Nonexistence of interior bubbling solutions for slightly supercritical elliptic problems

In this paper, we consider the Neumann elliptic problem (Pε)\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$(\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})$\end{document}: −Δu+μu=u((n+2)/(n−2))+ε\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$-\Delta u +\mu u = u^{(({n+2})/({n-2}))+\varepsilon}$\end{document}, u>0\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$u>0$\end{document} in Ω, ∂u/∂ν=0\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}${\partial u}/{\partial \nu}=0$\end{document} on ∂Ω, where Ω is a smooth bounded domain in Rn\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$\mathbb{R}^{n}$\end{document}, n≥4\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$n\geq 4$\end{document}, ε is a small positive real, and μ is a fixed positive number. We show that, in contrast with the three dimensional case, (Pε)\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$(\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})$\end{document} 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.


Introduction and main results
In this paper, we consider the following nonlinear elliptic equation: (P μ,p ) : where 1 < p < ∞, is a smooth bounded domain in R n , n ≥ 3, and μ is a positive number.The interest in Problem (P μ,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 (P μ,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 is convex, the only solution is the constant one [31,32].
However, for n ∈ {4, 5, 6} and μ small, nonconstant solutions exist (see [4] when 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][28][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 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)) + ε, where ε > 0 ε → 0, a single boundary bubble solution exists for fixed μ > 0 and n ≥ 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, μ = 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 ≥ 4. Thus, in what remains of this paper, we consider the slightly supercritical problem (P ε ) : where ε is a small positive real, is a smooth bounded domain in R n , n ≥ 4, μ is a positive fixed number, and p + 1 = 2n/(n -2) is the critical Sobolev exponent for the embedding H 1 ( ) → L q ( ).Before we state our main result, we need to introduce some notation.Let us define the following family of functions called bubbles: δ a,λ (x) = c 0 λ (n-2)/2 (1 + λ 2 |x -a| 2 ) (n-2)/2 , λ > 0, a, x ∈ R n , c 0 = n(n -2) (n-2)/4 , ( 1 ) which are the only solutions to the problem [7] u = u (n+2)/(n-2) , u > 0 in R n .
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 ε ) is a sequence of nonconstant solutions to (P ε ), then there are several and equivalent ways to define blow-up points of (u ε ).For example, a ∈ ¯ will be said to be a blow-up point of (u ε ) if Our first result is the following.
Theorem 1.1 Let n ≥ 4 and let μ be a fixed positive number.Then (P ε ) has no solution u ε that blows up, as ε → 0, at a single interior point in the sense that u εδ a ε ,λ ε H 1 ( ) → 0, with a ε → a ∈ and λ ε → ∞ as ε → 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 ≥ 4 and μ be a fixed positive number.Let (u ε ) be a sequence of solutions of (P ε ) such that and a i,ε → a i ∈ as ε → 0 for all i ∈ {1, . . ., N}.
(ii) In addition, if n ≥ 5, then λ max,ε λ min,ε → ∞ as ε → 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.
In the case of N interior blow-up points, with N ≥ 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 ≥ 4, N ≥ 4, and μ be a fixed positive number.Then (P ε ) has no solution u ε such that

, N}, and one of the following two conditions holds:
(i) n ≥ 5 and λ max,ε λ min,ε → ∞ as ε → 0, (ii) n ≥ 4 and there exists j ∈ {1, . . ., N} satisfying 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 Throughout the sequel we assume that n ≥ 3, u ε is a sequence of solutions of (P ε ) written in the form To simplify the notation, throughout the sequel we set δ i = δ a i,ε ,λ i,ε , a i = a i,ε , and We know that there is a unique way to choose a i,ε , λ i,ε , and v ε such that where, for any (a, λ) For the proof of this fact, see [20].In what follows, we always assume that u ε is written as in (3) and (4).We start by proving the following crucial lemma.
Proof Multiplying (P ε ) by δ i and integrating on , we obtain Using Lemma 6.6, we have - where Now, since ∂u ε /∂ν = 0, we observe that and using Lemma 6.6, we get where σ 4 = 1 and σ n = 0 if n = 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 Combining the above estimates, we obtain 1), which completes the proof of the lemma.
Notice that since |u ε | ∞ is of the same order as λ (n-2)/2 max , Lemma 2.1 implies the following important remark.Remark 2.2 There is ε 0 > 0 such that, for ε ∈ (0, ε 0 ), we have where C is a positive constant independent of ε.Now, we are going to estimate the v ε -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 ∈ N and η > 0 is a small parameter.

Proposition 2.3
Let n ≥ 3 and (α, a, λ) ∈ V(N, ε, η).Then there exists ρ 0 > 0 such that Proof Let v ∈ E a,λ and v 1 be its projection onto H 1 0 ( ) defined by It is easy to obtain For y ∈ , we denote by d y := d(y, ∂ ).Since v 2 is a harmonic function in , 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 ≤ i ≤ N , taking and B i := B(a i , d i /2), we observe that, for each y ∈ B i , it holds that d i /2 ≤ d y ≤ 2d i .Therefore, we get where we have used (13), the fact that ) (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, ṽ1 ∈ D 1,2 (R n ).Now, we write where 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 ε -part of u ε when ε goes to zero.

Proposition 2.4
Let n ≥ 3 and let v ε be the remainder term defined in (3).Then there is ε 0 > 0 such that, for ε ∈ (0, ε 0 ), the following fact holds: Proof Taking U = N i=1 α i δ i , multiplying (P ε ) by v ε , and integrating on , we obtain For the right-hand side in (22), we write where we have used Remark 2.2 and where the notation O (n≤5) means that the term appears only if n ≤ 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 ≥ 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 ε ∈ E a,λ , using Holder's inequality and Lemma 6.7, it holds For n ≤ 5, using Lemma 6.1, we write Using Lemmas 6.2 and 6.6, we get (since 1 ≤ 2n/(n + 2) < 8n/(n 2 -4) for n ≤ 5) Lastly, by easy computations, we have with Combining Proposition 2.3 and the above estimates, we easily obtain Proposition 2.4.

Estimate of the gradient in the neighborhood of bubbles
As our proof is based on an argument by contradiction, we will assume that problem (P ε ) has a solution u := u ε 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 ∈ N, ε and η small positive reals, taking (α, a, λ) ∈ V(N, ε, η), where V(N, ε, η) is defined by (9), and u = N i=1 α i δ a i ,λ i + v with v ∈ E a,λ , we need to evaluate the following expressions: We start by dealing with the nonlinear integrals in (33).

Proposition 3.1 Let n ≥ 3 and u
.
Proof To simplify notation, we write U = N j=1 α j δ j and ψ i = 1 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 i = {x ∈ : j =i α j δ j (x) ≤ α i δ i (x)} and c i = \ i .To deal with the remaining term in (36), we distinguish two cases.For n ≥ 6, observe that p -1 := 4/(n -2) ≤ 1.Thus, using Lemmas 6.3 and 6.4, it follows that For n ≤ 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 ∈ E a,λ , 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 ≥ 4, it follows that p -1 ≤ 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 ψ i is odd and δ i is even with respect to xa i , using Lemmas 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4, we get where 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 ε n/(n-2) kr ln ε -1  kr in these cases.
Proposition 3.2 Let n ≥ 5, and for where R 3,i is defined in Proposition 3.1 and 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 ka j |s are of the same order (that is γ /σ ≥ c > 0) and γ min{λ k : k ∈ N i } ≥ c (by the assumption of the proposition), it follows from Assertion (4) of Lemma 6.5 that ε kj and (λ k λ j γ 2 ) (2-n)/2 are of the same order.We start by improving (46).Let B = B(a , γ /4), we write for k / ∈ {i, j} and i = 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.
Then, for 1 ≤ i ≤ N , the following fact holds: Observe that, for j = i, using Lemmas 6.3 and 6.6, it holds For j = i, let R > 0 be such that ⊂ 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).
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 ≥ 3 and u = j≤N α j δ a j ,λ j + v be such that (α, a, λ) ∈ V(N, ε, η) and v ∈ E a,λ .Then, for 1 ≤ i ≤ N , the following fact holds: and where c 2 is defined in Lemma 6.4 and 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.
In the same way, we prove the following balancing expression involving the rate of the concentration and the mutual interaction of bubbles ε ij .Proposition 3.7 Let n ≥ 4 and u = j≤N α j δ a j ,λ j + v be such that (α, a, λ) ∈ V(N, ε, η) (with where c 1 is defined in (49), c(n) is defined in (52) if n ≥ 5 and in (53) if n = 4 and σ 4 = 1 and σ n = 0 for n ≥ 5, and 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 ψ i := λ i ∂δ i /∂λ i .Note that (34), ( 35), (36), (37), (38), and (39) hold in this case since they are based on the fact that |ψ i | ≤ cδ i , which is also true with the new ψ 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 (49) 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 ∈ E a,λ ) 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 ≥ 5, then it holds However, for n = 4, let r, R > 0 be such that B(a i , r) ⊂ ⊂ B(a i , R). (Note that, if a i is in a compact set of , 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 α i s.Namely, we have Proposition 3.8 Let n ≥ 4 and u = j≤N α j δ a j ,λ j + v be such that (α, a, λ) ∈ V(N, ε, η) and v ∈ E a,λ .Then, for 1 ≤ i ≤ N , the following fact holds: Proof The proof can be done as the previous ones, and it is more easy.Hence we omit it.

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.
In the next subsection, we give a partial characterization of the solutions that concentrate at interior points if there exist.

Proof of Theorem 1.2
Let (u ε ) be a sequence of solutions of (P ε ) satisfying the assumptions of the theorem.Thus the solution u ε will have the form (3), that is, u ε = N k=1 α k,ε δ a k,ε ,λ k,ε + v ε 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 λ i s as follows: First, multiplying Proposition 3.7 with 2 i and summing over i = 1, . . ., N , it holds (by using Proposition 2.4 and Assertion (3) of Lemma 6.5) , where First, we prove Assertion (i) in the theorem, arguing by contradiction.Let j be such that λ j /λ 1 is bounded and assume that |a ja k | ≥ c > 0 for each k = j.Thus, we derive that for each k = 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 λ j and λ 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 ≥ 5. Now, using Proposition 2.4, we get (55) Note that for n ≥ 6 we have 2n/(n -2) < n -2 and for n ≥ 5 we have 2 > n/(n -2).This implies that (56) Now, using (54), (55), and (56), the estimate of v ε 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 λ N /λ 1 is bounded.From the smallness of the ε ij s, we deduce that λ i |a ia j | → ∞ for each j = i.Let γ := min{|a ja 1 | : j = i} > 0. Since the λ k s are of the same order, without loss of generality, we can assume that γ = |a 1a i 0 | for some i 0 = 1.Let N 1 := {j : |a ja 1 | → 0}.Note that 1 ∈ N 1 and Assertion (i) implies that N 1 contains at least another index.Since we have assumed that λ N /λ 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 ∈ N 1 : |a ja 1 |/γ → ∞} and N 2 := N 1 \ N 2 .We remark that the ε ij s, for i, j ∈ N 2 with i = j, are of the same order (in the sense that c ≤ ε ij /ε kr ≤ c for each i, j, k, r ∈ N 2 ).
Let a be such that j∈N 2 (a ja) = 0.It is easy to see that |a j -a| ≤ cγ for each j ∈ N 2 .Hence it follows that (by using the fact that λ N /λ 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 ≥ 5 and for each i ∈ N 2 , Since the λ j s are of the same order, using (54) and Assertions ( 1) and ( 8) of Lemma 6.5, we get Multiplying (60) by λ i (aa i ) and summing over i ∈ N 2 , we obtain To proceed further, we split the above sum on j into three blocks.Block 1: i, j ∈ N 2 with j = i.In this group, using Assertions ( 1) and ( 8) of Lemma 6.5, we observe that In this case, using Assertion (1) of Lemma 6.5, we obtain In this group, using Assertion (8) of Lemma 6.5, the fact that |a i -ā| ≤ Cγ for each i ∈ N 2 and |a ia j | |a 1a 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 ε is a solution of (P ε ) (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.

Proof of Theorem 1.3
We argue by contradiction.Assume that such a sequence of solutions (u ε ) exists.Thus the solution u ε will have the form (3) that is 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 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 ≥ 5 The proof will be decomposed into three steps.The first one is a direct consequence of Theorem 1.2.
The second one is as 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 ≥ 5.
Proof of Theorem 1.3 in the case of N = 3 and n ≥ 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. λ 3 /λ 1 → ∞, there exists k ∈ {2, 3} such that |a 1a k | → 0 and (54) holds true.Before stating the second claim, we notice that, since u ε is a solution of (P ε ), the lefthand 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 η 1 such that To prove Claim 2, arguing by contradiction, we assume that λ 1 |a 1a 2 | → 0. The smallness of ε 12 implies that λ 1 /λ 2 → 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 η 2 such that λ Arguing by contradiction, assume that λ 1 |a 1a 3 | → 0. Using Claim 2, we see that |a 1a 3 |/|a 1a 2 | → 0. We distinguish two cases.
First case: 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: λ 2 /λ 1 is bounded.In this case, the smallness of ε 12 implies that . 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 λ 2 /λ 1 is bounded, we get

12
. Thus Putting this information in (E 1 ), using the fact that λ 1 |a 1a 3 | → 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 ≥ cε (n-1)/(n-2)
Next, we prove the following.Claim 5.There exists a positive constant η 4 > 0 such that |a 1 - Arguing by contradiction, assume that |a 1 - 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: λ 2 /λ 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.
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 1 λ 3 Observe that, since n ≥ 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.

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 (P ε ) 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 (P ε ) 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 ≥ 4? (ii) Are there any solutions of (P ε ) that blow up, as ε goes to zero, at N interior points with N ≥ 4 and for all dimension n ≥ 4? (iii) What happens if we put in front of the nonlinear term of (P ε ) a nonconstant function K ?
Next, we give the following estimate.Lemma 6.2For ε ln λ small and a ∈ , for each x ∈ , it holds Proof By the definition of δ a,λ , we have Using the fact that is bounded and Taylor's expansion, we easily derive the desired result.
By easy computations, we easily obtain the following result.
Lemma 6.3For all x ∈ , it holds Next, we give the following estimates.Lemma 6. 4 We have R n \B(a,r) 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 ε ij (see ( 4)).Concerning Claim (2), using the second assertion of Claim (1), we get, for which completes the proof of Claim (2).In the same way, we have which implies the second assertion of Claim (3).Furthermore, for λ i ≤ λ j , we have which completes the proof of Claim (3).Now, assuming that λ i ≤ λ j and λ i |a ia j | ≥ C, we see that Hence the proof of Claim (4) is completed.
Concerning Claim (5), we observe that if λ i ≤ λ j and λ i |a ia j | ≤ 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 λ i ≤ λ j and λ i |a ia j | → 0, then from the smallness of ε ij it follows that λ i /λ j is very small.Thus Hence Claim (7) follows.Now, note that if λ i and λ j are of the same order, then the smallness of ε ij implies that λ i λ j |a ia j | 2 is very large.Hence Claim (8) follows.
Finally, if λ i |a ia j | → ∞, then we have → 0, 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 ≥ 3.
Case 1. λ i |a ia j | ≤ M, where M is a large constant.In this case, by Lemma 6.5, we know that ε ij and (λ i /λ j ) (n-2)/2 have the same order.Let B j := B(a j , 4M/λ i ).Observe that, for x ∈ \ B j , we have |xa i | ≥ c|xa j |.Thus Hence the result in this case.Case 2. λ i |a ia j | ≥ M. In this case, Lemma 6.5 implies that (λ i λ j |a ia j | 2 ) (2-n)/2 and ε ij have the same order.For k = i, j, let B k = B(a k , |a ia 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 α < β), let γ := (α + β)/2, it follows that γ < n/(n -2) and γα = (βα)/2.Thus, using Holder's inequality and Claim (1), it holds Hence the proof is complete.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, ∂ ) is small.Let a be the projection of a at the boundary.Thus, we have