, J., Dong, Y., He, Q., Xiao, L.: Multiple positive solutions for a coupled nonlinear Hartree type equations with perturbations. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 450, 780–794 (2017)
Wang, J., Shi, J.P.: Standing waves for a coupled nonlinear Hartree equations with nonlocal interaction. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 56, 168 (2017)
Wang, J., Yang, W.: Normalized solutions and asymptotical behavior of minimizer for the coupled Hartree equations. J. Differ. Equ. 265, 501–544 (2018)
Willem, M.: Minimax Theorems. Birkhäuser, Boston (1996)
Ye, H., Peng, Y.: Positive least energy solutions for a coupled Schrödinger system with critical exponent. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 417, 308–326 (2014)
You, S., Wang, Q., Zhao, P.: Positive least energy solutions for coupled nonlinear Choquard equations with Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev critical exponent. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 53(2), 623–657 (2019)
You, S., Zhao, P., Wang, Q.: Positive ground states for coupled nonlinear Choquard equations involving Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev critical exponent. Nonlinear Anal., Real World Appl. 48, 182–211 (2019)
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
This research is supported by the Scientific Research Foundation of Minjiang University (No. mjy18014, No. myk19020) and the Foundation of Educational Department of Fujian Province (No. JAT190614).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
HW completed this study and wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares that they have no competing interests.
Appendix
Appendix
Theorem A.1
Assume that \(N\ge 5\) and \(-\lambda _{1}(\Omega )<\lambda _{1}=\lambda _{2}<0\). If
Then system (1.5) has a positive ground state \(\zeta _{m}(s_{m}^{*}w^{*},w^{*})\), where \(\zeta _{m}=(\mu _{2}+\beta {s_{m}^{*}}^{\frac{N+\alpha }{N-2}})^{- \frac{N-2}{2(\alpha +2)}}\), \(s_{m}^{*}\) is a minimum point of a function \(l(s):{\mathbb{R}}^{+}\mapsto {\mathbb{R}}\) defined by
and \(w^{*}\) is a positive ground state of (1.6).
In order to prove Theorem A.1, we define the functional associated with (1.5) by
Set \(H^{*}=H_{0}^{1}(\Omega )\times H_{0}^{1}(\Omega )\) and
and \(\mathcal{B}^{*}=\inf_{\mathcal{M}^{*}}E(u,v)\). Set
and
By studying the minimum point of \(l(s)\) and analyzing as in the proof of Lemma 2.2, we have the following.
Lemma A.2
Assume that \(N\ge 5\) and
Then \(A^{*}_{0}=l(s_{m}^{*})A_{1}^{*}\), where \(s_{m}^{*}\) is a minimum point of \(l(s)\).
Proof
By some calculation, we have
Denote
If \(N\ge 5\), \(\alpha \in (0,N-4)\), then \(p(s)\to -\infty \) as \(s\to 0\), and \(p(s)\to +\infty \) as \(s\to +\infty \). So there exists \(s_{min}^{*}>0\) such that \(p(s_{min}^{*})=0\) and \(l(s_{min}^{*})=\min_{s\ge 0}l(s)\). If \(N\ge 5\), \(\alpha =N-4\), and \(\beta >\max \{\mu _{1},\mu _{2}\}\), it is clear that \(p(s)\) has a zero point \(s_{min}^{*}>0\) such that \(l(s_{min}^{*})=\min_{s\ge 0}l(s)\). Then, by a similar argument as in the proof of Lemma 2.2, we see that
 □
Proof of Theorem A.1
From Lemma A.2, we know that \(p(s_{m}^{*})=0\). Then it follows that
By the definition of \(l(s)\), we have
Let \(\zeta _{m}=(\mu _{2}+\beta {s_{m}^{*}}^{\frac{N+\alpha }{N-2}})^{- \frac{N-2}{2(\alpha +2)}}\), then \(\zeta _{m}(s_{m}^{*}w^{*},w^{*})\) is a positive solution of system (1.5). Moreover, by Lemma A.2 and direct calculation, we have
On the other hand, for any \((u,v)\in \mathcal{M}^{*}\), by Lemma A.2 again, we have
Thus, \(\zeta _{m}(s_{m}^{*}w^{*},w^{*})\) is a positive ground state of (1.5). □
Remark A.3
For the case \(N\ge 5\), \(\alpha =N-4\), and \(0<\beta <\min \{\mu _{1},\mu _{2}\}\), we see from the proof of Lemma A.2 that there exists \(s_{0}\) such that \(p(s_{0})=0\). Then, arguing as in the proof of Theorem A.1, we see that (1.5) has a positive solution \(\zeta _{0}(s_{0}w^{*},w^{*})\), where \(\zeta _{0}=(\mu _{2}+\beta {s_{0}}^{\frac{N+\alpha }{N-2}})^{- \frac{N-2}{2(\alpha +2)}}\). However, by our method, we do not know whether this solution is a ground state or not.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Wu, H. Positive ground states for nonlinearly coupled Choquard type equations with lower critical exponents. Bound Value Probl 2021, 13 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13661-021-01491-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13661-021-01491-z