- Comment
- Open access
- Published:
Nonexistence of interior bubbling solutions for slightly supercritical elliptic problems
Boundary Value Problems volume 2023, Article number: 90 (2023)
Abstract
In this paper, we consider the Neumann elliptic problem \((\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})\): \(-\Delta u +\mu u = u^{(({n+2})/({n-2}))+\varepsilon}\), \(u>0\) in Ω, \({\partial u}/{\partial \nu}=0\) on ∂Ω, where Ω is a smooth bounded domain in \(\mathbb{R}^{n}\), \(n\geq 4\), ε is a small positive real, and μ is a fixed positive number. We show that, in contrast with the three dimensional case, \((\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})\) has no solution blowing up at only interior points as ε goes to zero. The proof strategy consists in testing the equation by appropriate vector fields and then using refined asymptotic estimates in the neighborhood of bubbles, we obtain equilibrium conditions satisfied by the concentration parameters. The careful analysis of these balancing conditions allows us to obtain our results.
1 Introduction and main results
In this paper, we consider the following nonlinear elliptic equation:
where \(1 < p < \infty \), Ω is a smooth bounded domain in \(\mathbb{R}^{n}\), \(n\geq 3\), and μ is a positive number.
The interest in Problem \((\mathcal{P}_{\mu,p})\) grew up from the fact that it models several phenomena in applied sciences. For example it can be seen as a steady-state problem for parabolic problems in chemotaxis, e.g., Keller–Segel model [13], or for the shadow system of the Gierer–Meinhardt system in biological pattern formation [10, 16].
Many works have been devoted to problem \((\mathcal{P}_{\mu,p})\). It is well known that the situation depends on both the parameter μ and the exponent p. When μ is small and p is subcritical, i.e., \(1 < p < ({n+2})/({n-2})\), the only solution is the constant one [13]. For large μ and p subcritical, it is known that solutions exist and concentrate at one or several points located in the interior of the domain, on the boundary, or some of them on the boundary and others in the interior (see the review in [17]). In the critical case, i.e., \(p = ({n+2})/({n-2})\), when μ is small, \(n=3\) and Ω is convex, the only solution is the constant one [31, 32]. However, for \(n\in \{4,5,6\}\) and μ small, nonconstant solutions exist (see [4] when Ω is a ball and [25, 30] for general domains). When μ is large, nonconstant solutions also exist (see [1, 26]) and, as in the subcritical case, solutions blow up at one or several boundary points as μ goes to infinity (see [2, 3, 11, 14, 15, 18, 21, 27–29]). The question of the existence of interior blow-up points is still open. However, in contrast with the subcritical case, we know that at least one point must lie on the boundary [22]. In the supercritical case, very little is known. When Ω is a ball, the uniqueness of the radial solution is proved for small μ [12]. For a general smooth bounded domain and a slightly supercritical p, i.e., \(p = (({n+2})/({n-2})) +\varepsilon \), where \(\varepsilon >0\) \(\varepsilon \to 0\), a single boundary bubble solution exists for fixed \(\mu >0\) and \(n\geq 4\) [9, 24]. Furthermore, a single interior bubble solution has been constructed in [23] for \(n=3\). Notice that the slightly supercritical pure Neumann problem, that is, \(\mu =0\) and ε is a small positive real, has been studied recently in [19], and the authors proved the existence and multiplicity of bubbling solutions in a ball. In this paper, we focus on a new phenomenon, which is the nonexistence of interior bubbling solutions for slightly supercritical case when \(n\geq 4\). Thus, in what remains of this paper, we consider the slightly supercritical problem
where ε is a small positive real, Ω is a smooth bounded domain in \(\mathbb{R}^{n}\), \(n\geq 4\), μ is a positive fixed number, and \(p+1=2n/(n-2)\) is the critical Sobolev exponent for the embedding \(H^{1}(\Omega ) \to L^{q}(\Omega )\).
Before we state our main result, we need to introduce some notation. Let us define the following family of functions called bubbles:
which are the only solutions to the problem [7]
We first exclude, in contrast with the three dimensional case [23], the existence of solutions which blow up at a single point lying in the interior of the domain as ε goes to 0. Notice that if \((u_{\varepsilon })\) is a sequence of nonconstant solutions to \((\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})\), then there are several and equivalent ways to define blow-up points of \((u_{\varepsilon })\). For example, \(a\in \bar{\Omega }\) will be said to be a blow-up point of \((u_{\varepsilon })\) if
Our first result is the following.
Theorem 1.1
Let \(n\geq 4\) and let μ be a fixed positive number. Then \((\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})\) has no solution \(u_{\varepsilon }\) that blows up, as \(\varepsilon \to 0\), at a single interior point in the sense that
with \(a_{\varepsilon } \to \overline{a} \in \Omega \) and \(\lambda _{\varepsilon } \to \infty \) as \(\varepsilon \to 0\).
To study the question of interior blow-up points without any assumption on the number of these points, we need to get some information about such possible solutions. This is the goal of the following result.
Theorem 1.2
Let \(n\geq 4\) and μ be a fixed positive number. Let \((u_{\varepsilon})\) be a sequence of solutions of \((\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})\) such that
with \(N\geq 2\), \(\| v_{\varepsilon }\|_{H^{1}(\Omega )} \to 0\), \(\lambda _{i,\varepsilon } \to \infty \) and \(a_{i,\varepsilon }\to \overline{a}_{i}\in \Omega \) as \(\varepsilon \to 0\) for all \(i \in \{1,\ldots, N\}\).
Then the following facts hold:
-
(i)
For each \(j\in \{1,\ldots, N\}\) satisfying \(\frac{\lambda _{j, \varepsilon }}{\lambda _{\mathrm{min}, \varepsilon }} \not \to \infty \) as \(\varepsilon \to 0\), there exists \(k\ne j\) such that \(|a_{j,\varepsilon }- a_{k,\varepsilon }|\to 0\) as \(\varepsilon \to 0\).
-
(ii)
In addition, if \(n \geq 5\), then \(\frac{\lambda _{\mathrm{max}, \varepsilon }}{\lambda _{\mathrm{min}, \varepsilon }} \to \infty \) as \(\varepsilon \to 0\).
Theorem 1.2 allows us to generalize Theorem 1.1. More precisely, our next result shows the nonexistence of solutions with two or three interior blow-up points.
Theorem 1.3
Let \(n\geq 5\) and \(N =2\) or \(n\geq 6\) and \(N=3\). Let μ be a fixed positive number. Then \((\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})\) has no solution \(u_{\varepsilon }\) that blows up, as \(\varepsilon \to 0\), at N interior points \(a_{1,\varepsilon }\),…, \(a_{N,\varepsilon }\) in the sense that
with, for each \(i\in \{1,\ldots, N\}\), \(a_{i,\varepsilon }\to \overline{a}_{i}\in \Omega \) and \(\lambda _{i,\varepsilon } \to \infty \) as \(\varepsilon \to 0\).
In the case of N interior blow-up points, with \(N\geq 4\), the situation becomes more delicate. However, we note that Theorem 1.2 easily gives the following partial nonexistence result.
Corollary 1.4
Let \(n\geq 4\), \(N\geq 4\), and μ be a fixed positive number. Then \((\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})\) has no solution \(u_{\varepsilon }\) such that
with \(\| v_{\varepsilon }\|_{H^{1}(\Omega )} \to 0\), \(\lambda _{i,\varepsilon } \to \infty \), \(a_{i,\varepsilon }\to \overline{a}_{i}\in \Omega \) as \(\varepsilon \to 0\) for all \(i\in \{1,\ldots, N\}\), and one of the following two conditions holds:
-
(i)
\(n \geq 5\) and \(\frac{\lambda _{\mathrm{max}, \varepsilon }}{\lambda _{\mathrm{min}, \varepsilon }} \not \to \infty \) as \(\varepsilon \to 0\),
-
(ii)
\(n\geq 4\) and there exists \(j\in \{1,\ldots, N\}\) satisfying \(\frac{\lambda _{j, \varepsilon }}{\lambda _{\mathrm{min}, \varepsilon }} \not \to \infty \) as \(\varepsilon \to 0\) and \(|a_{j,\varepsilon }- a_{k,\varepsilon }|\geq C>0\) as \(\varepsilon \to 0\) for all \(k\in \{1,\ldots, N\}\) with \(k\ne j\).
To prove our results, we test the equation by appropriate vector fields and then, using refined asymptotic estimates in the neighborhood of bubbles, we obtain equilibrium conditions satisfied by the concentration parameters. The careful analysis of these balancing conditions allows us to obtain our results.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: in Sect. 2 we give some basic tools that we use in our proofs. In Sect. 3 we provide an accurate estimate of the gradient terms in the neighborhood of bubbles. Section 4 is devoted to the proof of our results. In Sect. 5, we discuss some future perspectives. Finally, we collect in Sect. 5 some useful estimates needed in this paper
2 Some basic tools
For v, \(w \in H^{1}(\Omega )\), we set
Throughout the sequel we assume that \(n\geq 3\), \(u_{\varepsilon }\) is a sequence of solutions of \((\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})\) written in the form
with \(N\geq 1\), \(\| v_{\varepsilon }\|_{H^{1}(\Omega )} \to 0\), \(\lambda _{i,\varepsilon } \to \infty \) and \(a_{i,\varepsilon }\to \overline{a}_{i}\in \Omega \) as \(\varepsilon \to 0\) for all i.
To simplify the notation, throughout the sequel we set \(\delta _{i}=\delta _{a_{i,\varepsilon },\lambda _{i,\varepsilon }}\), \(a_{i}=a_{i,\varepsilon }\), and \(\lambda _{i}=\lambda _{i,\varepsilon }\).
We know that there is a unique way to choose \(a_{i,\varepsilon }\), \(\lambda _{i,\varepsilon }\), and \(v_{\varepsilon }\) such that
with
where, for any \((a,\lambda )\in \Omega ^{N}\times (0,\infty )^{N}\), \(E_{a,\lambda}\) denotes
For the proof of this fact, see [20]. In what follows, we always assume that \(u_{\varepsilon }\) is written as in (3) and (4). We start by proving the following crucial lemma.
Lemma 2.1
Let \(n \geq 3\). For all \(j\in \{1,\ldots, N\}\), it holds
Proof
Multiplying \((\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})\) by \(\delta _{i}\) and integrating on Ω, we obtain
Using Lemma 6.6, we have
where
Now, since \(\partial u_{\varepsilon }/\partial \nu =0\), we observe that
and using Lemma 6.6, we get
where \(\sigma _{4} = 1\) and \(\sigma _{n} = 0\) if \(n \neq 4\).
It remains to estimate the right-hand side of (5). Using Lemma 6.1, we get
Concerning the first integral on the right-hand side of (7), it holds
But we have
For the second integral on the right-hand side of (7), using the fact that \(\delta _{i}^{\varepsilon }\leq c\lambda _{i}^{\varepsilon (n-2)/2}\), we get for \(j\neq i\)
Combining the above estimates, we obtain
Hence \(\lambda _{i}^{\varepsilon (n-2)/2} = 1 + o(1) \), which completes the proof of the lemma. □
Notice that since \(|u_{\varepsilon }|_{\infty}\) is of the same order as \(\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}^{(n-2)/2}\), Lemma 2.1 implies the following important remark.
Remark 2.2
There is \(\varepsilon _{0}>0\) such that, for \(\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon _{0})\), we have
where C is a positive constant independent of ε.
Now, we are going to estimate the \(v_{\varepsilon }\)-part in (3). To this aim, we need to prove the coercivity of the following quadratic form:
In the case of Dirichlet boundary conditions, this kind of coercivity is proved by Bahri [5]. Such a result was adapted in [20] to our case when the concentration points do not approach each other. What we need here is a result which holds even if the points are close to each other. More precisely, we will give some general formulae for future use. To this aim, let
where \(N \in \mathbb{N}\) and \(\eta > 0\) is a small parameter.
Proposition 2.3
Let \(n \geq 3\) and \((\alpha,a,\lambda ) \in \mathcal{V}(N,\varepsilon,\eta ) \). Then there exists \(\rho _{0} > 0 \) such that
Proof
Let \(v \in E_{a,\lambda }\) and \(v_{1}\) be its projection onto \(H^{1}_{0}(\Omega )\) defined by
and define \(v_{2}=v-v_{1}\). It is easy to obtain
For \(y\in \Omega \), we denote by \(d_{y}:= d(y,\partial \Omega )\). Since \(v_{2}\) is a harmonic function in Ω, we see that
where \(G_{0}\) is the Green’s function of the Laplace operator with Dirichlet boundary conditions and where we have used, in the last inequality, Holder’s inequality and Lemma 6.7. In the same way, we have
Next, for \(1\leq i\leq N \), taking
and \(B_{i}:= B(a_{i}, d_{i} /2)\), we observe that, for each \(y \in B_{i}\), it holds that \(d_{i} / 2 \leq d_{y} \leq 2 d_{i} \). Therefore, we get
where we have used (13), the fact that \(\int _{ B_{i} }|\nabla \psi _{i}|= O ({ d_{i} } / {\lambda _{i}^{(n-2)/2}} )\) (for the first integral), and Holder’s inequality (for the second integral). Now, we write
where
However, using (12), we obtain
To proceed further, let
Clearly, \(\tilde{v}_{1}\in \mathcal{D}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\). Now, we write
Using (15), we obtain
This implies that
Using (19), we get
Combining (18) and Proposition 3.1 of [5], we obtain
Therefore (21) and (16) imply that
which completes the proof of Proposition 2.3. □
Next, we are going to estimate the norm of \(v_{\varepsilon }\)-part of \(u_{\varepsilon }\) when ε goes to zero.
Proposition 2.4
Let \(n \geq 3\) and let \(v_{\varepsilon }\) be the remainder term defined in (3). Then there is \(\varepsilon _{0}>0\) such that, for \(\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon _{0})\), the following fact holds:
Proof
Taking \(U=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\alpha _{i}\delta _{i}\), multiplying \((\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})\) by \(v_{\varepsilon }\), and integrating on Ω, we obtain
For the right-hand side in (22), we write
where we have used Remark 2.2 and where the notation \(O_{( n\leq 5) }\) means that the term appears only if \(n\leq 5\).
However, using Lemma 2.1 and (4), we have
For the other integral in (23), using Lemma 6.1, we see that, for \(n\geq 6 \), we have
Using Lemmas 2.1, 6.2, and 6.4, we obtain
For the first term on the right-hand side of (25), using again Lemmas 6.2 and 6.4, we obtain
However, since \(v _{\varepsilon }\in E_{a,\lambda }\), using Holder’s inequality and Lemma 6.7, it holds
For \(n \leq 5 \), using Lemma 6.1, we write
Using Lemmas 6.2 and 6.6, we get (since \(1\leq 2n/(n+2) < 8n/(n^{2} - 4 )\) for \(n \leq 5\))
Lastly, by easy computations, we have
with
Combining Proposition 2.3 and the above estimates, we easily obtain Proposition 2.4. □
3 Estimate of the gradient in the neighborhood of bubbles
As our proof is based on an argument by contradiction, we will assume that problem \((\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})\) has a solution \(u:= u_{\varepsilon }\) in the form (3) and satisfying (4), and we will need to give careful estimates of some integrals involved in our proof. In fact, for future use, we are going to give some crucial estimates in a more general situation than ours. To this aim, for \(N \in \mathbb{N}\), ε and η small positive reals, taking \((\alpha,a,\lambda ) \in \mathcal{V}(N,\varepsilon,\eta )\), where \(\mathcal{V}(N,\varepsilon,\eta )\) is defined by (9), and \(u=\sum_{i=1}^{N} \alpha _{i}\delta _{a_{i},\lambda _{i}} +v\) with \(v\in E_{a,\lambda }\), we need to evaluate the following expressions:
We start by dealing with the nonlinear integrals in (33).
Proposition 3.1
Let \(n \geq 3\) and \(u:= \sum_{i=1}^{N} \alpha _{i} \delta _{a_{i}, \lambda _{i} } + v \) be such that \((\alpha,a,\lambda ) \in \mathcal{V}(N,\varepsilon,\eta )\) and \(v \in E_{a,\lambda }\). Then, for \(1\leq i\leq N\), we have
where
Proof
To simplify notation, we write \(U=\sum_{j=1}^{N}\alpha _{j}\delta _{j}\) and \(\psi _{i}=\frac{1}{\lambda _{i}} \frac{\partial \delta _{i}}{\partial a_{i}}\). We set
Using Lemma 6.1, we get
First, from Lemmas 6.3 and 6.2, we obtain
Second, Lemmas 6.1 and 6.2 imply that
where \(\Omega _{i}=\{x\in \Omega: \sum_{j\neq i}\alpha _{j}\delta _{j}(x) \leq \alpha _{i}\delta _{i}(x)\}\) and \(\Omega _{i}^{c}= \Omega \setminus \Omega _{i} \).
To deal with the remaining term in (36), we distinguish two cases. For \(n\geq 6\), observe that \(p-1:= 4/(n-2) \leq 1\). Thus, using Lemmas 6.3 and 6.4, it follows that
For \(n\leq 5\), we have \(p-1>1\), and therefore, using (30), it holds
To complete estimate (36), using Lemmas 6.2. 6.3, 6.4, 6.7 and \(v \in E_{a,\lambda }\), we obtain
It remains to estimate the first integral on the right-hand side of (34). To this aim, by Lemma 6.1, we write
We are going to estimate each term of (41). First, for \(n \geq 4\), it follows that \(p-1 \leq 2\). Using Lemmas 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4, we obtain
and for \(n = 3 \), using Lemmas 6.2, 6.3, and 6.6, it follows that
Second, since \(\psi _{i}\) is odd and \(\delta _{i}\) is even with respect to \(x-a_{i}\), using Lemmas 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4, we get
where \(d_{i}:= d(a_{i}, \partial \Omega )\).
Third, using Lemmas 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, and 6.6, we obtain
Finally, using Lemmas 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3, we get
On the other hand, using Lemmas 6.3, 6.4, and 6.6 we see that
Combining the above estimates, the proof of Proposition 3.1 follows. □
Next, we are going to improve Proposition 3.1 in some particular cases. More precisely, we need to improve the term \(\sum \varepsilon _{kr}^{n/(n-2)}\ln \varepsilon _{kr}^{-1}\) in these cases.
Proposition 3.2
Let \(n \geq 5\), and for \(1\leq i\leq N\), let \(N_{i}:=\{j: 1\leq j\leq N, |a_{i}-a_{j}|\to 0\}\), \(\gamma:= \min \{|a_{j}-a_{k}|, j\neq k, j, k \in N_{i}\}\), and \(\sigma:= \max \{|a_{j}-a_{k}|, j\neq k, j, k \in N_{i}\}\). Assume that \({\gamma} / {\sigma} \geq c >0\) and \(\gamma \min \{\lambda _{k}: k\in N_{i}\} \geq c>0\). Then, for \(1\leq i\leq N\), we have
where \(R_{3,i}\) is defined in Proposition 3.1and
Proof
The proof follows the proof of Proposition 3.1, but we need to improve estimates (42) and (46). We remark that, since the distances \(| a_{k} - a_{j} |\)s are of the same order (that is \(\gamma / \sigma \geq c > 0 \)) and \(\gamma \min \{ \lambda _{k}: k \in N_{i} \} \geq c\) (by the assumption of the proposition), it follows from Assertion (4) of Lemma 6.5 that \(\varepsilon _{kj}\) and \((\lambda _{k} \lambda _{j} \gamma ^{2})^{(2-n)/2}\) are of the same order.
We start by improving (46). Let \(B_{\ell }=B(a_{\ell},\gamma /4)\), we write for \(k\notin \{i,j\}\) and \(i\neq j\)
For the last one, using Lemma 6.3, it holds
Concerning the first one, it holds
and in the same way we obtain
This completes the desired improvement for (46).
Now, we will focus on the improvement for (42). Using Lemmas 6.2 and 6.3, we get
where we have used Lemma 6.6. This completes the improvement of (42). Hence the proof of Proposition 3.2 follows. □
Next, we are going to deal with the linear terms in (33). We start by the second one, namely, we prove the following.
Proposition 3.3
Let \(n \geq 3\) and \(u:= \sum_{i=1}^{N} \alpha _{i} \delta _{a_{i}, \lambda _{i} } + v \) be such that \((\alpha,a,\lambda ) \in \mathcal{V}(N,\varepsilon,\eta )\). Then, for \(1\leq i\leq N\), the following fact holds:
Proof
Let \(\psi _{i}:= \frac{1}{\lambda _{i}} \frac{\partial \delta _{i}}{\partial a_{i}}\). Observe that, for \(j \neq i\), using Lemmas 6.3 and 6.6, it holds
For \(j = i \), let \(R>0\) be such that \(\Omega \subset B(a_{i}, R) \), it holds that
Finally, using again Lemma 6.3, it holds
Thus the proof follows. □
Next, we deal with the first linear term in (33).
Proposition 3.4
Let \(n \geq 3\) and \(u:= \sum_{i=1}^{N} \alpha _{i} \delta _{a_{i}, \lambda _{i} } + v \) be such that \((\alpha,a,\lambda ) \in \mathcal{V}(N,\varepsilon,\eta )\) and \(v \in E_{a,\lambda }\). Then, for \(1\leq i\leq N\), the following fact holds:
Proof
Since \(v \in E_{a,\lambda }\), it follows that
where we have used Lemma 6.4. This completes the proof. □
Combining Propositions 3.1, 3.3, and 3.4, we obtain the following balancing expression involving the point of concentration \(a_{i}\).
Proposition 3.5
Let \(n \geq 3\) and \(u = \sum_{ j \leq N} \alpha _{j} \delta _{a_{j},\lambda _{j}} + v\) be such that \((\alpha,a,\lambda ) \in \mathcal{V}(N,\varepsilon,\eta )\) and \(v \in E_{a,\lambda }\). Then, for \(1\leq i\leq N\), the following fact holds:
and where \(\overline{c}_{2}\) is defined in Lemma 6.4and \(R_{3,i} \), \(R_{5,i} \), \(R_{6,i} \) are defined in Propositions 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, respectively.
When the concentration points satisfy some properties, we can improve the previous proposition. More precisely, combining Propositions 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4, we obtain the following.
Proposition 3.6
Let \(n \geq 5\) and \(u = \sum_{ j \leq N} \alpha _{j} \delta _{a_{j},\lambda _{j}} + v\) be such that \((\alpha,a,\lambda ) \in \mathcal{V}(N,\varepsilon,\eta )\) and \(v \in E_{a,\lambda }\). For \(i \leq N\), let \(N_{i}:=\{j: |a_{i}-a_{j}|\to 0\}\), \(\gamma:= \min \{|a_{j}-a_{k}|, j\neq k, j, k \in N_{i}\}\) and \(\sigma:= \max \{|a_{j}-a_{k}|, j\neq k, j, k \in N_{i}\}\). Assume that \({\gamma} / {\sigma} \geq c >0\) and \(\gamma \min \{\lambda _{k}: k\in N_{i}\} \geq c>0\). Then, for \(1\leq i\leq N\), the following fact holds:
where \(\overline{c}_{2}\) is defined in Lemma 6.4and \(R_{3,i} \), \(R_{4,i} \), \(R_{5,i} \), \(R_{6,i} \) are defined in Propositions 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, respectively.
In the same way, we prove the following balancing expression involving the rate of the concentration and the mutual interaction of bubbles \(\varepsilon _{ij}\).
Proposition 3.7
Let \(n \geq 4\) and \(u = \sum_{ j \leq N} \alpha _{j} \delta _{a_{j},\lambda _{j}} + v \) be such that \((\alpha,a,\lambda ) \in \mathcal{V}(N,\varepsilon,\eta )\) (with \(d_{i}:= d(a_{i}, \partial \Omega ) \geq c \) if \(n=4 \)) and \(v \in E_{a,\lambda }\). Then, for \(1\leq i\leq N\), the following fact holds:
where \(c_{1}\) is defined in (49), \(c(n)\) is defined in (52) if \(n \geq 5 \) and in (53) if \(n =4 \) and \(\sigma _{4} = 1\) and \(\sigma _{n} = 0 \) for \(n \geq 5\), and \(\overline{c}_{2}\) is defined in Lemma 6.4.
Proof
We will follow the proof of Propositions 3.1, 3.3, and 3.4, and we will precise the estimate of some integrals. In fact, in this case, we will use the function \(\psi _{i}:= \lambda _{i} \partial \delta _{i} / \partial \lambda _{i}\). Note that (34), (35), (36), (37), (38), and (39) hold in this case since they are based on the fact that \(| \psi _{i} | \leq c \delta _{i} \), which is also true with the new \(\psi _{i}\). Some changes are needed for (40). In fact, using Lemma 6.7, we have
Furthermore, (41) and (42) also hold true, but (43) becomes as follows (see (3.4) of [6]):
where
Concerning (44), using Lemmas 6.2 and 6.4, it holds
In addition, (45), (46), and (47) hold. However, (48) becomes
Hence the analogue of Proposition 3.1 becomes
For the analogue of Proposition 3.4, it holds (since \(v \in E_{a,\lambda } \))
Notice that, using Lemma 6.7, we have
Thus, using Lemma 6.4, we obtain
It remains the analogue of Proposition 3.3. Using Lemma 6.2, we have
The last integral is computed in Lemma 6.6, and the second one is computed in (31). Concerning the first one, it depends on the dimension n. If \(n \geq 5\), then it holds
However, for \(n = 4\), let \(r, R >0\) be such that \(B(a_{i}, r ) \subset \Omega \subset B(a_{i},R)\). (Note that, if \(a_{i}\) is in a compact set of Ω, then r will be independent of \(a_{i}\)). It holds
Finally, combining (50), (51), (52), and (53), the proof of Proposition 3.7 follows. □
Lastly, we give the following expression involving the gluing parameters \(\alpha _{i}'s\). Namely, we have
Proposition 3.8
Let \(n \geq 4\) and \(u = \sum_{ j \leq N} \alpha _{j} \delta _{a_{j},\lambda _{j}} + v \) be such that \((\alpha,a,\lambda ) \in \mathcal{V}(N,\varepsilon,\eta )\) and \(v \in E_{a,\lambda }\). Then, for \(1\leq i\leq N\), the following fact holds:
Proof
The proof can be done as the previous ones, and it is more easy. Hence we omit it. □
4 Proof of the main results
This section is devoted to the proof of the main results of the paper. Their proof is basically based on the precise estimates made in Sect. 3. We start by excluding the existence of solutions that concentrate at a single interior point.
4.1 Proof of Theorem 1.1
We argue by contradiction, assume that such a sequence of solutions \((u_{\varepsilon })\) exists. Thus the solution \(u_{\varepsilon }\) will have the form (3) that is \(u_{\varepsilon }= \alpha _{\varepsilon }\delta _{a_{\varepsilon }, \lambda _{\varepsilon }} + v _{\varepsilon }\) and properties (4) are satisfied. Furthermore, Lemma 2.1 and Proposition 2.4 hold true with \(N=1\). Hence, \((\alpha _{\varepsilon }, a_{\varepsilon }, \lambda _{\varepsilon }) \in \mathcal{V}(1,\varepsilon,\eta )\) for small \(\eta > 0\) and \(v_{\varepsilon }\in E_{a_{\varepsilon },\lambda _{\varepsilon }}\). Thus, using Propositions 3.7 and 2.4, we obtain the following:
which gives a contradiction. Hence the proof is completed.
In the next subsection, we give a partial characterization of the solutions that concentrate at interior points if there exist.
4.2 Proof of Theorem 1.2
Let \((u_{\varepsilon })\) be a sequence of solutions of \((\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon })\) satisfying the assumptions of the theorem. Thus the solution \(u_{\varepsilon }\) will have the form (3), that is, \(u_{\varepsilon }= \sum_{k=1}^{N} \alpha _{k,\varepsilon } \delta _{a_{k, \varepsilon }, \lambda _{k,\varepsilon }} + v _{\varepsilon }\) and properties (4) are satisfied. Furthermore, Lemma 2.1 and Proposition 2.4 hold true. In addition, Propositions 3.5–3.7 hold and the left-hand side in each proposition is equal to 0. For the sake of simplicity, we will omit the index ε of the variables. Furthermore, without loss of the generality, we can order the \(\lambda _{i}\)s as follows:
First, multiplying Proposition 3.7 with \(2^{i}\) and summing over \(i =1, \ldots, N\), it holds (by using Proposition 2.4 and Assertion (3) of Lemma 6.5)
First, we prove Assertion (i) in the theorem, arguing by contradiction. Let j be such that \(\lambda _{j} / \lambda _{1}\) is bounded and assume that \(| a_{j} - a_{k} | \geq c > 0\) for each \(k\neq j\). Thus, we derive that \(\varepsilon _{kj} \leq c/( \lambda _{j} \lambda _{k})^{(n-2)/2} \leq c / \lambda _{1}^{n-2}\) for each \(k \neq j\). Now, writing Proposition 3.7 with \(i=j\) and recalling that the left-hand side is 0, we obtain
which gives a contradiction since \(\lambda _{j}\) and \(\lambda _{1}\) are of the same order. Thus Assertion (i) follows.
Second, we focus on the proof of Assertion (ii). In the sequel, we therefore assume that \(n\geq 5\). Now, using Proposition 2.4, we get
Note that for \(n\geq 6\) we have \(2n/(n-2) < n-2\) and for \(n\geq 5\) we have \(2>n/(n-2)\). This implies that
Now, using (54), (55), and (56), the estimate of \(\| v_{\varepsilon }\|^{2} \) can be written as
Furthermore, the remaining term in Proposition 3.5 can be written as
Now, we will focus on Assertion (ii). Arguing by contradiction, assume that \(\lambda _{N} / \lambda _{1}\) is bounded. From the smallness of the \(\varepsilon _{ij}'s\), we deduce that \(\lambda _{i}|a_{i}-a_{j}|\to \infty \) for each \(j\neq i\). Let \(\gamma:= \min \{ | a_{j} - a_{1} |: j \neq i\} >0\). Since the \(\lambda _{k}'s\) are of the same order, without loss of generality, we can assume that \(\gamma =|a_{1}-a_{i_{0}}|\) for some \(i_{0}\neq 1\). Let \(N_{1}:= \{ j: |a_{j} - a_{1} | \to 0\}\). Note that \(1 \in N_{1}\) and Assertion (i) implies that \(N_{1}\) contains at least another index. Since we have assumed that \(\lambda _{N} / \lambda _{1}\) is bounded, it follows that
Now, we need to introduce the points that are very close to \(a_{1}\). Let us define \(N'_{2}:= \{ j \in N_{1}: | a_{j} - a_{1} | / \gamma \to \infty \}\) and \(N_{2}:= N_{1} \setminus N'_{2}\). We remark that the \(\varepsilon _{ij}\)s, for \(i, j \in N_{2}\) with \(i \neq j\), are of the same order (in the sense that \(c \leq \varepsilon _{ij} / \varepsilon _{kr} \leq c' \) for each \(i, j, k, r \in N_{2}\)).
Let a̅ be such that \(\sum_{j \in N_{2}} (a_{j} - \overline{a}) = 0\). It is easy to see that \(| a_{j} - \overline{a} | \leq c \gamma \) for each \(j \in N_{2}\). Hence it follows that (by using the fact that \(\lambda _{N} / \lambda _{1}\) is bounded and Assertion (8) of Lemma 6.5)
Combining Propositions 3.8, 2.4, and 3.5 and using (57), we derive that, for \(n \geq 5 \) and for each \(i \in N_{2}\),
Since the \(\lambda _{j}\)s are of the same order, using (54) and Assertions (1) and (8) of Lemma 6.5, we get
Multiplying (60) by \(\lambda _{i} ( \overline{a} - a_{i}) \) and summing over \(i \in N_{2}\), we obtain
To proceed further, we split the above sum on j into three blocks.
Block 1: \(i, j \in N_{2}\) with \(j \neq i\). In this group, using Assertions (1) and (8) of Lemma 6.5, we observe that
Block 2: \(i \in N_{2}\) and \(j \notin N_{1}\), that is, \(|a_{i}-a_{j}|\geq c>0\). In this case, using Assertion (1) of Lemma 6.5, we obtain
Block 3: \(i \in N_{2}\) and \(j \in N_{1} \setminus N_{2}\). In this group, using Assertion (8) of Lemma 6.5, the fact that \(|a_{i} -\bar{a}|\leq C \gamma \) for each \(i\in N_{2}\) and \(|a_{i}-a_{j}|\gg |a_{1}-a_{i_{0}}|\), we get
Combining estimates (62), (63), (64), and (61), we deduce that
which implies
Putting (58) and (65) in Proposition 3.7 with \(i=1\) and using the fact that \(u_{\varepsilon }\) is a solution of \((\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon })\) (which implies that the left-hand side of the proposition is 0), we obtain
which presents a contradiction.
Hence the proof of the theorem is completed.
In the next subsection, we use Theorem 1.2 and the precise estimates of Sect. 3 to exclude the case of the existence of solutions with two or three interior blow-up points.
4.3 Proof of Theorem 1.3
We argue by contradiction. Assume that such a sequence of solutions \((u_{\varepsilon })\) exists. Thus the solution \(u_{\varepsilon }\) will have the form (3) that is \(u_{\varepsilon }= \sum_{k=1}^{N}\alpha _{k,\varepsilon } \delta _{a_{k, \varepsilon }, \lambda _{k,\varepsilon }} + v _{\varepsilon }\) with \(N\in \{2,3\}\) and properties (4) are satisfied. Furthermore, Lemma 2.1 and Proposition 2.4 hold true. As in the previous proof, without loss of the generality, we can assume that \(\lambda _{1} \leq \cdots \leq \lambda _{N}\).
We first prove the theorem in the case of two interior blow-up points.
Proof of Theorem 1.3 in the case of \(N=2\) and \(n \geq 5 \)
The proof will be decomposed into three steps. The first one is a direct consequence of Theorem 1.2.
Step 1. \(\lambda _{2} / \lambda _{1} \to \infty \) and \(| a_{1} - a_{2} | \to 0\).
The second one is as follows.
Step 2. There exists a positive constant \(\eta _{1} > 0 \) such that \(\lambda _{1} | a_{1} - a_{2} | \geq \eta _{1} \).
To prove Step 2, arguing by contradiction, we assume that \(\lambda _{1} | a_{1} - a_{2} | \to 0\) as \(\varepsilon \to 0 \). Thus, using Assertion (7) of Lemma 6.5, Proposition 3.7 with \(i=1\) implies
which cannot occur (since \(\varepsilon >0\) and \(\mu >0\)). Hence Step 2 follows.
Step 3. Proof of the theorem in the case mentioned above: on the one hand, using Assertions (1) and (4) of Lemma 6.5, we get
On the other hand, applying Proposition 3.5 and using (57), we obtain
However, using (67), we have
We derive that
Putting this information in Proposition 3.7 with \(i=1\), we derive (66), which gives a contradiction. Hence the proof of the theorem is complete in the case of \(N=2\) and \(n \geq 5\). □
Proof of Theorem 1.3 in the case of \(N=3\) and \(n \geq 6 \)
To make the proof clearer, we will split it into several claims. The first one is a direct consequence of Theorem 1.2.
Claim 1. \(\lambda _{3} / \lambda _{1} \to \infty \), there exists \(k \in \{2,3\}\) such that \(| a_{1} - a_{k} | \to 0\) and (54) holds true.
Before stating the second claim, we notice that, since \(u_{\varepsilon }\) is a solution of \((\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon })\), the left-hand side of Propositions 3.5, 3.7, and 3.8 becomes 0. Thus, using (54), Propositions 2.4, 3.5, and 3.7, we obtain
The second claim is as follows.
Claim 2. There exists a positive constant \(\eta _{1} \) such that \(\lambda _{1} | a_{1} - a_{2} | \geq \eta _{1} \).
To prove Claim 2, arguing by contradiction, we assume that \(\lambda _{1} | a_{1} - a_{2} | \to 0\). The smallness of \(\varepsilon _{12}\) implies that \(\lambda _{1}/ \lambda _{2} \to 0\). Computing \((E_{3})-(E_{1})\) and using Lemma 6.5, it holds
Now, using Assertion (2) of Lemma 6.5, we derive that
Putting this information in \((E_{2})\), we obtain a contradiction. Hence the proof of this claim is complete.
Next, we prove the following claim.
Claim 3. There exists a positive constant \(\eta _{2}\) such that \(\lambda _{1} | a_{1} - a_{3} | \geq \eta _{2} \).
Arguing by contradiction, assume that \(\lambda _{1} | a_{1} - a_{3} | \to 0\). Using Claim 2, we see that \(| a_{1} - a_{3} | / | a_{1} - a_{2} | \to 0\). We distinguish two cases.
First case: \(\lambda _{2} / \lambda _{1} \to \infty \). Observe that, in this case, Claim 2 implies that \(\lambda _{2} | a_{1} - a_{2} | \to \infty \). Therefore \(\lambda _{2} | a_{2} - a_{3} | \to \infty \) (since \(| a_{1} - a_{3} | = o( | a_{1} - a_{2} |)\)). Using Lemma 6.5, \((E_{2})-(E_{1})\) implies
Using Assertion (2) of Lemma 6.5, we derive that
Putting this information in \((E_{3})\), we obtain a contradiction. Hence the proof of Claim 3 follows in this case.
Second case: \(\lambda _{2} / \lambda _{1} \) is bounded. In this case, the smallness of \(\varepsilon _{12} \) implies that \(\lambda _{j} | a_{1} - a_{2} | \to \infty \) for \(j = 1,2\). Therefore \(\lambda _{2} | a_{2} - a_{3} | \to \infty \) (since \(| a_{1} - a_{3} | = o( | a_{1} - a_{2} |)\)). Note that, using Lemma 6.5, we obtain
Putting this information in \((F_{2})\) and using (54), we obtain
On the other hand, using Lemma 6.5 and the fact that \(\lambda _{2}/\lambda _{1}\) is bounded, we get
Thus
Putting this information in \((E_{1})\), using the fact that \(\lambda _{1} |a_{1}-a_{3}|\to 0\) and Lemma 6.5, we obtain
which gives a contradiction. Hence the proof of Claim 3 also follows in this case. This completes the proof of Claim 3.
Now, we state and prove Claim 4.
Claim 4. There exists a positive constant \(\eta _{3} \) such that \(| a_{1} - a_{2} | / | a_{1} - a_{3} | \geq \eta _{3} \).
Arguing by contradiction, assume that \(| a_{1} - a_{2} | = o( | a_{1} - a_{3} | ) \). Using Lemma 6.5, we observe that
Thus, \((F_{1})\) implies that
which shows that (68) holds. Putting (69) and (68) in \((E_{1})\), we obtain (66), which gives a contradiction. Hence the proof of Claim 4 follows.
Next, we prove the following.
Claim 5. There exists a positive constant \(\eta _{4} > 0 \) such that \(| a_{1} - a_{3} | / | a_{1} - a_{2} | \geq \eta _{4} \).
Arguing by contradiction, assume that \(| a_{1} - a_{3} | = o( | a_{1} - a_{2} | ) \). First, observe that
where we have used in the last inequality Claim ! and Assertion (8) of Lemma 6.5.
Second, we distinguish three cases and we will prove that all these cases cannot occur.
First case: \(\lambda _{2}/ \lambda _{1}\) remains bounded. Using Lemma 6.5 and (70), it holds
Therefore, using \((F_{2})\), we get
which implies that (68) holds in this case. Now, taking \((E_{3} - E_{2} - E_{1})\) and using (70), (68), we obtain
Using Assertion (2) of Lemma 6.5, we obtain a contradiction. Hence this case cannot occur.
Second case: \(\lambda _{2}/ \lambda _{1} \to \infty \) and \(\varepsilon _{13} = o( \varepsilon _{12} )\). In this case, taking \((E_{2} - E_{1} - E_{3})\) and using (70), we get
Again, using Assertion (2) of Lemma 6.5, we obtain a contradiction. Hence this case cannot also occur.
Third case: \(\lambda _{2}/ \lambda _{1} \to \infty \) and \(\varepsilon _{13} \geq c \varepsilon _{12} \) for some positive constant c.
Using assertions (1) and (4) of Lemma 6.5, it follows that
and
where we have used in the last line the fact that \(|a_{1}-a_{3}|=o(|a_{1}-a_{2}|)\) and (72).
Therefore, using \((F_{1})\), we get
which implies that
Thus, putting this information in \((E_{1})\), we easily obtain a contradiction. Thus this case cannot also occur. Therefore, the proof of Claim 5 follows.
Now, we state and prove the following.
Claim 6. There exists a positive constant \(\eta _{5} \) such that \(| a_{2} - a_{3} | / | a_{2} - a_{1} | \geq \eta _{5} \).
Arguing by contradiction, assume that \(| a_{2} - a_{3} | = o( | a_{1} - a_{2} | ) \). Multiplying \((F_{1})\) by \(\frac{a_{1} - a_{2}}{ | a_{1} - a_{2} |}\), we obtain
However, by Assertion (1) of Lemma 6.5, we have
Combining (74) and (75), we derive that
Putting this information in \((E_{1})\), we obtain (66), which gives a contradiction. Hence the proof of Claim 6 follows.
Now, we deal with the following claim.
Claim 7. There exists a positive constant \(\eta _{6} \) such that \(\lambda _{2} /\lambda _{3} \geq \eta _{6}\).
Arguing by contradiction, assume that \(\lambda _{2} /\lambda _{3} \to 0\). Thus it follows that
Thus \((F_{1})\) implies that
which implies (68). Putting (68) and (76) in \((E_{1})\), we get (66), which gives a contradiction. Thus the proof of Claim 7 follows.
Lastly, we are going to prove the theorem in the cases mentioned above. Combining the previous claims, we get
Thus, using Proposition 3.6 for \(i=3\), we derive that
Observe that, since \(n\geq 6\), easy computations show that
We derive that
Putting this information and (77) in \(( E_{1} + E_{3} - E_{2})\), we obtain (66), which gives a contradiction. Hence the proof of the theorem is complete. □
5 Conclusion
By using delicate estimates near the “standard” bubbles, we have provided some necessary conditions to be satisfied by the concentration parameters. The careful analysis of these balancing conditions allows us to observe a new phenomenon in the higher dimensional case: the nonexistence of solutions of \((\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon })\) that blow up at one or two or three interior points. This stands in strong contrast to the fact that if \(n = 3\), then solutions to \((\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon })\) exist with interior blow-up points [23]. However, some questions remain open:
-
(i)
Do the results of Theorem 1.3 remain true for all \(n\geq 4\)?
-
(ii)
Are there any solutions of \((\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon })\) that blow up, as ε goes to zero, at N interior points with \(N\geq 4\) and for all dimension \(n\geq 4\)?
-
(iii)
What happens if we put in front of the nonlinear term of \((\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon })\) a nonconstant function K?
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
References
Adimurthi, A., Mancini, G.: The Neumann problem for elliptic equations with critical nonlinearity. In: A Tribute in Honour of G. Prodi, pp. 9–25. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa (1991)
Adimurthi, A., Mancini, G.: Geometry and topology of the boundary in the critical Neumann problem. J. Reine Angew. Math. 456, 1–18 (1994)
Adimurthi, A., Pacella, F., Yadava, S.L.: Interaction between the geometry of the boundary and positive solutions of a semilinear Neumann problem with critical nonlinearity. J. Funct. Anal. 113, 318–350 (1993)
Adimurthi, A., Yadava, S.L.: Existence and nonexistence of positive radial solutions of Neumann problems with critical Sobolev exponents. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 115, 275–296 (1991)
Bahri, A.: Critical Points at Infinity in Some Variational Problems. Research Notes in Mathematics, vol. 182. Longman-Pitman, London (1989)
Ben Ayed, M., El Mehdi, K., Rey, O., Grossi, M.: A nonexistence result of single peaked solutions to a supercritical nonlinear problem. Commun. Contemp. Math. 5, 179–195 (2003)
Caffarelli, L., Gidas, B., Spruck, J.: Asymptotic symmetry and local behavior of semilinear elliptic equations with critical Sobolev growth. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 42, 271–297 (1989)
Dammak, Y.: A non-existence result for low energy sign-changing solutions of the Brezis–Nirenberg problem in dimensions 4, 5 and 6. J. Differ. Equ. 263, 7559–7600 (2017)
Del Pino, M., Musso, M., Pistoia, A.: Super-critical boundary bubbling in a semilinear Neumann problem. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré, Anal. Non Linéaire 22, 45–82 (2005)
Gierer, A., Meinhardt, H.: A theory of biological pattern formation. Kybernetik 12, 30–39 (1972)
Gui, C., Lin, C.S.: Estimates for boundary-bubbling solutions to an elliptic Neumann problem. J. Reine Angew. Math. 546, 201–235 (2002)
Lin, C.S., Ni, W.M.: On the Diffusion Coefficient of a Semilinear Neumann Problem. Springer Lecture Notes, vol. 1340. Springer, New York (1986)
Lin, C.S., Ni, W.N., Takagi, I.: Large amplitude stationary solutions to a chemotaxis system. J. Differ. Equ. 72, 1–27 (1988)
Lin, C.S., Wang, L., Wei, J.: Bubble accumulations in an elliptic Neumann problem with critical Sobolev exponent. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 30(2), 153–182 (2007)
Maier-Paape, S., Schmitt, K., Wang, Z.Q.: On Neumann problems for semilinear elliptic equations with critical nonlinearity: existence and symmetry of multi-peaked solutions. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 22, 1493–1527 (1997)
Ni, W.-M.: Diffusion, cross-diffusion, and their spike-layer steady states. Not. Am. Math. Soc. 45, 9–18 (1998)
Ni, W.-M.: Qualitative properties of solutions to elliptic problems. In: Stationary Partial Differential Equations, Handb. Differ. Equ., vol. 1, pp. 157–233. North-Holland, Amesterdam (2004)
Ni, W.N., Pan, X.B., Takagi, I.: Singular behavior of least-energy solutions of a semi-linear Neumann problem involving critical Sobolev exponents. Duke Math. J. 67, 1–20 (1992)
Pistoia, A., Saldana, A., Tavares, H.: Existence of solutions to a slightly supercritical pure Neumann problem. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 55(4), 3844–3887 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1137/22M1520360
Rey, O.: Boundary effect for an elliptic Neumann problem with critical nonlinearity. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 22, 1055–1139 (1997)
Rey, O.: An elliptic Neumann problem with critical nonlinearity in three dimensional domains. Commun. Contemp. Math. 1, 405–449 (1999)
Rey, O.: The question of interior blow-up points for an elliptic Neumann problem: the critical case. J. Math. Pures Appl. 81, 655–696 (2002)
Rey, O., Wei, J.: Blow-up solutions for an elliptic Neumann problem with sub- or supercritical nonlinearity, I: \(N = 3\). J. Funct. Anal. 212, 472–499 (2004)
Rey, O., Wei, J.: Blow-up solutions for an elliptic Neumann problem with sub-or supercritical nonlinearity, II: \(N \geq 4\). Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré, Anal. Non Linéaire 22(4), 459–484 (2005)
Rey, O., Wei, J.: Arbitrary number of positive solutions for an elliptic problem with critical nonlinearity. J. Eur. Math. Soc. 7, 449–476 (2005)
Wang, X.J.: Neumann problem of semilinear elliptic equations involving critical Sobolev exponents. J. Differ. Equ. 93, 283–310 (1991)
Wang, Z.Q.: The effect of domain geometry on the number of positive solutions of Neumann problems with critical exponents. Differ. Integral Equ. 8, 1533–1554 (1995)
Wang, Z.Q.: High energy and multi-peaked solutions for a nonlinear Neumann problem with critical exponent. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. 125A, 1003–1029 (1995)
Wang, Z.Q.: Construction of multi-peaked solution for a nonlinear Neumann problem with critical exponent. Nonlinear Anal. TMA 27, 1281–1306 (1996)
Wei, J., Xu, B., Yang, W.: On Lin–Ni’s conjecture in dimensions four and six. Sci. China Math. 49(2), 281–306 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1360/N012018-00120
Wei, J., Xu, X.: Uniqueness and a priori estimates for some nonlinear elliptic Neumann equations in \(R^{3}\). Pac. J. Math. 221, 159–165 (2005)
Zhu, M.: Uniqueness results through a priori estimates, I. A three dimensional Neumann problem. J. Differ. Equ. 154, 284–317 (1999)
Acknowledgements
Researchers would like to thank the Deanship of Scientific Research, Qassim University for funding publication of this project.
Funding
For this paper, no direct funding was received.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
In this appendix we collect several estimates needed throughout the paper. We start with the following auxiliary analysis formulae. Their proofs follow from a Taylor expansion with Lagrange remainder.
Lemma 6.1
For \(1<\alpha <3\) and \(\beta >0\), we have
-
(1)
\((a+b)^{\alpha } = a^{\alpha } +\alpha a^{\alpha -1}b + O (a^{ \alpha -2}b^{2}\chi _{b\leq a} + b^{\alpha }\chi _{a\leq b} )\),
-
(2)
\((a+b)^{\alpha } = a^{a} +\alpha a^{\alpha -1}b+b^{\alpha } + O ([a^{ \alpha -2}b^{2} +b^{\alpha }]\chi _{b\leq a} + [b^{\alpha -1}a +a^{ \alpha -1}b]\chi _{a\leq b} )\),
-
(3)
\((a+b)^{\alpha } = a^{\alpha } +b^{\alpha } + O (a^{\alpha -1}b \chi _{b\leq a} + ab^{\alpha -1}\chi _{a\leq b} )\),
-
(4)
\((a+b)^{\beta } = a^{\beta } +O (a^{\beta -1}b\chi _{b\leq a} + b^{ \beta }\chi _{a\leq b.} )\).
Next, we give the following estimate.
Lemma 6.2
For \(\varepsilon \ln \lambda \) small and \(a\in \Omega \), for each \(x \in \Omega \), it holds
Proof
By the definition of \(\delta _{a,\lambda }\), we have
Using the fact that Ω is bounded and Taylor’s expansion, we easily derive the desired result. □
By easy computations, we easily obtain the following result.
Lemma 6.3
For all \(x\in \Omega \), it holds
Next, we give the following estimates.
Lemma 6.4
We have
where \(\overline{c}_{2}:= \int _{ \mathbb{R}^{n}} \frac{c_{0} ^{2n/(n-2)} }{(1+ | x |^{2})^{(n+2)/2}}\).
Proof
(1), (4), and (5) are extracted from estimates E2 (page 4), F11 (page 22), and F16 (page 23) of [5] respectively. However, (2) and (3) follow by using standard computations. □
Now, we state the following properties.
Lemma 6.5
We have
Proof
Claim (1) follows immediately from the definition of \(\varepsilon _{ij}\) (see (4)). Concerning Claim (2), using the second assertion of Claim (1), we get, for \(\lambda _{i}\leq \lambda _{j}\),
which completes the proof of Claim (2). In the same way, we have
which implies the second assertion of Claim (3). Furthermore, for \(\lambda _{i}\leq \lambda _{j}\), we have
which completes the proof of Claim (3).
Now, assuming that \(\lambda _{i}\leq \lambda _{j}\) and \(\lambda _{i}|a_{i}-a_{j}|\geq C\), we see that
Hence the proof of Claim (4) is completed.
Concerning Claim (5), we observe that if \(\lambda _{i}\leq \lambda _{j}\) and \(\lambda _{i}|a_{i}-a_{j}|\leq C\), we have
Thus Claim (5) follows.
Notice that Claim (6) follows immediately from the second assertion of Claim (1).
Concerning Claim (7), observe that if \(\lambda _{i}\leq \lambda _{j}\) and \(\lambda _{i}|a_{i}-a_{j}|\to 0\), then from the smallness of \(\varepsilon _{ij}\) it follows that \(\lambda _{i}/\lambda _{j}\) is very small. Thus
Hence Claim (7) follows.
Now, note that if \(\lambda _{i}\) and \(\lambda _{j}\) are of the same order, then the smallness of \(\varepsilon _{ij}\) implies that \(\lambda _{i}\lambda _{j}|a_{i}-a_{j}|^{2}\) is very large. Hence Claim (8) follows.
Finally, if \(\lambda _{i}|a_{i}-a_{j}|\to \infty \), then we have
which implies Claim (9), and therefore the proof of the lemma is completed. □
We end this appendix by proving the following two useful results.
Lemma 6.6
Let \(n \geq 3\).
(1) For \(1\leq \beta < n/(n-2) \) and \(\lambda _{i} \leq \lambda _{j}\), it holds
(2) Let \(1 \leq \alpha \) and \(1 \leq \beta \) be such that \(\alpha \neq \beta \) and (i): \(\alpha + \beta = 2n/(n-2) \) or (ii): \(\alpha + \beta < 2n/(n-2) \). Then it holds
Proof
We remark that, for \(\beta = n / (n-2) \), the estimate of Claim (1) is already given in Lemma 6.4. Here, we need to improve this estimate when \(\beta < n /(n-2)\). Furthermore, the case \(2 \beta (n-2) < n \) occurs only when \(n = 3 \) and \(\beta < 3/2 \), and the case \(2 \beta (n-2) = n \) occurs only if \(n = 4 \) and \(\beta = 1 \) or \(n = 3 \) and \(\beta = 3/2 \).
First, we focus on proving Claim (1).
Note that, if \(2 \beta (n-2) < n \) (this case can occur only if \(n = 3\) and \(\beta < 3/2\)), in this case, it holds
Thus, in the sequel of the proof, we consider \(2 \beta (n-2) \geq n \). We distinguish two cases.
Case 1. \(\lambda _{i}|a_{i}-a_{j}|\leq M\), where M is a large constant. In this case, by Lemma 6.5, we know that \(\varepsilon _{ij}\) and \(({\lambda _{i}} / {\lambda _{j}} )^{ ( n-2 ) / {2}}\) have the same order. Let \(B_{j}:= B(a_{j}, 4 M / {\lambda _{i}} ) \). Observe that, for \(x \in \Omega \setminus B_{j}\), we have \(| x-a_{i} | \geq c | x - a_{j} | \). Thus
Hence the result in this case.
Case 2. \(\lambda _{i}|a_{i}-a_{j}|\geq M \). In this case, Lemma 6.5 implies that \((\lambda _{i}\lambda _{j}|a_{i}-a_{j}|^{2} )^{(2 - n) / {2}} \) and \(\varepsilon _{ij}\) have the same order. For \(k=i, j\), let \(B_{k}=B(a_{k}, |a_{i}-a_{j}|/4)\). Observe that
Hence the result follows in this case also.
Hence the proof of Claim (1) is complete. Concerning Claim (2), it follows from Claim \((d)\) of Lemma 2.2 of [8] when the assumption (i) is satisfied. However, when (ii) is satisfied (assume that \(\alpha < \beta \)), let \(\gamma:= (\alpha + \beta ) / 2 \), it follows that \(\gamma < n / (n-2) \) and \(\gamma - \alpha = ( \beta - \alpha ) / 2 \). Thus, using Holder’s inequality and Claim (1), it holds
Hence the proof is complete. □
Lemma 6.7
For \(a \in \Omega \) and \(\beta > 0\), it holds
Proof
We remark that if a is far away from the boundary, then the result is immediate. Hence, we focus on the case where \(d_{a}:= d(a,\partial \Omega )\) is small. Let a̅ be the projection of a at the boundary. Thus, we have
□
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
Ben Ayed, M., El Mehdi, K. Nonexistence of interior bubbling solutions for slightly supercritical elliptic problems. Bound Value Probl 2023, 90 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13661-023-01779-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13661-023-01779-2