Skip to main content

A new existence result for some nonlocal problems involving Orlicz spaces and its applications


This paper studies some quasilinear elliptic nonlocal equations involving Orlicz–Sobolev spaces. On the one hand, a new sub-supersolution theorem is proved via the pseudomonotone operator theory; on the other hand, using the obtained theorem, we present an existence result on the positive solutions of a singular elliptic nonlocal equation. Our work improves the results of some previous researches.


This paper is concerned with the problem

$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} -\Delta _{\Phi}u=h_{1}(u) \Vert u \Vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{\alpha}+h_{2}(u) \Vert u \Vert _{L^{ \Lambda}}^{\gamma}, \quad x\in \Omega , \\ u=0, \quad x\in \partial \Omega , \end{cases} $$

where α, γ are positive constants, \(\|\cdot \|_{L^{\Psi}}\) (resp. \(\|\cdot \|_{L^{\Lambda}}\)) is a norm in \(L^{\Psi}(\Omega )\) (resp. \(L^{\Lambda}(\Omega )\)) and the nonlinearities \(h_{1}\), \(h_{2}\): \([0, +\infty )\to [0, +\infty )\) are continuous functions, Ω R N (\(N\ge 3\)) is bounded with \(\partial \Omega \in C^{2}\), \(\Delta _{\Phi}u= \mathrm{div}(\rho (|\nabla u|)\nabla u)\), where

$$ \begin{aligned} \Phi (t):= \int _{0}^{|t|}\rho (s)s\,ds. \end{aligned} $$

Here \(\rho \in C^{1}: [0, +\infty )\to [0, +\infty )\) and it satisfies (see [10])

\((\rho _{1})\):

\(t\rho(t)\) is differentiable for \(\forall t>0\),

\((\rho _{2})\):

\(\lim_{t\to 0^{+}}t\rho (t)=0\), \(\lim_{t\to +\infty}t \rho (t)=+\infty \),

and that there exist \(\kappa , s\in (1,N)\) such that

\((\rho _{3})\):

\(\kappa -1\le \frac{(\rho (t)t)'}{\rho (t)}\le s-1\), \(\forall t>0\).

Note that \((\rho _{3})\) implies that

\((\rho _{3})'\):

\(\kappa \le \frac{\rho (t)t^{2}}{\Phi (t)}\le s\), \(\forall t>0\).

Problem (1.1) was proposed in [10] and generalizes some problems in [3, 5, 6, 8, 1720]. As the authors of [10] pointed out, there are some difficulties to study problem (1.1): (1) variational methods cannot be used directly because of the nonlocal terms; (2) the presence of the concave–convex nonlinearities leads to invalidness of the Galerkin method; (3) there is no ready-made sub-supersolutions method as in [2] and [7] because of the Φ-Laplacian operator. In [10], for the first time, using monotone iterative technique, Figueiredo et al. obtained the sub-supersolution theorem for problem (1.1) in which they needed an important condition that \(h_{1}\), \(h_{2}\): [0,+)R are nondecreasing. As its application, the authors discussed the following problem:

$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} -\Delta _{\Phi}u=u^{\beta} \Vert u \Vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{\alpha}, \quad x\in \Omega , \\ u=0, \quad x\in \partial \Omega . \end{cases} $$

with the assumption that α, \(\beta \ge 0\) with \(0<\alpha +\beta <\kappa -1\), and got the existence of a positive solution.

Another interesting work appeared in [9], in which Dos Santos et al. studied the problem as follows:

$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} -A(x, \Vert u \Vert _{L^{r(x)}})\Delta _{p_{1}(x)}u=h_{1}(u,x) \Vert u \Vert _{L^{q(x)}}^{ \alpha _{1}(x)}+h_{2}(u,x) \Vert u \Vert _{L^{s(x)}}^{\gamma _{1}(x)}, \quad x \in \Omega , \\ u=0, \quad x\in \partial \Omega . \end{cases} $$

Note that \(h_{1}\) and \(h_{2}\) are not nondecreasing in this paper.

Motivated by [10] and [9], we try to present the sub-supersolution approach for problem (1.1) without the assumptions that \(h_{1}\) and \(h_{2}\) are nondecreasing.

Our paper is divided into four sections. In Sect. 2, some needed properties of Orlicz spaces and the main results are listed. In Sect. 3, we prove a new sub-supersolution theorem for problem (1.1) via the pseudomonotone operator theory and, using obtained theorem, we present a new existence result on positive solutions of problem (1.3) when \(\alpha \ge 0\), \(-1<\beta <0\), with \(0<\alpha <\kappa -1\). Our work complements the conclusions in [10] and [9]: (1) we obtain the existence of a nontrivial solution of problem (1.1) when \(h_{1}\) and \(h_{2}\) have no monotonicity; (2) problem (1.3) is studied when \(\beta \in (-1,0)\).

Preliminaries and main results

Now we shall list some main definitions, properties, and conclusions in the setting of Orlicz–Sobolev spaces. For more information, please refer to the literature [1, 4, 13, 15, 16, 22].

In (1.1), because of the existence of assumption \((\rho _{3})'\), it is easily to see that the \(\Delta _{2}\) condition is true for \(\Phi (t)\) (see [10]).

Lemma 2.1

The function Φ is nondecreasing on \([0, +\infty )\).


Obviously, it is enough to prove that for any \(0<\omega _{1}<\omega _{2}\), we always have the result \(\Phi (\omega _{1})\le \Phi (\omega _{2})\). Since Φ is convex from the definition of an N-function, we have

$$ \frac{\Phi (\omega _{1})-\Phi (0)}{\omega _{1}-0}\le \frac{\Phi (\omega _{2})-\Phi (\omega _{1})}{\omega _{2}-\omega _{1}}, $$

that is,

$$ \begin{aligned} \frac{\Phi (\omega _{1})-0}{\omega _{1}-0}\le \frac{\Phi (\omega _{2})-\Phi (\omega _{1})}{\omega _{2}-\omega _{1}}. \end{aligned} $$

Then we have \(\Phi (\omega _{2})-\Phi (\omega _{1})\ge 0\), that is, \(\Phi (\omega _{2})\ge \Phi (\omega _{1})\). Therefore, the function Φ is nondecreasing on \([0, +\infty )\). □

Definition 2.2

If a positive function \(\overline{w}^{*}\) with \(\overline{w}^{*}\in W^{1,\Phi}(\Omega )\cap L^{\infty}(\Omega )\) satisfies

$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} -\Delta _{\Phi}\overline{w}^{*} \ge h_{1}(\overline{w}^{*})J_{1}( \overline{w}^{*})+h_{2}(\overline{w}^{*})J_{2}(\overline{w}^{*}), \quad x\in \Omega , \\ \overline{w}^{*}\ge 0, \quad x\in \partial \Omega , \end{cases} $$

then \(\overline{w}^{*}(x)\) is called a supersolution of problem (1.1).

If a positive function \(\underline{w}_{*}\) with \(\underline{w}_{*}\in W^{1,\Phi}(\Omega )\cap L^{\infty}(\Omega )\) satisfies

$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} -\Delta _{\Phi}\underline{w}_{*}\le h_{1}(\underline{w}_{*})J_{1}( \underline{w}_{*})+h_{2}(\underline{w}_{*})J_{2}(\underline{w}_{*}), \quad x\in \Omega , \\ \underline{w}_{*}\leq 0, \quad x\in \partial \Omega , \end{cases} $$

then \(\underline{w}_{*}(x)\) is called a subsolution of problem (1.1).

For more information on \(L^{\Phi}(\Omega )\) and its norm, please refer to the literature [10]. Let

$$\begin{aligned}& \zeta (u,x):=\max \bigl\{ \underline{w}_{*}(x), \min \bigl\{ u, \overline{w}^{*}(x) \bigr\} \bigr\} , \\& \nu \in (0,1), \quad \gamma (t,x):=-(\underline{w}_{*}-t)_{+}^{\nu}+ \bigl(t- \overline{w}^{*}\bigr)_{+}^{\nu}, \\& J_{1}(u):= \bigl\Vert \zeta (u,x) \bigr\Vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{\alpha}={ \inf}^{\alpha} \biggl\{ \varsigma >0: \int _{\Omega}\Psi \biggl(\frac{ \vert \zeta (u,x) \vert }{\varsigma}\biggr) \le 1 \biggr\} , \\& J_{2}(u):= \bigl\Vert \zeta (u,x) \bigr\Vert _{L^{\Lambda}}^{\gamma}={ \inf}^{\gamma} \biggl\{ \varsigma >0: \int _{\Omega}\Lambda \biggl( \frac{ \vert \zeta (u,x) \vert }{\varsigma}\biggr)\le 1 \biggr\} . \end{aligned}$$

In addition, Ψ and Λ are N-functions satisfying the \(\Delta _{2}\) condition, and they are also nondecreasing on \([0, +\infty )\).

For an N-function Φ, the corresponding Orlicz–Sobolev space is defined as the Banach space

$$ W^{1, \Phi}(\Omega ):= \biggl\{ v\in L^{\Phi}(\Omega )\Bigm| \frac{\partial v}{\partial x_{i}}\in L^{\Phi}(\Omega )\text{ for } i=1, \dots , N \biggr\} $$

endowed with the norm

$$ \Vert v \Vert _{1, \Phi}= \Vert \nabla v \Vert _{L^{\Phi}}+ \Vert v \Vert _{L^{\Phi}}. $$


$$ W_{0}^{1, \Phi}(\Omega ):= \biggl\{ v\in L^{\Phi}(\Omega )\Bigm| \frac{\partial v}{\partial x_{i}}\in L^{\Phi}(\Omega )\text{ for } i=1, \dots , N \text{ and } v=0, x\in \partial \Omega \biggr\} . $$

For their properties, one can refer to the literature [10].

Lemma 2.3


Let Φ be an N-function defined in (1.2) and satisfying \((\rho _{1})\), \((\rho _{2})\), and \((\rho _{3})\). Denote

$$ \xi _{0}(t)=\min \bigl\{ t^{\kappa}, t^{s}\bigr\} $$


$$ \xi _{1}(t)=\max \bigl\{ t^{\kappa}, t^{s}\bigr\} ,\quad t \ge 0, $$


$$\begin{aligned} &\xi _{0}(t)\Phi (\varrho )\le \Phi (\varrho t)\le \xi _{1}(t)\Phi ( \varrho ),\quad \varrho , t>0, \\ &\xi _{0}\bigl( \Vert u \Vert _{L^{\Phi}}\bigr)\le \int _{\Omega}\Phi (u)\le \xi _{1}\bigl( \Vert u \Vert _{L^{ \Phi}}\bigr),\quad u\in L^{\Phi}(\Omega ). \end{aligned}$$

Lemma 2.4


Let \(\lambda >0\), let Φ be given by (1.2), and suppose Ω R N is an admissible domain. Consider the problem

$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} -\Delta _{\Phi}z_{\lambda}=\lambda , \quad x\in \Omega , \\ z_{\lambda}=0, \quad x\in \partial \Omega . \end{cases} $$

where \(z_{\lambda}\) is the unique solution. Define

$$ \rho _{0}=\frac{1}{2 \vert \Omega \vert ^{\frac{1}{N}}C_{0}}.$$

If \(\lambda \ge \rho _{0}\), then

$$ \vert z_{\lambda} \vert _{L^{\infty}}\le C^{*}\lambda ^{\frac{1}{\kappa -1}},$$


$$ \vert z_{\lambda} \vert _{L^{\infty}}\le C_{*}\lambda ^{\frac{1}{s-1}}$$

if \(\lambda <\rho _{0}\). Here \(C^{*}>0\) and \(C_{*}>0\) depend on n, s, N, and Ω.

For \(z_{\lambda}\) which is defined in Lemma 2.4, it follows that \(z_{\lambda}\in C^{1}(\overline{\Omega})\) with \(z_{\lambda}>0\) in Ω.

Lemma 2.5


There is a \(k_{0}>0\) satisfying

$$ \bigl(\rho \bigl( \vert \zeta \vert \bigr)\zeta -\rho \bigl( \vert \epsilon \vert \bigr)\epsilon \bigr)\cdot (\zeta - \epsilon )\ge k_{0} \frac{\Phi ( \vert \zeta -\epsilon \vert )^{\frac{\kappa +1}{\kappa}}}{(\Phi ( \vert \zeta \vert )+\Phi ( \vert \epsilon \vert ))^{\frac{1}{\kappa}}} $$

for ζ,ϵ R N , \(\zeta \neq 0\).

Theorem 2.6

If the functions h 1 , h 2 :[0,+)R are continuous and nonnegative, \(\alpha , \gamma \ge 0\), \(\overline{w}^{*}\) is a supersolution and \(\underline{w}_{*}\) is a subsolution with \(0<\underline{w}_{*}\leq \overline{w}^{*}\), problem (1.1) possesses a nontrivial solution u with \(\underline{w}_{*}\le u\le \overline{w}^{*}\).

Theorem 2.7

Suppose that \(0<\alpha <\kappa -1\) and \(-1<\beta <0\), where κ is given in \((\rho _{3})\). Then equation (1.3) has a positive solution.

Proofs of the main results

Proof of Theorem 2.6

We consider

$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} -\Delta _{\Phi}u= H(u, x, h_{1}(\zeta (u,x)), h_{2}(\zeta (u,x))), \quad x\in \Omega , \\ u=0, \quad x\in \partial \Omega , \end{cases} $$


$$ H(u, x, s, t)= J_{1}(u)s+ J_{2}(u)t-\gamma (u,x). $$

We have the following claims:

Claim 1. Problem (3.1) has a solution in \(W^{1,\Phi}_{0}(\Omega )\cap L^{\infty}(\Omega )\).

Define \(B:W_{0}^{1, \Phi}(\Omega ): \to W^{-1, \Phi}(\Omega )\) as

$$ \begin{aligned} \bigl(B(u), w\bigr)&= \int _{\Omega}-\Delta _{\Phi}uw- \int _{\Omega}\bigl[h_{1}\bigl(\zeta (u,x) \bigr)J_{1}(u)+h_{2}\bigl(\zeta (u,x)\bigr)J_{2}(u) - \gamma (u,x)\bigr]w \\ &= \int _{\Omega}\rho \bigl( \vert \nabla u \vert \bigr) (\nabla u \cdot \nabla w)- \int _{\Omega}\bigl[h_{1}\bigl(\zeta (u,x) \bigr)J_{1}(u)+h_{2}\bigl(\zeta (u,x)\bigr)J_{2}(u) \\ &\quad {}-\gamma (u,x)\bigr]w,\quad \forall u, w\in W_{0}^{1, \Phi}( \Omega ), \end{aligned} $$

where ρ satisfies \((\rho _{1})\), \((\rho _{2})\), and \((\rho _{3})\).

First, we want to show that B is continuous, bounded, and coercive.

It is easy to see that the conditions on ρ and the continuity of \(h_{1}\) and \(h_{2}\) guarantees that B is bounded and continuous.

According to \((\rho _{3})'\), there exist \(\kappa , s\in (1,N)\) such that

$$ \kappa \le \frac{\rho (t)t^{2}}{\Phi (t)}\le s,\quad \forall t>0, $$

which implies that

$$ \begin{aligned} \frac{(B(u), u)}{ \Vert u \Vert _{1, \Phi}}&= \frac{\int _{\Omega}\rho ( \vert \nabla u \vert ) \vert \nabla u \vert ^{2}-\int _{\Omega}[h_{1}(\zeta (u,x))J_{1}(u)+h_{2}(\zeta (u,x))J_{2}(u)-\gamma (u,x)]u}{ \Vert u \Vert _{1, \Phi}} \\ &\ge \frac{\kappa \int _{\Omega}\Phi ( \vert \nabla u \vert )-\int _{\Omega}[h_{1}(\zeta (u,x))J_{1}(u)+h_{2}(\zeta (u,x))J_{2}(u)-\gamma (u,x)]u}{ \Vert u \Vert _{1, \Phi}}. \end{aligned} $$

From the Lemma 2.3 and Lemma 2.1 in [12], we have

$$ \min \bigl\{ \Vert \nabla u \Vert _{L^{\Phi}}^{\kappa}, \Vert \nabla u \Vert _{L^{\Phi}}^{s} \bigr\} =\xi _{0}\bigl( \Vert \nabla u \Vert _{L^{\Phi}}\bigr)\le \int _{\Omega}\Phi \bigl( \vert \nabla u \vert \bigr) $$


$$ \int _{\Omega}\Phi \bigl( \vert \nabla u \vert \bigr)\ge \int _{\Omega}\Phi \biggl(\frac{ \vert u \vert }{d}\biggr), $$

then we deduce

$$ \begin{aligned} \frac{(B(u), u)}{ \Vert u \Vert _{1, \Phi}}&\ge \frac{\frac{\kappa}{2}\min \{ \Vert \nabla u \Vert _{L^{\Phi}}^{\kappa}, \Vert \nabla u \Vert _{L^{\Phi}}^{s}\}+\frac{\kappa}{2}\min \{ \Vert \frac{u}{d} \Vert _{L^{\Phi}}^{\kappa}, \Vert \frac{u}{d} \Vert _{L^{\Phi}}^{s}\}}{ \Vert u \Vert _{1, \Phi}} \\ &\quad {}- \frac{\int _{\Omega}[h_{1}(\zeta (u,x))J_{1}(u)+h_{2}(\zeta (u,x))J_{2}(u)-\gamma (u,x)]u}{ \Vert u \Vert _{1, \Phi}}. \end{aligned} $$

It follows that

$$ \begin{aligned} \frac{\kappa \int _{\Omega}\Phi ( \vert \nabla u \vert )}{ \Vert u \Vert _{1, \Phi}} &= \frac{\kappa \int _{\Omega}\Phi ( \vert \nabla u \vert )}{ \vert \nabla u \vert _{L^{\Phi}}+ \vert u \vert _{L^{\Phi}}} \\ &\ge \frac{\frac{\kappa}{2}\min \{ \Vert \nabla u \Vert _{L^{\Phi}}^{\kappa}, \Vert \nabla u \Vert _{L^{\Phi}}^{s}\}+\frac{\kappa}{2}\min \{ \Vert \frac{u}{d} \Vert _{L^{\Phi}}^{\kappa}, \Vert \frac{u}{d} \Vert _{L^{\Phi}}^{s}\}}{ \vert \nabla u \vert _{L^{\Phi}}+ \vert u \vert _{L^{\Phi}}} \\ &=\frac{\kappa}{2} \frac{\min \{ \Vert \nabla u \Vert _{L^{\Phi}}^{\kappa}, \Vert \nabla u \Vert _{L^{\Phi}}^{s}\}+\min \{ \Vert \frac{u}{d} \Vert _{L^{\Phi}}^{\kappa}, \Vert \frac{u}{d} \Vert _{L^{\Phi}}^{s}\}}{ \vert \nabla u \vert _{L^{\Phi}}+ \vert u \vert _{L^{\Phi}}} \to \infty \end{aligned} $$

if \(\|u\|_{1, \Phi}\to \infty \). Then we have

$$ \begin{aligned} \frac{(B(u), u)}{ \Vert u \Vert _{1, \Phi}}\to \infty \quad \bigl( \Vert u \Vert _{1, \Phi}\to \infty \bigr). \end{aligned} $$

Hence we can conclude that the operator B is coercive.

In the end, we will prove that operator B is pseudomonotone, i.e., if

$$ u_{n}\rightharpoonup u \quad \text{in } W_{0}^{1,\Phi}( \Omega )\cap L^{ \infty}(\Omega )$$


$$ \lim_{n\to \infty}\sup \bigl(B(u_{n}), (u_{n}-u) \bigr)\le 0,$$


$$ \lim_{n\to \infty}\inf \bigl(B(u_{n}), (u_{n}-w)\bigr)\ge \bigl(B(u), (u-w)\bigr), \quad \forall w\text{ in } W_{0}^{1,\Phi}(\Omega )\cap L^{\infty}( \Omega ). $$


$$ \int _{\Omega}\bigl[h_{1}\bigl(\zeta (u_{n},x)\bigr)J_{1}(u_{n})+g\bigl(\zeta (u_{n},x)\bigr)J_{2}(u_{n})- \gamma (u_{n},x)\bigr](u_{n}-u)\to 0 $$


$$ \limsup_{n\to \infty}\bigl(B(u_{n}), (u_{n}-u) \bigr)\le 0, $$

we obtain

$$ \limsup_{n\to \infty} \int _{\Omega}\rho \bigl( \vert \nabla u_{n} \vert \bigr) \bigl( \nabla u_{n}\cdot \nabla (u_{n}-u)\bigr)\le 0. $$

From Lemma 3.1 in [12], we infer

$$ \begin{aligned} \bigl\Vert \nabla (u_{n}-u) \bigr\Vert _{L^{\Phi}}\le \int _{\Omega}\Phi \bigl( \bigl\vert \nabla (u_{n}-u) \bigr\vert \bigr). \end{aligned} $$

From Lemma 2.5, we can obtain a \(k_{0}>0\) such that

$$ \begin{aligned} &\Phi \bigl( \bigl\vert \nabla (u_{n}-u) \bigr\vert \bigr) \\ &\quad\le \frac{[\Phi ( \vert \nabla u_{n} \vert )+\Phi ( \vert \nabla u \vert )]^{\frac{1}{\kappa +1}}}{k_{0}^{\frac{\kappa}{\kappa +1}}} \\ &\quad\quad {}\times \bigl[\rho \bigl( \vert \nabla u_{n} \vert \bigr) \bigl(\nabla u_{n}\cdot \nabla (u_{n}-u)\bigr)- \rho \bigl( \vert \nabla u \vert \bigr) \bigl(\nabla u\cdot \nabla (u_{n}-u) \bigr)\bigr]^{ \frac{\kappa}{\kappa +1}}, \end{aligned} $$

that is,

$$ \begin{aligned} & \int _{\Omega}\Phi \bigl( \bigl\vert \nabla (u_{n}-u) \bigr\vert \bigr) \\ &\quad\le \int _{\Omega} \biggl\{ \frac{[\Phi ( \vert \nabla u_{n} \vert )+\Phi ( \vert \nabla u \vert )]^{\frac{1}{\kappa +1}}}{k_{0}^{\frac{\kappa}{\kappa +1}}} \\ &\quad \quad {}\times \bigl[\rho \bigl( \vert \nabla u_{n} \vert \bigr) \bigl( \nabla u_{n}\cdot \nabla (u_{n}-u)\bigr)- \rho \bigl( \vert \nabla u \vert \bigr) \bigl(\nabla u\cdot \nabla (u_{n}-u) \bigr)\bigr]^{ \frac{\kappa}{\kappa +1}} \biggr\} \\ &\quad\le \biggl\{ \int _{\Omega} \biggl[ \frac{[\Phi ( \vert \nabla u_{n} \vert )+\Phi ( \vert \nabla u \vert )]^{\frac{1}{\kappa +1}}}{k_{0}^{\frac{\kappa}{\kappa +1}}} \biggr]^{\kappa +1} \biggr\} ^{\frac{1}{\kappa +1}} \\ &\quad\quad {}\times \biggl\{ \int _{\Omega}\bigl[\rho \bigl( \vert \nabla u_{n} \vert \bigr) \bigl(\nabla u_{n} \cdot \nabla (u_{n}-u) \bigr)-\rho \bigl( \vert \nabla u \vert \bigr) \bigl(\nabla u\cdot \nabla (u_{n}-u)\bigr)\bigr] \biggr\} ^{\frac{\kappa}{\kappa +1}}. \end{aligned} $$

Since \(u_{n}\rightharpoonup u\), we have

$$ \int _{\Omega}\rho \bigl( \vert \nabla u \vert \bigr) \bigl( \nabla u\cdot \nabla (u_{n}-u)\bigr) \to 0, $$

which, together with (3.3), guarantees that

$$ \int _{\Omega}\rho \bigl( \vert \nabla u_{n} \vert \bigr) \bigl(\nabla u_{n}\cdot \nabla (u_{n}-u)\bigr)- \rho \bigl( \vert \nabla u \vert \bigr) \bigl(\nabla u\cdot \nabla (u_{n}-u)\bigr)\to 0\quad \text{as } n \to +\infty . $$

From (3.5), (3.6), and (3.7), we have

$$ \int _{\Omega}\Phi \bigl( \bigl\vert \nabla (u_{n}-u) \bigr\vert \bigr)\to 0, $$

that is,

$$ \bigl\Vert \nabla (u_{n}-u) \bigr\Vert _{L^{\Phi}}\to 0. $$


$$ \begin{aligned} \Vert u_{n}-u \Vert _{1, \Phi}= \Vert u_{n}-u \Vert _{L^{\Phi}}+ \bigl\Vert \nabla (u_{n}-u) \bigr\Vert _{L^{ \Phi}}\to 0, \end{aligned} $$

which implies that (3.2) is true.

According to Lemma 2.2.2 in [21], there is a \(u\in W_{0}^{1,\Phi}(\Omega )\cap L^{\infty}(\Omega )\) such that for \(\forall w\in W_{0}^{1,\Phi}(\Omega )\),

$$ \bigl(B(u), w\bigr)=0. $$

Therefore, we know that u is a (weak) solution of problem (3.1).

Claim 2. We show that the solution u of problem (3.1) obtained above is a solution of (1.1).

We shall prove that

$$ \begin{aligned} \underline{w}_{*}\le u\le \overline{w}^{*} \quad \text{in } \Omega . \end{aligned} $$

Choosing \(w=(u-\overline{w}^{*})_{+}\) as a test function, we have

$$ \begin{aligned} \int _{\Omega}-\Delta _{\Phi}u\bigl(u-\overline{w}^{*} \bigr)_{+} &= \int _{\Omega}\bigl[H\bigl(x, u, h_{1}\bigl(\zeta (u,x) \bigr), h_{2}\bigl(\zeta (u,x)\bigr)\bigr)- \gamma (u,x)\bigr]\bigl(u- \overline{w}^{*}\bigr)_{+} \\ &= \int _{\Omega}\bigl[h_{1}\bigl(\zeta (u,x) \bigr)J_{1}(u)+ h_{2}\bigl(\zeta (u,x)\bigr)J_{2}(u)- \gamma (u,x)\bigr]\bigl(u-\overline{w}^{*}\bigr)_{+}. \end{aligned} $$


$$ \Omega _{1}:=\bigl\{ x\in \Omega \mid u>\overline{w}^{*} \bigr\} . $$


$$ \begin{aligned} & \int _{\Omega}\bigl[h_{1}\bigl(\zeta (u,x) \bigr)J_{1}(u)+ h_{2}\bigl(\zeta (u,x)\bigr)J_{2}(u)- \gamma (u,x)\bigr]\bigl(u-\overline{w}^{*}\bigr)_{+} \\ &\quad= \int _{\Omega _{1}}+ \int _{\Omega -\Omega _{1}}\bigl[h_{1}\bigl(\zeta (u,x) \bigr)J_{1}(u)+ h_{2}\bigl(\zeta (u,x)\bigr)J_{2}(u)- \gamma (u,x)\bigr]\bigl(u-\overline{w}^{*}\bigr)_{+} \\ &\quad= \int _{\Omega _{1}}\bigl[h_{1}\bigl(\zeta (u,x) \bigr)J_{1}(u)+ h_{2}\bigl(\zeta (u,x)\bigr)J_{2}(u)- \gamma (u,x)\bigr]\bigl(u-\overline{w}^{*}\bigr)_{+}+0 \\ &\quad= \int _{\Omega _{1}}\bigl[h_{1}\bigl(\overline{w}^{*} \bigr)J_{1}(u)+ h_{2}\bigl( \overline{w}^{*} \bigr)J_{2}(u)-\bigl(u-\overline{w}^{*}\bigr)_{+}^{\nu} \bigr]\bigl(u- \overline{w}^{*}\bigr)_{+}. \end{aligned} $$

Since Ψ and Λ are increasing, from Lemma 2.1 and \(|\zeta (u,x)|\leq \overline{w}^{*}\), we have

$$ \biggl\{ \varsigma >0\Bigm| \int _{\Omega} \Psi \biggl( \frac{ \vert \zeta (u,x) \vert }{\varsigma} \biggr) \le 1 \biggr\} \supseteq \biggl\{ \varsigma >0\Bigm| \int _{\Omega} \Psi \biggl( \frac{\overline{w}^{*}}{\varsigma} \biggr) \le 1 \biggr\} $$


$$ \biggl\{ \varsigma >0\Bigm| \int _{\Omega} \Lambda \biggl( \frac{ \vert \zeta (u,x) \vert }{\varsigma} \biggr) \le 1 \biggr\} \supseteq \biggl\{ \varsigma >0\Bigm| \int _{\Omega} \Lambda \biggl( \frac{\overline{w}^{*}}{\varsigma} \biggr) \le 1 \biggr\} , $$

which implies that

$$ J_{1}\bigl(\zeta (u,x)\bigr)\leq J_{1} \bigl(\overline{w}^{*}\bigr),\qquad J_{2}\bigl(\zeta (u,x)\bigr) \leq J_{2}\bigl(\overline{w}^{*}\bigr). $$

From (3.9), (3.10), and (3.11), we have

$$ \int _{\Omega}-\Delta _{\Phi}u\bigl(u-\overline{w}^{*} \bigr)_{+}\le \int _{ \Omega}\bigl[h_{1}\bigl(\overline{w}^{*} \bigr)J_{1}\bigl(\overline{w}^{*}\bigr)+h_{2} \bigl( \overline{w}^{*}\bigr)J_{2}\bigl(\overline{w}^{*} \bigr)-\bigl(u-\overline{w}^{*}\bigr)_{+}^{ \nu} \bigr]\bigl(u-\overline{w}^{*}\bigr)_{+}. $$

By Definition 2.2, we have

$$ \int _{\Omega}-\Delta _{\Phi}u\bigl(u-\overline{w}^{*} \bigr)_{+}\le \int _{ \Omega}\bigl[-\Delta _{\Phi}\overline{w}^{*}- \bigl(u-\overline{w}^{*}\bigr)_{+}^{\nu}\bigr] \bigl(u- \overline{w}^{*}\bigr)_{+}. $$


$$ \int _{\Omega}-\Delta _{\Phi}u\bigl(u-\overline{w}^{*} \bigr)_{+}+ \int _{\Omega} \Delta _{\Phi}\overline{w}^{*} \bigl(u-\overline{w}^{*}\bigr)_{+}\le \int _{ \Omega}\bigl[-\bigl(u-\overline{w}^{*} \bigr)_{+}^{\nu +1}\bigr]\le 0, $$


$$ \int _{\Omega}\bigl(\rho \bigl( \vert \nabla u \vert \bigr) \nabla u-\rho \bigl( \bigl\vert \nabla \overline{w}^{*} \bigr\vert \bigr) \nabla \overline{w}^{*}\bigr)\cdot \nabla \bigl(u- \overline{w}^{*}\bigr)_{+}\le \int _{\Omega}\bigl[-\bigl(u-\overline{w}^{*} \bigr)_{+}^{\nu +1}\bigr]\le 0. $$

From Lemma 2.5, there exists a \(k_{0}>0\) such that

$$ \begin{aligned} & \int _{\Omega}\bigl(\rho \bigl( \vert \nabla u \vert \bigr) \nabla u-\rho \bigl( \bigl\vert \nabla \overline{w}^{*} \bigr\vert \bigr)\nabla \overline{w}^{*}\bigr)\cdot \nabla \bigl(u- \overline{w}^{*}\bigr)_{+} \\ &\quad \ge \int _{\Omega}k_{0} \frac{\Phi ( \vert \nabla u-\nabla \overline{w}^{*} \vert )^{\frac{\kappa +1}{\kappa}}}{(\Phi ( \vert \nabla u \vert )+\Phi ( \vert \nabla \overline{w}^{*} \vert ))^{\frac{1}{\kappa}}} \frac{\nabla (u-\overline{w}^{*})_{+}}{\nabla (u-\overline{w}^{*})}. \end{aligned} $$


$$ \int _{\Omega}k_{0} \frac{\Phi ( \vert \nabla u-\nabla \overline{w}^{*} \vert )^{\frac{\kappa +1}{\kappa}}}{(\Phi ( \vert \nabla u \vert )+\Phi ( \vert \nabla \overline{w}^{*} \vert ))^{\frac{1}{\kappa}}} \frac{\nabla (u-\overline{w}^{*})_{+}}{\nabla (u-\overline{w}^{*})}= \int _{\Omega _{1}}k_{0} \frac{\Phi ( \vert \nabla u-\nabla \overline{w}^{*} \vert )^{\frac{\kappa +1}{\kappa}}}{(\Phi ( \vert \nabla u \vert )+\Phi ( \vert \nabla \overline{w}^{*} \vert ))^{\frac{1}{\kappa}}} $$

and Φ is continuous, we obtain that there is an \(M_{1}>0\) such that

$$ \int _{\Omega _{1}}k_{0} \frac{\Phi ( \vert \nabla u-\nabla \overline{w}^{*} \vert )^{\frac{\kappa +1}{\kappa}}}{(\Phi ( \vert \nabla u \vert )+\Phi ( \vert \nabla \overline{w}^{*} \vert ))^{\frac{1}{\kappa}}}= \frac{k_{0}}{M_{1}} \int _{\{u>\overline{w}^{*}\}}\Phi \bigl( \bigl\vert \nabla u- \nabla \overline{w}^{*} \bigr\vert \bigr)^{\frac{\kappa +1}{\kappa}}. $$

From (3.12), (3.13), and (3.14), we have

$$ \int _{\{u>\overline{w}^{*}\}}\Phi \bigl( \bigl\vert \nabla u-\nabla \overline{w}^{*} \bigr\vert \bigr)^{ \frac{\kappa +1}{\kappa}}\le 0. $$

From Lemma 2.2 in [11] and [14], we obtain

$$ \int _{\{u>\overline{w}^{*}\}}\Phi \biggl(\frac{ \vert u-\overline{w}^{*} \vert }{d} \biggr)^{\frac{\kappa +1}{\kappa}} \le \int _{\{u>\overline{w}^{*}\}} \Phi \bigl( \bigl\vert \nabla u-\nabla \overline{w}^{*} \bigr\vert \bigr)^{\frac{\kappa +1}{\kappa}} \le 0, $$

where \(d=\mathrm{diam}(\Omega )\). Therefore, we can conclude that

$$ \bigl\vert \bigl\{ u>\overline{w}^{*}\bigr\} \bigr\vert =0, $$

and then \(u\le \overline{w}^{*}\).

A similar argument shows that \(u\geq \underline{w}_{*}\).

Therefore, (3.8) is true and thus u is a solution of problem (1.1).

The proof is completed. □

Proof of Theorem 2.7

In order to get positive solutions of problem (1.3), we study the following problem:

$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} -\Delta _{\Phi}u=(u+\frac{1}{n})^{\beta} \Vert u \Vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{\alpha}, \quad x\in \Omega , \\ u=0, \quad x\in \partial \Omega , \end{cases} $$

for \(n\geq 1\). We will use Theorem 2.6 to discuss problem (3.15).

First, we will construct a supersolution of problem (3.15).

From Lemma 2.4, problem (2.1) has a unique positive \(z_{\lambda}\in W_{0}^{1, \Psi}(\Omega )\) which satisfies

$$ \begin{aligned} 0< z_{\lambda}(x)\le K\lambda ^{\frac{1}{\kappa -1}}, \quad x\in \Omega \end{aligned} $$

for \(\lambda >0\) big enough, where K is independent of λ.

Let \(M=K\lambda ^{\frac{1}{\kappa -1}}\). Then

$$ \begin{aligned} K\lambda ^{\frac{1}{\kappa -1}}< z_{\lambda}(x)+M\le 2K \lambda ^{ \frac{1}{\kappa -1}}, \quad x\in \Omega . \end{aligned} $$

The condition \(0<\alpha <\kappa -1\) implies that there is a \(\lambda >1\) big enough such that

$$ \lambda ^{\frac{\alpha}{\kappa -1}} \Vert 2K \Vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{\alpha}\le \lambda ,\qquad M=K\lambda ^{\frac{1}{\kappa -1}}>1$$

and (3.16) holds. Hence

$$ \biggl(z_{\lambda}+M+\frac{1}{n}\biggr)^{\beta} \Vert z_{\lambda}+M \Vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{ \alpha}\le \Vert z_{\lambda}+M \Vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{\alpha}\le \lambda ^{ \frac{\alpha}{\kappa -1}} \Vert 2K \Vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{\alpha}\le \lambda $$


$$ -\Delta _{\Phi}(z_{\lambda}+M)= -\Delta _{\Phi}z_{\lambda}= \lambda \geq \biggl(z_{\lambda}+M+\frac{1}{n} \biggr)^{\beta} \Vert z_{\lambda}+M \Vert _{L^{ \Psi}}^{\alpha}. $$

Therefore, \(z_{\lambda}+M\) is a supersolution of (3.15).

Second, we will construct a positive subsolution \(\underline{u}_{*}\) of problem (3.15).

Define \(d(x):=\mathrm{dist}(x,\partial \Omega )\), then by a direct calculation one can deduce that \(|\nabla d(x)|=1\). Because Ω is \(C^{2}\), we can get a constant \(\tau >0\) such that \(d\in C^{2}(\overline{\Omega _{3\tau}})\) with \(\overline{\Omega _{3\tau}}:=\{x\in \overline{\Omega}:d(x)\le 3\tau \} \) (see [9, 10]). Let \(\varpi \in (0, \tau )\). Define

$$ \eta (x):= \textstyle\begin{cases} e^{\vartheta d(x)}-1, &\text{for } d(x)< \varpi , \\ e^{\vartheta \varpi}-1+\int _{\varpi}^{d(x)}\vartheta e^{\vartheta d(x)}( \frac{2\tau -t}{2\tau -\varpi})^{\frac{s}{\kappa -1}}\,dt,&\text{for } \varpi \le d(x)\le 2\tau , \\ e^{\vartheta \varpi}-1+\int _{\varpi}^{2\tau}ke^{\vartheta d(x)}( \frac{2\tau -t}{2\tau -\varpi})^{\frac{s}{\kappa -1}}\,dt,&\text{for } 2\tau < d(x), \end{cases} $$

where \(\vartheta >0\) is an arbitrary number. Direct computations imply that

$$ -\Delta _{\Phi}(\mu \eta ) = \textstyle\begin{cases} -\vartheta \Theta (x)\frac{d}{dt}(\rho (t)t)|_{t=\Theta (x)} - \rho (\Theta (x))\Theta (x)\Delta d ,&\text{for } d(x)< \varpi , \\ \frac{\Theta _{0}(\frac{s}{\kappa -1})\chi (x)^{\frac{s}{\kappa -1}-1}}{2\tau -\varpi} \frac{d}{dt}(\rho (t)t)|_{t=\Theta _{0}\chi (x)^{ \frac{s}{\kappa -1}}} \\ \quad {}-\rho (\Theta _{0}\chi (x)^{\frac{s}{\kappa -1}})\Theta _{0}\chi (x)^{ \frac{s}{\kappa -1}}\Delta d,&\text{for } \varpi \le d(x) \le 2\tau , \\ 0, &\text{for } 2\tau < d(x), \end{cases} $$

with \(\Theta (x)=\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta d(x)}\), \(\Theta _{0}=\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi}\), and \(\chi (x)=\frac{2\tau -d(x)}{2\tau -\varpi}\) for all \(\mu >0\).

There are three cases: (1) \(d(x)<\varpi \); (2) \(\varpi < d(x)<2\tau \); and (3) \(d(x)>2\tau \).

(1) We consider the case \(d(x)<\varpi \).

Since Δd is a bounded function near Ω and \(\kappa >1\), there is a ϑ large enough such that

$$ \begin{aligned} -\Delta _{\Phi}(\mu \eta )&= - \mu \vartheta ^{2}e^{\vartheta d(x)} \frac{d}{dt}\bigl(\rho (t)t \bigr)\bigg|_{t=\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta d(x)}}- \rho \bigl(\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta d(x)}\bigr)\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta d(x)} \Delta d \\ &\le -\vartheta ^{2}\mu e^{\vartheta d(x)}(\kappa -1)\rho \bigl(\mu \vartheta e^{\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta d(x)}}\bigr)-\rho \bigl(\mu \vartheta e^{ \vartheta d(x)}\bigr) \mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta d(x)}\Delta d \\ &=\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta d(x)}\rho \bigl(\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta d(x)}\bigr) \bigl(- \vartheta (\kappa -1)-\Delta d\bigr) \\ &\le 0, \end{aligned} $$

which implies that

$$ \begin{aligned} -\Delta _{\Phi}(\mu \eta )\le 0\le (\mu \eta )^{\beta} \vert \mu \eta \vert _{L^{ \Psi}}^{\alpha}, \end{aligned} $$

when \(d(x)<\varpi \) and ϑ is large enough.

(2) We consider the case \(\varpi < d(x)<2\delta \).

From the condition \((\rho _{3})\) and Lemma 2.3, we have

$$ \begin{aligned} &\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi} \biggl(\frac{s}{\kappa -1} \biggr) \biggl( \frac{2\tau -d(x)}{2\tau -\varpi} \biggr)^{\frac{s}{\kappa -1}-1} \biggl( \frac{1}{2\tau -\varpi} \biggr)\frac{d}{dt}\bigl(\rho (t)t \bigr)\bigg|_{t=\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi} (\frac{2\tau -d(x)}{2\tau -\varpi} )^{\frac{s}{\kappa -1}}} \\ &\quad\le \mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi} \biggl(\frac{s}{\kappa -1} \biggr) \biggl( \frac{2\tau -d(x)}{2\tau -\varpi} \biggr)^{\frac{s}{\kappa -1}-1} \biggl(\frac{s-1}{2\tau -\varpi} \biggr)\rho \biggl(\mu \vartheta e^{ \vartheta \varpi} \biggl(\frac{2\tau -d(x)}{2\tau -\varpi} \biggr)^{ \frac{s}{\kappa -1}} \biggr) \\ &\quad\le \biggl(\frac{s}{\kappa -1} \biggr) \biggl(\frac{s-1}{2\tau -\varpi} \biggr) \frac{s\Phi (\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi} (\frac{2\tau -d(x)}{2\tau -\varpi} )^{\frac{s}{\kappa -1}} )}{\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi} (\frac{2\delta -d(x)}{2\tau -\varpi} )^{\frac{s}{\kappa -1}}} \frac{1}{\frac{2\tau -d(x)}{2\tau -\varpi}} \\ &\quad\le \biggl(\frac{s^{2}}{\kappa -1} \biggr) \biggl(\frac{s-1}{2\tau -\varpi} \biggr)\max \biggl\{ \bigl(\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi}\bigr)^{s-1} \biggl( \frac{2\tau -d(x)}{2\tau -\varpi} \biggr)^{s(\frac{s}{\kappa -1})-( \frac{s}{\kappa -1}+1)}, \\ &\quad\quad \bigl(\mu \vartheta e^{ \vartheta \varpi}\bigr)^{\kappa -1} \biggl( \frac{2\tau -d(x)}{2\tau -\varpi} \biggr)^{\kappa (\frac{s}{\kappa -1})-(\frac{s}{\kappa -1}+1)} \biggr\} \Phi (1). \end{aligned} $$

Now \(s, \kappa >1\) implies \(\kappa (\frac{s}{\kappa -1} )-s (\frac{s}{\kappa -1}+1 ), s (\frac{s}{\kappa -1} )-s (\frac{s}{\kappa -1}+1 )>0\), which, together with \(0\le \frac{2\tau -d(x)}{2\tau -\varpi}\le 1\) and (3.17), guarantees that

$$\begin{aligned} &\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi} \biggl(\frac{s}{\kappa -1} \biggr) \biggl( \frac{2\tau -d(x)}{2\tau -\varpi} \biggr)^{\frac{s}{\kappa -1}-1} \biggl( \frac{1}{2\tau -\varpi} \biggr)\frac{d}{dt}\bigl(\rho (t)t \bigr)\bigg|_{t=\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi} ( \frac{2\delta -d(x)}{2\tau -\varpi} )^{\frac{s}{\kappa -1}}} \\ &\quad \le \biggl(\frac{s^{2}}{\kappa -1} \biggr) \biggl(\frac{s-1}{2\tau -\varpi} \biggr)\Phi (1) \max \bigl\{ \bigl(\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi}\bigr)^{s-1}, \bigl(\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi}\bigr)^{\kappa -1}\bigr\} \\ &\quad =C_{1} \biggl(\frac{1}{2\tau -\varpi} \biggr)\max \bigl\{ \bigl(\mu \vartheta e^{ \vartheta \varpi}\bigr)^{s-1}, \bigl(\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi}\bigr)^{ \kappa -1}\bigr\} , \end{aligned}$$

where \(C_{1}=\frac{s^{2}(s-1)\Phi (1)}{\kappa -1}\) is a constant independent of μ and ϑ. Similarly, one has

$$ \begin{aligned} & \biggl\vert \rho \biggl(\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi} \biggl( \frac{2\tau -d(x)}{2\tau -\varpi} \biggr)^{\frac{s}{\kappa -1}} \biggr)\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi} \frac{(2\tau -d(x))^{\frac{s}{\kappa -1}}}{(2\tau -\varpi )^{\frac{s}{\kappa -1}}} \Delta d \biggr\vert \\ &\quad\le \rho \biggl(\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi} \biggl( \frac{2\tau -d(x)}{2\tau -\varpi} \biggr)^{\frac{s}{r-1}}\biggr)\mu \vartheta e^{ \vartheta \varpi} \biggl( \frac{2\tau -d(x)}{2\tau -\varpi} \biggr)^{ \frac{s}{\kappa -1}}\sup_{\overline{\Omega _{3\tau}}} \vert \Delta d \vert \\ &\quad\le C \frac{\Phi (\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi} (\frac{2\tau -d(x)}{2\tau -\varpi} )^{\frac{s}{\kappa -1}} )}{\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi} (\frac{2\tau -d(x)}{2\tau -\varpi} )^{\frac{s}{\kappa -1}}} \\ &\quad\le C\max \biggl\{ \bigl(\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi}\bigr)^{s-1} \biggl( \frac{2\tau -d(x)}{2\tau -\varpi} \biggr)^{s(\frac{s}{\kappa -1})-( \frac{s}{\kappa -1}+1)}, \\ &\quad\quad \bigl(\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi}\bigr)^{\kappa -1} \biggl( \frac{2\tau -d(x)}{2\tau -\varpi} \biggr)^{\kappa ( \frac{s}{\kappa -1})-(\frac{s}{\kappa -1}+1)} \biggr\} \\ &\quad\le C_{2}\max \bigl\{ \bigl(\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi} \bigr)^{s-1}, \bigl( \mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi}\bigr)^{\kappa -1} \bigr\} , \end{aligned} $$

where \(C_{2}\) is a constant independent of ϖ, ϑ, and μ. Thus from (3.18) and (3.19) we have

$$ \begin{aligned} -\Delta _{\Phi}u\le \max \biggl\{ \frac{C_{1}}{2\tau -\varpi}, C_{2} \biggr\} \max \bigl\{ \bigl(\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi}\bigr)^{s-1}, \bigl(\mu \vartheta e^{\vartheta \varpi} \bigr)^{\kappa -1} \bigr\} , \end{aligned} $$

when \(\varpi < d(x)<2\tau \).

Let \(\varpi =\frac{ln2}{\vartheta }\) and \(\mu =e^{-\vartheta }\), then \(e^{\vartheta \varpi}=2\). Since

$$ \begin{aligned} \eta (x)&=e^{\vartheta \varpi}-1+ \int _{\varpi}^{d(x)}\vartheta e^{ \vartheta d(x)} \biggl( \frac{2\tau -t}{2\tau -\varpi} \biggr)^{ \frac{s}{\kappa -1}}\,dt \\ &>2-1+2\vartheta \int _{\varpi}^{d(x)} \biggl( \frac{2\tau -t}{2\tau -\varpi} \biggr)^{\frac{s}{\kappa -1}}\,dt \\ &=1+\vartheta C_{3} \\ &\ge 1, \end{aligned} $$

where \(C_{3}>0\) is a constant, we have that when μ is small enough and n is large enough,

$$\begin{aligned} \biggl(\mu \eta +\frac{1}{n} \biggr)^{\beta} \vert \mu \eta \vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{\alpha}& \ge \vert \mu \eta \vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{\alpha} \\ &={\inf}^{\alpha} \biggl\{ \varsigma >0: \int _{\Omega}\Psi \biggl( \frac{ \vert \mu \eta \vert }{\varsigma} \biggr)< 1 \biggr\} \\ &={\inf}^{\alpha} \biggl\{ \tau \mu >0: \int _{\Omega}\Psi \biggl( \frac{ \vert \mu \eta \vert }{\tau \mu} \biggr)< 1 \biggr\} \\ &=\mu ^{\alpha}{\inf}^{\alpha} \biggl\{ \tau >0: \int _{\Omega}\Psi \biggl( \frac{ \vert \eta \vert }{\tau} \biggr)< 1 \biggr\} \\ &\ge \mu ^{\alpha}C_{4}, \end{aligned}$$

where \(C_{4}>0\) is a constant independent of \(\vartheta >0\).

Since \(0<\alpha <\kappa -1\), we have the result

$$ \begin{aligned} \lim_{\vartheta \to +\infty} \frac{\vartheta ^{\kappa -1}}{e^{\vartheta (\kappa -1-\alpha )}}=0. \end{aligned} $$

In view of

$$ \begin{aligned} -\Delta _{\Phi}(\mu \eta )\le \max \biggl\{ \frac{C_{1}}{2\tau -\varpi}, C_{2} \biggr\} \max \bigl\{ 2^{s-1}, 2^{\kappa -1}\bigr\} \biggl( \frac{\vartheta }{e^{\vartheta }} \biggr)^{\kappa -1}, \end{aligned} $$

choose a \(\vartheta _{0}>0\) large enough such that

$$ \begin{aligned} C_{4}\ge \max \biggl\{ \frac{C_{1}}{2\tau -\frac{\ln 2}{\vartheta }}, C_{2} \biggr\} \max \bigl\{ 2^{s-1}, 2^{\kappa -1}\bigr\} \biggl( \frac{\vartheta ^{\kappa -1}}{e^{\vartheta (\kappa -1-\alpha )}} \biggr) \end{aligned} $$

for all \(\vartheta \ge \vartheta _{0}\).


$$ \begin{aligned} -\Delta _{\Phi}(\mu \eta )\le \biggl(\mu \eta +\frac{1}{n} \biggr)^{\beta} \vert \mu \eta \vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{\alpha} \end{aligned} $$

in the case \(\varpi < d(x)<2\tau \) for \(\vartheta >0\) large enough.

(3) We consider the case \(d(x)>2\tau \).


$$ \begin{aligned} -\Delta _{\Phi}(\mu \eta )=0\le \biggl(\mu \eta +\frac{1}{n} \biggr)^{ \beta} \vert \mu \eta \vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{\alpha}. \end{aligned} $$

It is obvious that \(\underline{w}_{*}\leq \overline{w}^{*}\) if M is large enough and μ is small enough. And \((\underline{w}_{*},\overline{w}^{*})\) is a sub-supersolution pair of problem (3.15). Now Theorem 2.6 guarantees that problem (3.15) has a solution \(u_{n}\) which satisfies \(0<\mu \eta \le u_{n}\le z_{\lambda}+M\).

Now we consider the set \(\{u_{n}\}\).

From Lemma 2.2 in [12], one has that \(\|u\|_{1, \Phi}\) and \(|\!|\!|\nabla u|\!|\!|_{L^{\Phi}}\) defined on \(W_{0}^{1, \Phi}\) are equivalent. And from the proof of the coercivity of the operator B, we know that if \(|\!|\!|\nabla u|\!|\!|_{L^{\Phi}}>1\), then

$$ \int _{\Omega}\Phi \bigl( \vert \nabla u \vert \bigr)\ge |\!|\!|\nabla u|\!|\!|_{L^{\Phi}}, $$

that is,

$$ \int _{\Omega}\Phi \bigl( \vert \nabla u \vert \bigr)\ge \Vert u \Vert _{1, \Phi}, $$

when \(\|u\|_{1, \Phi}>1\).

If \(\|u_{n}\|_{1, \Phi}\le 1\), then \({u_{n}}\) is bounded in \(W_{0}^{1, \Phi}(\Omega )\) naturally.

If \(\|u_{n}\|_{1, \Phi}>1\), then

$$ \Vert u_{n} \Vert _{1, \Phi}\le \int _{\Omega}\Phi \bigl( \vert \nabla u_{n} \vert \bigr). $$

By the condition \((\rho _{3})'\) and due to

$$ \int _{\Omega}-\Delta _{\Phi}u_{n}u_{n}= \int _{\Omega}u_{n} \biggl(u_{n}+ \frac{1}{n} \biggr)^{\beta} \Vert u_{n} \Vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{\alpha}, $$

we have

$$ \kappa \int _{\Omega}\Phi \bigl( \vert \nabla u_{n} \vert \bigr)\le \int _{\Omega}\phi \bigl( \vert \nabla u_{n} \vert \bigr) \vert \nabla u_{n} \vert ^{2}= \int _{\Omega}u_{n} \biggl(u_{n}+ \frac{1}{n} \biggr)^{\beta} \Vert u_{n} \Vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{\alpha}, $$

which, together with \(\alpha \ge 0\), \(-1<\beta <0 \), gives

$$ \int _{\Omega}\Phi \bigl( \vert \nabla u_{n} \vert \bigr)\le \frac{1}{\kappa} \int _{\Omega} \overline{w}^{* \beta +1} \bigl\Vert \overline{w}^{*} \bigr\Vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{\alpha}, $$

that is,

$$ \Vert u_{n} \Vert _{1, \Phi}\le \frac{1}{\kappa} \int _{\Omega}\overline{w}^{* \beta +1} \bigl\Vert \overline{w}^{*} \bigr\Vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{\alpha}. $$

Therefore, \(\{u_{n}\}\) is bounded in \(W_{0}^{1, \Phi}(\Omega )\).

Since \(W_{0}^{1, \Phi}(\Omega )\) is reflexive, \(\{u_{n}\}\) has weakly convergent subsequences in \(W_{0}^{1,\Phi}(\Omega )\cap L^{\infty}(\Omega )\), and we still use \(u_{n}\) to denote its subsequence. From the analysis in [3], we have

$$ \begin{aligned} u_{n}\rightharpoonup u\quad \text{in } W_{0}^{1,\Phi}(\Omega )\cap L^{ \infty}(\Omega ) \end{aligned} $$


$$ \begin{aligned} u_{n}(x)\stackrel{\text{a.e.}}{\to} u(x), \quad x\in \Omega . \end{aligned} $$


$$ \underline{w}_{*}\le u_{n}\le \overline{w}^{*}, \quad x\in \Omega ,$$

Lebesgue theorem implies

$$ u_{n} \to u \quad \text{in } L^{q}(\Omega ) \ \forall q\in [1, + \infty ).$$

Since \(u_{n}\) is a (weak) solution of (3.15) for all n N + , we have

$$ \begin{aligned} \int _{\Omega}-\Delta _{\Phi}u_{n}w= \int _{\Omega} \biggl(u_{n}+ \frac{1}{n} \biggr)^{\beta} \Vert u_{n} \Vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{\alpha}w, \end{aligned} $$

for all \(w\in W_{0}^{1,\Phi}(\Omega )\).

Denoting \(w=u_{n}-u\), we have

$$ \begin{aligned} \int _{\Omega}-\Delta _{\Phi}u_{n}(u_{n}-u)= \int _{\Omega} \biggl(u_{n}+ \frac{1}{n} \biggr)^{\beta} \Vert u_{n} \Vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{\alpha}(u_{n}-u). \end{aligned} $$


$$ \biggl(u_{n}+\frac{1}{n} \biggr)^{\beta}\le \underline{w}_{*}^{\beta}, \quad x\in \Omega , $$

one has

$$ \begin{aligned} \int _{\Omega} \biggl(u_{n}+\frac{1}{n} \biggr)^{\beta} \Vert u_{n} \Vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{ \alpha} \vert u_{n}-u \vert &\le \int _{\Omega}\underline{w}_{*}^{\beta} \vert u_{n}-u \vert \Vert u_{n} \Vert _{L^{ \Psi}}^{\alpha} \\ &\le \biggl[ \int _{\Omega} \bigl(\underline{w}_{*}^{\beta} \Vert u_{n} \Vert _{L^{ \Psi}}^{\alpha} \bigr)^{p} \biggr]^{\frac{1}{p}} \biggl[ \int _{\Omega} \vert u_{n}-u \vert ^{q} \biggr]^{\frac{1}{q}}, \end{aligned} $$

where \(p, q>1\), \(\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1\), and \(\beta \in (-1,0)\). From (3.20), we have

$$ \biggl[ \int _{\Omega} \bigl(\underline{w}_{*}^{\beta} \Vert u_{n} \Vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{ \alpha} \bigr)^{p} \biggr]^{\frac{1}{p}} \biggl[ \int _{\Omega} \vert u_{n}-u \vert ^{q} \biggr]^{\frac{1}{q}}\to 0,$$

and so

$$ \begin{aligned} \int _{\Omega} \biggl(u_{n}+\frac{1}{n} \biggr)^{\beta} \Vert u_{n} \Vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{ \alpha} \vert u_{n}-u \vert \to 0\quad \text{as }n\to +\infty , \end{aligned} $$

which implies

$$ \begin{aligned} \int _{\Omega}-\Delta _{\Phi}u_{n}(u_{n}-u) \to 0. \end{aligned} $$


$$ \begin{aligned} \int _{\Omega}-\Delta _{\Phi}u (u_{n}-u)\to 0. \end{aligned} $$

Similar to the previous proof, from (3.4), (3.6), and (3.21), we have

$$ u_{n}\to u\quad \text{in } W_{0}^{1,\Phi}(\Omega ) \cap L^{\infty}( \Omega ),$$

and so

$$ \Vert u_{n} \Vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{\alpha}\to \Vert u \Vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{\alpha}.$$

Therefore, taking the limit as \(n\to \infty \) in (3.15), we have

$$ -\Delta _{\Phi}u=u^{\beta} \Vert u \Vert _{L^{\Psi}}^{\alpha}.$$

The limit value u is just the solution which we are looking for, and it satisfies \(\underline{w}_{*}\le u\le \overline{w}^{*}\), obviously. Therefore, the proof is finished. □

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.


  1. Alves, C.O., Carvalho, M.L.M., Gonçalves, J.V.A.: On existence of solution of variational multivalued elliptic equations with critical growth via the Ekeland principle. Commun. Contemp. Math. 17, 1450038 (2015).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Alves, C.O., Corrêa, F.J.S.A.: On existence of solutions for a class of problem involving a nonlinear operator. Commun. Appl. Nonlinear Anal. 8, 43–56 (2001).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Alves, C.O.: Covei, D.-P.: Existence of solution for a class of nonlocal elliptic problem via sub-supersolution method. Nonlinear Anal., Real World Appl. 23, 1–8 (2015).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Alves, C.O., Silva, E.D., Pimenta, M.T.O.: Existence of solution for a class of quasilinear elliptic problem without \(\Delta _{2}\)-condition. Anal. Appl. 17, 665–688 (2019).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen, Y., Gao, H.: Existence of positive solutions for nonlocal and nonvariational elliptic system. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 72, 271–281 (2005).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Corrêa, F.J.S.A., Figueiredo, G.M., Paulo, F., Lopes, M.: On the existence of positive solutions for a nonlocal elliptic problem involving the p-Laplacian and the generalized Lebesgue space \(L^{p(x)}(\Omega )\). Differ. Integral Equ. 21, 305–324 (2008).

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Corrêa, F.J.S.A., Lopes, F.P.M.: Positive solutions for a class of nonlocal elliptic systems. Commun. Appl. Nonlinear Anal. 14, 67–77 (2007)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Di, K., Yan, B.: The existence of positive solution for singular Kirchhoff equation with two parameters. Bound. Value Probl. 2019, 40 (2019).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. dos Santos, G.C.G., Figueiredo, G.M., Tavares, L.S.: A sub-supersolution method for a class of nonlocal problems involving the \(p(x)\)-Laplacian operator and applications. Acta Appl. Math. 153, 171–187 (2018).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Figueiredo, G.M., Moussaoui, A., dos Santos, G.C.G., Tavares, L.S.: A sub-supersolution approach for some classes of nonlocal problems involving Orlicz spaces. J. Differ. Equ. 267, 4148–4169 (2019).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Fukagai, N., Narukawa, K.: On the existence of multiple positive solutions of quasilinear elliptic eigenvalue problems. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 186, 539–564 (2007).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. García-Huidobro, M., Le, V.K., Manásevich, R., Schmitt, K.: On principal eigenvalues for quasilinear elliptic differential operators: an Orlicz–Sobolev space setting. Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl. 6, 207–225 (1999).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Gossez, J.-P.: Nonlinear elliptic boundary value problems for equations with rapidly (or slowly) increasing coefficients. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 190, 163–205 (1974).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Lieberman, G.M.: The natural generalizationj of the natural conditions of Ladyzhenskaya and Urall’tseva for elliptic equations. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 16, 311–361 (1991).

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Liu, Y.: Some geometry properties of Orlicz space and the dual spaces. Dissertation, Harbin University of Science and Technology (2010)

  16. Mahiout, K.A., Alves, C.O.: Existence and multiplicity of solutions for a class of quasilinear problems in Orlicz–Sobolev spaces. Complex Var. Elliptic Equ. 62, 767–785 (2017).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Rabinowitz, P.H.: Some global results for nonlinear eigenvalue problems. J. Funct. Anal. 7, 487–513 (1971).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang, D., Yan, B.: A uniqueness result for some Kirchhoff-type equations with negative exponents. Appl. Math. Lett. 92, 93–98 (2019).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Yan, B., O’Regan, D., Agarwal, R.P.: Existence of solutions for Kirchhoff-type problems via the method of lower and upper solutions. Electron. J. Differ. Equ. 2019, 54 1–19 (2019).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Yan, B., Wang, D.: The multiplicity of positive solutions for a class of nonlocal elliptic problem. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 442, 72–102 (2016).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Yang, T.: Existence and regularity results of a class of singular p-Laplacian equations. Dissertation, Dalian University of Technology (2016)

  22. Youssfi, A., Khatri, M.M.O.: On a nonlinear eigenvalue problem for generalized Laplacian in Orlicz–Sobolev spaces. Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl. 190, 111607 (2020).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references


This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (62073203).


This research was funded by the NSFC of China (62073203).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



Methodology and investigation, BY; Formal analysis, XQ. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Baoqiang Yan.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

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

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qiu, X., Yan, B. A new existence result for some nonlocal problems involving Orlicz spaces and its applications. Bound Value Probl 2022, 62 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Orlicz–Sobolev space
  • Sub-supersolution
  • Pseudomonotone Operator Theorem
  • Luxemburg norm
  • Φ-Laplace operator