ON THE EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS OF SEMILINEAR ELLIPTIC
EQUATIONS AND SYSTEMS WITH HARDY POTENTIALS
arXiv:1609.06671v2 [math.AP] 22 Sep 2016
KONSTANTINOS T. GKIKAS AND PHUOC-TAI NGUYEN
Abstract. Let Ω ⊂ RN (N ≥ 3) be a bounded smooth domain and δ(x) = dist (x, ∂Ω). In this
paper, we provide various necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of weak solutions
to
µ
−∆u − 2 u = δ γ up + τ in Ω,
u = ν on ∂Ω
δ
where µ, γ ∈ R, p > 0, τ and ν are measures on Ω and ∂Ω respectively. We then establish
existence results for the system

µ

− ∆u − 2 u = δ γ v p + τ in Ω,


δ

µ
− ∆v − 2 v = δ γ̃ up̃ + τ̃ in Ω,

δ



u = ν, v = ν̃ on ∂Ω
where = ±1, γ, γ̃ ∈ R, p > 0, p̃ > 0, τ and τ̃ are measures on Ω, ν and ν̃ are measures on ∂Ω.
We also deal with elliptic systems where the nonlinearities are more general.
Key words: Hardy potential, semilinear equations, elliptic systems, normalized boundary trace.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 35J10, 35J57, 35J61, 35J75, 35R05.
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Preliminaries
2.1. Green kernel and Martin kernel
2.2. Normalized boundary trace
3. The scalar problem
3.1. Concavity properties and Green properties
3.2. New Green properties
3.3. Boundary value problem
3.4. Capacities and existence results
4. Elliptic systems: the power case
5. General nonlinearities
5.1. Absorption case
5.2. Source case: subcriticality
5.3. Source case : sublinearity
5.4. Source case : subcriticality and sublinearity
References
Email address: kgkikas@dim.uchile.cl.
Email address: nguyenphuoctai.hcmup@gmail.com.
1
2
8
8
10
12
12
16
17
21
25
28
28
30
35
36
36
2
KONSTANTINOS T. GKIKAS AND PHUOC-TAI NGUYEN
1. Introduction
Let Ω ⊂ RN (N ≥ 3) be a bounded smooth domain (say ∂Ω ∈ C 2 ), δ(x) be the distance
from x ∈ Ω to ∂Ω and h : Ω × R → R be a contiuous function. In the present paper we study
semilinear problems with Hardy potential of the form
(
µ
−∆u − 2 u = h(x, u) + τ in Ω,
δ
(1.1)
u = ν on ∂Ω
where µ ∈ R, τ and ν are Radon measures on Ω and ∂Ω respectively.
The case without Hardy potential and with power absorption nonlinearity, i.e. µ = 0, τ = 0,
h(x, u) = −|u|p−1 u, p > 1, is well understood in the literature, starting with a work by Gmira
+1
and Véron [19]. It was proved that there is a critical exponent p∗ := N
N −1 in the sense that
∗
if p ∈ (1, p ) then there is a unique weak solution for every finite measure ν on Ω, while if
p ∈ [p∗ , ∞) there exists no solution with isolated boundary singularity. Marcus and Véron
[26] studied this problem by introducing a notion of boundary trace and provided a complete
description of isolated singularities in the subcritical case, i.e. 1 < p < p∗ . The supercritical
case, i.e. p ≥ p∗ , requires a deeper analysis and was studied by several authors. In particular,
the problem was studied by Dynkin [15], Mselati [24] in the case p∗ ≤ p ≤ 2 using probabilistic
techniques, and by Marcus and Véron [27, 28] for p ≥ p∗ due to analytic methods.
The solvability of the semilinear problem without Hardy potential and with power source term,
namely µ = 0, τ = 0, h(x, u) = up , p > 1, was first studied by Bidaut-Véron and Vivier [8]
in connection with the Green operator G and the Poisson operator P associated to (−∆) in Ω.
They proved that, in the subcritical case 1 < p < p∗ , the problem admits a solution if and only
if the total mass of ν is sufficiently small. Afterwards, Bidaut-Véron and Yarur [10] reconsidered
this type of problem in a more general setting and provided a necessary and sufficient condition
for the existence of solutions. In the same spirit, (1.1) with µ = 0, h(x, u) = up , p > 0, was
also considered Bidaut-Véron and Yarur in [10]. Recently, Bidaut-Véron et al. [9] provided new
criteria for the existence of solutions with p > 1 in terms of Besov capacity Cap∂Ω
2 0 associated to
,p
p
2 0
,p
p
(RN −1 ).
the Besov space B
More precisely, it was pointed out in [9] that the solvability can
be expressed by the inequality ν(E) ≤ CCap∂Ω
2 0 (E) for every Borel subset E ⊂ ∂Ω. Problem
,p
p
(1.1) with µ = 0, τ = 0 and h(x, u) depending only on u and satisfying a so-called subcriticality
condition was investigated by Chen, Felmer and Véron [13] due to Schauder fixed point theorem
in Marcinkiewicz setting.
Recently, semilinear equations with Hardy potential depending on the distance function have
been attracted much attention.
Put
µ
Lµ := ∆ + 2 .
δ
p
R Let φ ≥ 0 in Ω and p ≥ 1, we denote by L (Ω; φ) the space of all function v on ΩR satisfying
Ω |v| φdx < ∞. We denote by M(Ω; φ) the space of Radon measures τ on Ω satisfying Ω φ d|τ | <
∞ and by M+ (Ω; φ) the nonnegative cone of M(Ω; φ). When φ ≡ 1, we use the notations M(Ω)
and M+ (Ω). We also denote by M(∂Ω) the space of finite measures on ∂Ω and by M+ (∂Ω) the
nonnegative cone of M(∂Ω).
Let Gµ and Kµ be the Green kernel and Martin kernel of −Lµ in Ω, Gµ and Kµ be the
corresponding Green operator and Martin operator. Let CH be Hardy constant, namely
R
2
Ω |∇v| dx
R
(1.2)
CH =
inf
v∈H01 (Ω)\{0} Ω (v/δ)2 dx
ON THE EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS
3
then it is well known that 0 < CH ≤ 41 and if Ω is convex then CH = 14 (see for example [21]).
Moreover the infimum is achieved if and only if CH < 14 . When µ < CH or −∆δ ≥ 0 in Ω in
the sense of distribution, the first eigenvalue λµ,1 of Lµ in Ω exists. For µ ∈ (0, 14 ], denote by
α+ and α− two fundamental exponents
p
1
(1.3)
α± := (1 ± 1 − 4µ)
2
then 0 < α− < 12 <
α+ + α− = 1. The eigenfunction ϕµ,1 associated to λµ,1 with
R α+ < 1 and
2
the normalization Ω (ϕµ,1 /δ) dx = 1 satifies (see [12], [16]), for some constant c > 0,
c−1 δ α+ ≤ ϕµ,1 ≤ cδ α+
(1.4)
in Ω.
In relation to Hardy constant, Bandle et al. in [6] classified large solutions of the linear equation
−Lµ u = 0
(1.5)
in Ω,
and the associated nonlinear equation with power absorption
−Lµ u + up = 0
(1.6)
in Ω.
In [23], Marcus and P.-T. Nguyen studied boundary value problem for (1.5) and (1.6) with
µ ∈ (0, CH ) in measures framework by introducing a notion of normalized boundary trace which
is defined as follows
Definition 1.1. A function u possesses a normalized boundary trace if there exists a measure
ν ∈ M(∂Ω) such that
Z
|u − Kµ [ν]|dS = 0.
(1.7)
lim β −α−
β→0
{x∈Ω:δ(x)=β}
The normalized boundary trace is denoted by tr ∗ (u).
The restriction µ ∈ (0, CH ) in [23] is due to the fact that in this case Lµ is weakly coercive in
H01 (Ω) and consequently by a result of Ancona [3, Remark p. 523] there is a (1 − 1) correspondence between M+ (∂Ω) and the class of positive Lµ harmonic functions, namely any positive
Lµ harmonic function u can be written in a unique way under the form u = Kµ [ν] for some
ν ∈ M+ (∂Ω).
The notion of normalized boundary trace was proved [23] as an appropriate generalization
of the classical boundary trace to the setting of Hardy potentials, giving a characterization
of moderate solutions of (1.6). In addition, it was showed in [23] that there exists a critical
+α+
exponent p∗µ := NN+α
such that if p ∈ (0, p∗µ ) then there exists a unique solution of (1.6) with
+ −2
tr ∗ (u) = ν for every finite measure ν on ∂Ω, while if p > p∗µ there is no solution of (1.6) with
isolated boundary singularity. Marcus and Moroz [22] then extended the notion of normalized
boundary trace to the case µ < 41 and employed it to investigate (1.6). They proved that the
existence depends on two critical exponents and discussed the question of uniqueness. Separable
solutions of (1.6) with µ < 14 with a strong boundary singularity was studied in [5]. When µ = 14 ,
Lµ is no longer weakly coercive and hence Ancona’s result cannot be applied. However, Gkikas
and Véron [18] observed that if the first eigenvalue of −L 1 is positive then the kernel K 1 (x, y)
4
4
with pole at y ∈ ∂Ω is unique up to a multiplication and any positive L 1 harmonic function u
4
admits such a representation. Based on that observation, they considered the boundary value
problem with measures for (1.6), fully classifying isolated singularities in the subcritical case
p ∈ (1, p∗µ ) and providing removability result in the supercritical case p ≥ p∗µ .
4
KONSTANTINOS T. GKIKAS AND PHUOC-TAI NGUYEN
In parallel, semilinear equations with Hardy potential and source term
−Lµ u = up
(1.8)
in Ω
were treated by Bidaut-Véron et al. [9] and by P.-T. Nguyen [31] and a fairly complete description of the profile of solutions to (1.8) was obtained in subcritical case p < p∗µ (see [31]) and in
supercritical case p ≥ p∗µ (see [9]).
Motivated by the above works, we aim to obtain existence results for (1.1). Throughout this
paper, we use the notation (h ◦ u)(x) := h(x, u(x)). Before stating main results, it is necessary
to give the definition of weak solutions to (1.1). Put
(1.9)
X(Ω) = φ ∈ L2 (Ω) s.t. ∇(δ −α+ φ) ∈ L2 (Ω, δ α+ ) and δ −α+ Lµ φ ∈ L∞ (Ω) .
Definition 1.2. Assume µ ∈ (0, 41 ]. Let τ ∈ M(Ω; δ α+ ) and ν ∈ M(∂Ω). A function u is called
a weak solution of (1.1) if u ∈ L1 (Ω; δ α+ ), h ◦ u ∈ L1 (Ω; δ α+ ) and for every φ ∈ X(Ω),
Z
Z
Z
Z
(1.10)
− uLµ φ dx = (h ◦ u)φ dx + φdτ − Kµ [ν]Lµ φ dx.
Ω
Ω
Ω
Ω
for every φ ∈ X(Ω)
Remark. (i) It is showed in [18] that a function u is a weak solution of (1.1) if and only if it
can be written in the following form
(1.11)
u = Gµ [h ◦ u] + Gµ [τ ] + Kµ [ν].
(ii) It is worth mentioning that when µ ∈ (0, CH ), an alternative definition of weak solutions
was provided by Marcus and P.-T. Nguyen. In [23], a function u is a weak solution of (1.1) if
and only if u ∈ L1 (Ω; δ −α− ), h ◦ u ∈ L1 (Ω; δ α+ ) and u satisfies (1.10) for every φ ∈ Y(Ω) where
(1.12)
Y(Ω) = φ ∈ C 2 (Ω) s.t. δ −α+ φ ∈ L∞ (Ω) and δ α− Lµ φ ∈ L∞ (Ω) .
The space Y is larger than X, however the definition in [23] is equivalent to Definition 1.2 due
to the presentation form (1.11). As a consequence, as long as µ < CH , any solution u of (1.1)
has tr ∗ (u) = ν.
Convention. Throughout the paper, we assume that µ ∈ (0, 14 ] and the first eigenvalue λµ,1
of −Lµ in Ω is positive. We emphasize that if µ ∈ (0, CH ) then λµ,1 > 0.
For t ∈ R, put
(1.13)
p∗µ,t :=
N + α+ + t
.
N + α+ − 2
We are ready to state first existence result for (1.1) in the subcritical case.
Theorem A. Let τ ∈ M+ (Ω; δ α+ ) and ν ∈ M+ (∂Ω).
(i) Assume γ > −1 − α+ and 0 < p < p∗µ,γ . Then there exists a constant C1 > 0 such that
Gµ [δ γ (Kµ [ν])p ] ≤ C1 Kµ [ν] a.e. in Ω.
+α+ −1)α+ 2α+ (ii) Assume γ ∈ −2(N
, N −2 and 0 < p < p∗µ,γ . Then there exists a constant C2 > 0
N +2α+ −2
such that
(1.14)
(1.15)
Gµ [δ γ (Gµ [τ ])p ] ≤ C2 Gµ [τ ]
a.e. in Ω.
Furthermore if σ > 0 and % > 0 are small enough then the problem
−Lµ u = δ γ up + στ in Ω,
(1.16)
u = %ν on ∂Ω
ON THE EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS
5
admits a weak solution u satisfying
(1.17)
Gµ [στ ] + Kµ [%ν] ≤ u ≤ C3 (Gµ [στ ] + Kµ [%ν]) a.e. in Ω.
for some positive constant C3 .
In addition, there exists a positive constant C4 such that if u is a weak solution of (1.16) then
(1.18)
Gµ [στ ] + Kµ [%ν] ≤ u ≤ C4 (Gµ [στ ] + Kµ [%ν] + δ α+ ) a.e. in Ω.
Moreover, if µ ∈ (0, CH ) then tr ∗ (u) = %ν.
In order to study (1.16) in the supercritical case, we make use of the capacities introduced in
[9]. For 0 ≤ α ≤ β < N , set
1
(1.19)
Nα,β (x, y) :=
, ∀(x, y) ∈ Ω × Ω
N
−β
|x − y|
max{|x − y|, δ(x), δ(y)}α
and
Z
(1.20)
Nα,β [τ ](x) :=
Nα,β (x, y)dτ, ∀τ ∈ M+ (Ω).
Ω
For a > −1, 0 ≤ α ≤ β < N and s > 1, define CapaNα,β ,s by
Z
(1.21)
CapaNα,β ,s (E) := inf
δ a φs dx : φ ≥ 0, Nα,β [δ a φ] ≥ χE ,
Ω
for any Borel set E ⊂ Ω. For θ ∈ (0, N − 1) and s > 0, let Cap∂Ω
θ,s be the capacity defined in [9,
∂Ω
Definition 1.1]. Notice that if θs > N − 1 then Capθ,s ({z}) > 0 for every z ∈ ∂Ω.
Theorem B. Let τ ∈ M+ (Ω, δ α+ ) and ν ∈ M+ (∂Ω). Assume p > 1 and −2 < γ < −1 − α+ +
p(N + α+ − 2). Then the following statements are equivalent.
(i) There exists C > 0 such that the following inequalities hold
(p+1)α+ +γ
(E),
0
+ ,2 ,p
(1.23)
∀ Borel E ⊂ Ω.
τ (E) ≤ CCapN2α
(1.22)
ν(F ) ≤ CCap∂Ω
1−α+ +
α+ +γ+1 0
,p
p
(F ),
∀ Borel F ⊂ ∂Ω.
(ii) There exist positive constants C1 and C2 such that (1.14) and (1.15) hold.
(iii) Problem (1.16) has a positive weak solution for σ > 0 and % > 0 small enough.
Remark. In the subcritical case 1 < p < p∗µ,γ , Cap∂Ω
1−α+ +
α+ +γ+1 0
,p
p
({z}) > 0 for any z ∈ ∂Ω.
The second aim of the present paper is the study of weak solutions of semilinear elliptic system
involving Hardy potential

− Lµ u = h(x, v) + τ in Ω,


(1.24)
− Lµ v = h̃(x, u) + τ̃ in Ω,


u = ν, v = ν̃ on ∂Ω
where τ, τ̃ ∈ M(Ω; δ α+ ), ν, ν̃ ∈ M(∂Ω), h, h̃ : Ω × R → R are continuous functions.
Definition 1.3. A pair (u, v) is called a weak solution of (1.24) if u ∈ L1 (Ω; δ α+ ), v ∈
L1 (Ω; δ α+ ), h̃ ◦ u ∈ L1 (Ω; δ α+ ), h ◦ v ∈ L1 (Ω; δ α+ ) and
Z
Z
Z
Z
− uLµ φ dx = (h ◦ v)φ dx + φ dτ − Kµ [ν]Lµ φ dx,
ZΩ
ZΩ
ZΩ
ZΩ
(1.25)
− vLµ φ dx = (h̃ ◦ u)φ dx + φ dτ̃ − Kµ [ν̃]Lµ φ dx,
Ω
Ω
Ω
Ω
6
KONSTANTINOS T. GKIKAS AND PHUOC-TAI NGUYEN
for every φ ∈ X(Ω).
Elliptic systems arise in biological applications (e.g. population dynamics) or physical applications (e.g. models of nuclear reactor) and have been drawn a lot of attention (see [17, 32]
and references therein). A typical case is Lane-Emden system, i.e. system (1.24) with µ = 0,
h(x, v) ≡ v p , h̃(x, u) ≡ up̃ . Bidaut-Véron and Yarur [10] proved various existence results for
Lane-Emden system under conditions involving G, P and the following exponents
(1.26)
q := p̃
p+1
,
p̃ + 1
q̃ := p
p̃ + 1
.
p+1
The question of solvability for (1.24) with h and h̃ being more general is addressed in the present
paper. We first treat the system

− Lµ u = δ γ v p + στ in Ω,


(1.27)
− Lµ v = δ γ̃ ũp̃ + σ̃τ̃ in Ω,


u = %ν, v = %̃ν̃ on ∂Ω
where p > 0, p̃ > 0, γ, γ̃ ∈ R, τ, τ̃ ∈ M(Ω, δ α+ ) and ν, ν̃ ∈ M(∂Ω).
When dealing with (1.27), one encounters the following difficulties. The first one is due to the
presence of the Hardy potential in the linear part of the equations. More precisely, since the
singularity of the potential at the boundary is too strong, some important tools such as Hopf’s
lemma, the classical notion of boundary trace, etc. are invalid, and therefore the system can not
be handled via classical elliptic PDEs methods. The second difficulty stems from the effect of
the weights δ γ and δ γ̃ which may vanish or blow up on the boundary. The last one comes from
the interplay of the nonlinearities, the potential and measure data. The interaction between the
difficulties generates an intricate dynamics both in Ω and near ∂Ω and leads to disclose new
type of results.
The next theorem provides a sufficient condition for the existence of solutions of (1.27).
+α+ −1)α+ 2α+ , N −2 , τ, τ̃ ∈ M+ (Ω, δ α+ ) and
Theorem C. Let p > 0, p̃ > 0, {γ̃, γ} ⊂ −2(N
N +2α+ −2
+
∗
∗
ν, ν̃ ∈ M (∂Ω). Assume pp̃ 6= 1, q < min(qµ,γ , qµ,γ̃ ), Gµ [τ ] + Kµ [ν + ν̃] ∈ Lp̃ (Ω, δ α+ +γ̃ ). Then
system (1.27) admits a weak solution (u, v) for σ > 0 and σ̃ > 0 small if pp̃ > 1, for any σ > 0
and σ̃ > 0 if pp̃ < 1. Moreover
(1.28)
v ∼ Gµ [ω] + Kµ [ν̃],
(1.29)
u ∼ Gµ [δ γ (Gµ [ω] + Kµ [ν̃])p ] + Gµ [τ ] + Kµ [ν]
where C = C(N, p, p̃, µ, Ω, σ, σ̃, τ, τ̃ ) and
n
op̃
ω := δ γ̃ Gµ [τ + δ γ (Kµ [ν̃])p ] + δ γ̃ (Kµ [ν])p̃ + τ̃ .
A new criterion for the existence of (1.27), expressed in terms of the capacities CapaNα,θ ,s and
Cap∂Ω
θ,s , is stated in the following result.
Theorem D. Let p > 1, p̃ > 1, τ, τ̃ ∈ M+ (Ω), ν, ν̃ ∈ M+ (∂Ω) and
−2 < γ < −1 − α+ + p(N + α+ − 2) and
− 2 < γ̃ < −1 − α+ + p̃(N + α+ − 2).
Assume there exists C > 0 such that
(1.30)
(p+1)α+ +γ
(p̃+1)α+ +γ̃
(E), CapN2α ,2 ,p̃
(E)},
0
0
+ ,2 ,p
+
max{τ (E), τ̃ (E)} ≤ C min{CapN2α
∀E ⊂ Ω,
ON THE EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS
(1.31) max{ν(F ), ν̃(F )} ≤ C min{Cap∂Ω
1−α+ +
1+α+ +γ 0
,p
p
(F ), Cap∂Ω
1−α+ +
7
1+α+ +γ̃ 0
,p̃
p̃
(F )}, ∀F ⊂ ∂Ω.
Then(1.27) admits a weak solution (u, v) for σ > 0, σ̃ > 0, % > 0, %̃ > 0 small enough. Moreover
(u, v) satisfies
(1.32)
Gµ [στ ] + Kµ [%ν] ≤ u ≤ C(Gµ [στ + σ̃τ̃ ] + Kµ [%ν + %̃ν̃]),
Gµ [σ̃τ̃ ] + Kµ [%̃ν̃] ≤ v ≤ C(Gµ [στ + σ̃τ̃ ] + Kµ [%ν + %̃ν̃])
where C = C(N, µ, p, p̃, γ, γ̃). Moreover, if µ ∈ (0, CH ) then tr ∗ (u) = %ν and tr ∗ (v) = %̃ν̃.
Remark. It can be inferred from Thereoms A, C and D that if p and p̃ are both succritical, i.e.
p < p∗µ,γ and p̃ < p∗µ,γ̃ , then system (1.27) admits a weak solutions.
Finally, we deal with elliptic systems with more general nonlinearities

− Lµ u = δ γ g(v) + στ in Ω,


(1.33)
− Lµ v = δ γ̃ g̃(u) + σ̃τ̃ in Ω,


u = %ν, v = %̃ν̃ on ∂Ω.
where g and g̃ are nondecreasing, continuous functions in R, = ±1, σ > 0, σ̃ > 0, % > 0, %̃ > 0.
We shall treat successively the cases = −1 and = 1. For any function f and number t ∈ R,
define
Z ∞
∗
(1.34)
Λf,t :=
s−1−pµ,t |f (s) − f (−s)|ds
1
with
p∗µ,t
defined in (1.13).
Theorem E. Let = −1, min{γ, γ̃} > −1 − α+ , σ, σ̃, %, %̃ be positive numbers, τ, τ̃ ∈ M(Ω; δ α+ )
and ν, ν̃ ∈ M(∂Ω). Assume that Λg,γ + Λg̃,γ̃ < ∞ and g(s) = g̃(s) = 0 for any s ≤ 0. Then
system (1.33) admits a weak solution (u, v). Moreover, if µ ∈ (0, CH ) then tr ∗ (u) = %ν and
tr ∗ (v) = %̃ν̃.
Put γ ∗ := min{α+ + γ, α+ + γ̃, −α− } > −1. When = 1, different phenomenon occurs, which
is reflected in the following result.
Theorem F. Let = 1, min{γ, γ̃} > −1 − α+ , τ, τ̃ ∈ M(Ω; δ α+ ) and ν, ν̃ ∈ M(∂Ω).
i. Subcriticality. Assume that Λg,γ + Λg̃,γ̃ < ∞. In addition, assume that there exist q1 > 1,
a1 > 0, b1 > 0 such that
(1.35)
|g(s)| ≤ a1 |s|q1 + b1 ,
∀s ∈ [−1, 1],
(1.36)
|g̃(s)| ≤ a1 |s|q1 + b1 ,
∀s ∈ [−1, 1].
Then (1.33) admits a weak solution for b1 , σ, σ̃, %, %̃ small enough.
ii. Sublinearity. Assume that there exist q1 > 1, q2 ∈ (0, 1], a2 > 0 and b2 > 0 such that
∗
Kµ [|ν̃|] + Gµ [|τ̃ |] ∈ Lq1 (Ω; δ γ ) and
(1.37)
|g(s)| ≤ a2 |s|q1 + b2 ,
∀s ∈ R,
(1.38)
|g̃(s)| ≤ a2 |s|q2 + b2 ,
∀s ∈ R.
(a) If q1 q2 = 1 and a2 > 0 is small then (1.33) admits a weak solution for any σ > 0, σ̃ > 0,
% > 0, %̃ > 0.
(b) If q1 q2 < 1 then (1.33) admits a weak solution for any σ > 0, σ̃ > 0, % > 0, %̃ > 0.
8
KONSTANTINOS T. GKIKAS AND PHUOC-TAI NGUYEN
iii. Subcriticality and sublinearity. Assume that Λg,γ < ∞. In addition, assume that
∗ ), q ∈ (0, 1], b > 0, b > 0 such that (1.35) and (1.38)
there exist a1 > 0, a2 > 0, q1 ∈ (1, qµ,γ
2
1
2
hold.
(a) If q1 q2 > 1 then (1.33) admits a weak solution for b1 , b2 , σ, σ̃, %, %̃ small enough.
(b) If q2 p∗µ,γ = 1 and a2 is mall enough then (1.33) admits a weak solution for any σ > 0,
σ̃ > 0, % > 0, %̃ > 0.
(c) If q2 p∗µ,γ < 1 then (1.33) admits a weak solution for every for any σ > 0, σ̃ > 0, % > 0,
%̃ > 0.
If µ ∈ (0, CH ) then tr ∗ (u) = %ν and tr ∗ (v) = %̃ν̃.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we establish estimates for Green kernel and
Martin kernel and study properties of weak solutions of (1.1) and (1.24) in normalized boundary
trace setting. Theorems A and B are proved in Section 3. Sufficient conditions for the existence
of weak solutions to elliptic systems with power source terms (Theorems C and D) are presented
in Section 4. Finally, in Section 5, we obtain existence results for elliptic systems with more
general nonlinearities (Theorems E and F) due to Schauder fixed point theorem.
Acknowledgment. The first author has been supported by Fondecyt grant 3140567 and by
Millenium Nucleus CAPDE NC130017. The second author was supported by Fondecyt Grant
3160207.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. Green kernel and Martin kernel. Denote Lpw (Ω; τ ), 1 ≤ p < ∞, τ ∈ M+ (Ω), the weak
Lp space (or Marcinkiewicz space) (see [29]). When τ = δ α dx, for simplicity, we use the notation
Lpw (Ω; δ α ). Notice that, for every α > −1,
(2.1)
Lpw (Ω; δ α ) ⊂ Lr (Ω; δ α ),
∀r ∈ [1, p).
Moreover for any u ∈ Lpw (Ω, δ α ) (α > −1),
Z
(2.2)
δ α dx ≤ s−p kukpLp (Ω;δα ) ,
w
{|u|≥s}
∀s > 0.
Let Gµ and Kµ be the Green kernel and Martin kernel of −Lµ in Ω and by Gµ and Kµ be the
corresponding Green operator and Martin operator, namely
Z
(2.3)
Gµ [τ ](x) =
Gµ (x, y)dτ (y), ∀τ ∈ M(Ω),
Ω
(2.4)
Kµ [ν](x) =
Z
Kµ (x, z)dν(z),
∂Ω
∀ν ∈ M(∂Ω).
Let us recall a result from [8] which will be useful in the sequel.
Proposition 2.1. ([8, Lemma 2.4]) Let ω be a nonnegative bounded Radon measure in D = Ω
or ∂Ω and η ∈ C(Ω) be a positive weight function. Let H be a continuous nonnegative function
on {(x, y) ∈ Ω × D : x 6= y}. For any λ > 0 we set
Aλ (y) := {x ∈ Ω \ {y} : H(x, y) > λ},
Z
mλ (y) :=
η(x)dx.
Aλ (y)
ON THE EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS
9
Suppose that there exist C > 0 and k > 1 such that mλ (y) ≤ Cλ−k for every λ > 0. Then the
operator
Z
H[ω](x) :=
H(x, y)dω(y)
D
belongs to
Lkw (Ω; η dx)
and
||H[ω]||Lkw (Ω;ηdx) ≤ (1 +
Ck
)ω(D).
k−1
By combining (2.3), (2.4) and the above Lemma we have the following result.
Lemma 2.2. Let
β∈ −
N α+
α+ N
,
N + 2α+ − 2 N − 2
.
Then there exists a positive constant C = C(N, µ, β, Ω) such that
Gµ (·, ξ) N +β
sup < C.
δ(ξ)α+ L N +α+ −2 (Ω; δβ )
ξ∈Ω
(2.5)
w
Proof. Let ξ ∈ Ω. We will apply Proposition 2.1 with D = Ω, η = δ β with β > −1, ω = δ α+ δξ ,
where δξ is the Dirac measure concentrated at ξ, and
H(x, y) =
Then
Gµ (x, y)
.
δ(y)α+
Z
Gµ (x, y)
δ(y)α+ dδξ (y) = Gµ (x, ξ).
α+
δ(y)
Ω
From (2.3), there exists C = C(N, µ, Ω) such that, for every (x, y) ∈ Ω × Ω, x 6= y,
H[ω](x) =
(2.6)
Gµ (x, y) ≤ Cδ(y)α+ |x − y|2−N −α+ ,
(2.7)
Gµ (x, y) ≤ C
δ(y)α+
|x − y|2−N ,
δ(x)α+
Gµ (x, y) ≤ Cδ(x)α+ δ(y)α+ |x − y|2−N −2α+ .
(2.8)
By (2.6), for any x ∈ Aλ (y),
(2.9)
λ ≤ C|x − y|2−N −α+ ,
and form (2.7) and (2.8)
C
|x − y|2−N and δ(x)α+ ≥ Cλ|x − y|N +2α+ −2
λ
We consider two cases: β ≥ 0 and −1 < β < 0.
Case 1: β ≥ 0. Due to (2.9) and (2.10) we have
β
Z
Z
α+
C
β
2−N
|x − y|
dx
mλ (y) =
δ(x) dx ≤
λ
Aλ (y)
Aλ (y)
(2.10)
δ(x)α+ ≤
N +β
− N +α
−2
≤ Cλ
+
,
10
KONSTANTINOS T. GKIKAS AND PHUOC-TAI NGUYEN
with β <
N α+
N −2 .
Observe that ω(Ω) = δ(ξ)α+ , by Proposition 2.1, we get
Gµ (·, ξ) N +β
≤ Cδ(ξ)α+ .
δ(ξ)α+ N +α
+ −2
(Ω; δ β )
L
w
This implies (2.5).
Case 2: −1 < β < 0. By (2.9) and (2.10) we have
Z
Z
β
mλ (y) =
δ β (x)dx ≤
(Cλ|x − y|N +2α+ −2 ) α+ dx
Aλ (y)
Aλ (y)
N +β
− N +α
−2
≤ Cλ
+
,
N α+
with β > − N +2α
. By arguing similarly as in Case 1, we get (2.5).
+ −2
Lemma 2.3. Let β > −1. Then there exists a positive constant C = C(N, µ, β, Ω) such that
sup ||Kµ (·, ξ)||
ξ∈∂Ω
N +β
N +α+ −2
Lw
< C.
(Ω;δ β )
Proof. Let ξ ∈ ∂Ω. We will apply Proposition 2.1 with D = ∂Ω, η = δ β with β > −1 and
ω = δξ . The rest of the proof can be proceeded as in the proof of Lemma 2.2 and we omit it. In view of (2.1), Lemma 2.2 and Lemma 2.3, one can obtain easily the following proposition
(see also [23, 31]).
N α+
, α+ N ). Then there exists a constant c = c(N, µ, β, Ω)
Proposition 2.4. (i) Let β ∈ (− N +2α
+ −2 N −2
such that
kGµ [τ ]k
(2.11)
N +β
N +α+ −2
Lw
(Ω,δ β )
≤ c kτ kM(Ω;δα+ ) ,
∀τ ∈ M(Ω; δ α+ ).
(ii) Let β > −1. Then there exists a constant c = c(N, µ, β, Ω) such that
kKµ [ν]k
(2.12)
N +β
N +α+ −2
Lw
(Ω,δ β )
≤ c kνkM(∂Ω) ,
∀ν ∈ M(∂Ω).
2.2. Normalized boundary trace. In this subsection, we present results concerning elliptic
equations and systems with µ ∈ (0, CH ). We recall that the definition of normalized boundary
trace is given in Definition 1.1.
Definition 2.5. (i) Let τ ∈ M(Ω; δ α+ ). A function u is a distributional solution of
−Lµ u = τ
(2.13)
L1loc (Ω)
if u ∈
and (2.13) is understood in the sense of distributions.
(ii) Let τ ∈ M(Ω; δ α+ ) and ν ∈ M(∂Ω). A function u is a very weak solution of
(2.14)
−Lµ u = τ
in Ω,
tr ∗ (u) = ν,
if u is a solution of (2.13) and u admits normalized boundary trace ν.
Various properties of solutions of (2.13) and (2.14) were obtained in [23, Proposition I]) and
are recalled in the following proposition.
Proposition 2.6. (i) If τ = 0 then problem (2.14) has a unique very weak solution, u = Kµ [ν].
If u is an Lµ -harmonic function and tr ∗ (u) = 0 then u = 0.
(ii) If τ ∈ M(Ω; δ α+ ) then Gµ [τ ] has normalized trace zero. Thus Gµ [τ ] is a solution of (2.14)
with ν = 0.
ON THE EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS
11
(iii) For every ν ∈ M(∂Ω) and τ ∈ M(Ω; δ α+ ), problem (2.14) has a unique very weak solution.
The solution is given by
u = Gµ [τ ] + Kµ [ν].
(2.15)
Moreover, there exists a positive constant c = c(N, µ, Ω) such that
kukL1 (Ω;δ−α− ) ≤ c(kτ kM(Ω;δα+ ) + kνkM(∂Ω) ).
(2.16)
(iv) u is a very weak solution of of (2.14) if and only if u ∈ L1 (Ω; δ −α− ) and
Z
Z
Z
∀ζ ∈ Y(Ω)
(2.17)
− uLµ ζdx = ζdτ − KΩ
µ [ν]Lµ ζdx,
Ω
Ω
Ω
where Y(Ω) is given in (1.12).
Proposition 2.6 enables to derive properties of solutions of (1.1), as well as (1.24).
Proposition 2.7. Let τ ∈ M(Ω; δ α+ ) and ν ∈ M(∂Ω). The following statements are equivalent.
(i) u is a weak solution of (1.1).
(ii) h ◦ u ∈ L1 (Ω; δ α+ ) and (1.1) holds.
(iii) u ∈ L1 (Ω; δ −α− ), h ◦ u ∈ L1 (Ω; δ α+ ) and (1.10) holds for every φ ∈ Y(Ω).
(iv) u is a solution of
−Lµ u = h ◦ u + τ
(2.18)
in the sense of distributions and
tr ∗ (u)
in Ω
= ν.
Proof. We infer from [18] that (i) ⇐⇒ (ii). By an argument similar to that of the proof of [31,
Theorem A], we deduce that (ii) ⇐⇒ (iii) ⇐⇒ (iv).
For β > 0, put
(2.19)
Ωβ := {x ∈ Ω : δ(x) < β}, Dβ := {x ∈ Ω : δ(x) > β}, Σβ := {x ∈ Ω : δ(x) = β}.
Lemma 2.8. There exists β∗ > 0 such that for every point x ∈ Ωβ∗ , there exists a unique point
σx ∈ ∂Ω such that x = σx − δ(x)nσx . The mappings x 7→ δ(x) and x 7→ σx belong to C 2 (Ωβ∗ )
and C 1 (Ωβ∗ ) respectively. Moreover, limx→σ(x) ∇δ(x) = −nσx .
A version of the above result is valid for elliptic systems.
Proposition 2.9. Let τ, τ̃ ∈ M(Ω; δ α+ ) and ν, ν̃ ∈ M(∂Ω). Then the following statements are
equivalent.
(i) (u, v) is a weak solution of (1.24).
(ii) h̃ ◦ u ∈ L1 (Ω; δ α+ ), h ◦ v ∈ L1 (Ω; δ α+ ) and
(2.20)
u = Gµ [h ◦ v] + Gµ [τ ] + Kµ [ν],
v = Gµ [h̃ ◦ u] + Gµ [τ̃ ] + Kµ [ν̃].
(iii) u ∈ L1 (Ω; δ −α− ), v ∈ L1 (Ω; δ −α− ), h̃ ◦ u ∈ L1 (Ω; δ α+ ), h ◦ v ∈ L1 (Ω; δ α+ ) and (1.25) holds
for every φ ∈ Y(Ω).
(iv) (u, v) is a solution of
−Lµ u = h ◦ v + τ in Ω,
(2.21)
−Lµ v = h ◦ u + τ̃ in Ω,
in the sense of distributions and tr ∗ (u) = ν and tr ∗ (v) = ν̃.
12
KONSTANTINOS T. GKIKAS AND PHUOC-TAI NGUYEN
Proof. Due to [18], (i) ⇐⇒ (ii). We next prove other implications.
(iv) =⇒ (ii). Assume (u, v) is a weak solution of (1.24). Put ω := h ◦ v and denote ωβ := ω|Dβ ,
τβ := τ |Dβ and λβ := u|Σβ for β ∈ (0, β∗ ). Consider the boundary value problem
−Lµ w = ωβ + τβ
in Dβ ,
w = λβ
on Σβ .
This problem admits a unique solution wβ (the uniqueness is derived from [7, Lemma 2.1] since
µ < CH (Ω)). Therefore wβ = u|Dβ . We have
D
D
D
u|Dβ = wβ = Gµ β [ωβ ] + Gµ β [τβ ] + Pµ β [λβ ]
D
D
where Gµ β and Pµ µ are respectively Green kernel and Poisson kernel of −Lµ in Dβ .
It follows that
Z
Ω Dβ
D
Gµ (·, y)(h ◦ v)(y) dy = Gµ β [τβ ] ≤ u|Dβ + GΩ
µ [τ ] + Kµ [ν] .
Dβ
Letting β → 0, we get
(2.22)
Z
Gµ (·, y)(h ◦ v)(y) dy < ∞.
Ω
Fix a point x0 ∈ Ω. Keeping in mind that Gµ (x0 , y) ∼ δ(y)α+ for every y ∈ Ωβ∗ , we deduce
from (2.22) that h ◦ v ∈ L1 (Ω; δ α+ ). Similarly, one can show that h̃ ◦ u ∈ L1 (Ω; δ α+ ). Thanks to
Proposition 2.6 (v), we obtain (2.20).
(ii) =⇒ (iv). Assume u and v are functions such that h̃ ◦ u ∈ L1 (Ω; δ α+ ), h ◦ v ∈ L1 (Ω; δ α+ )
and (2.20) holds. By Proposition 2.6 (i) Lµ Kµ [ν] = Lµ Kµ [ν̃] = 0, which implies that (u, v)
is a solution of (2.21). On the other hand, since h̃ ◦ u ∈ L1 (Ω; δ α+ ) and h ◦ v ∈ L1 (Ω; δ α+ ),
we deduce from Proposition 2.6 (ii) that tr ∗ (Gµ [h̃ ◦ u]) = tr ∗ (Gµ [h ◦ v]) = 0. Consequently,
tr ∗ (u) = tr ∗ (Kµ [ν]) = ν and tr ∗ (v) = tr ∗ (Kµ [ν̃]) = ν̃.
(iv) =⇒ (iii). Assume (u, v) is a positive solution of (2.21) in the sense of distributions. From
the implication (iv) =⇒ (ii), we deduce that u ∈ L1 (Ω; δ −α− ), v ∈ L1 (Ω; δ −α− ), h̃◦u ∈ L1 (Ω; δ α+ )
and h ◦ v ∈ L1 (Ω; δ α+ ). Hence, by Proposition 2.6 (vi), (1.25) holds for every φ ∈ Y(Ω).
(iii) =⇒ (iv). This implication follows straightfoward from Proposition 2.6 (vi).
3. The scalar problem
In what follows the notation f1 ∼ f2 means: there exists a positive constant c such that
c−1 f1 ≤ f2 ≤ cf2 in the domain of the two functions or in a specified subset of this domain. In
the latter case, the constant depends on the subset.
3.1. Concavity properties and Green properties. Here we give some concavity lemmas
that will be employed in the sequel.
Proposition 3.1. Let γ > −1 − α+ and ϕ ∈ L1 (Ω, δ α+ ), ϕ ≥ 0 and τ ∈ M+ (Ω; δ α+ ). Set
w := Gµ [ϕ + τ ]
and
ψ = Gµ [τ ].
Let φ be a concave nondecreasing
function on [0, ∞), such that φ(1) ≥ 0. Then φ0 (w/ψ)ϕ ∈
1
α
+γ
+
L (Ω; δ
) and
−Lµ (ψφ(w/ψ)) ≥ φ0 (w/ψ)ϕ,
C2
in the weak sense in Ω.
ON THE EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS
13
Proof. Let {ϕn }, τn ∈ C ∞ (Ω) such that ϕn → ϕ in L1 (Ω, δ α+ ) and τn * τ. Set
wn = Gµ [ϕn + τn ]
and ψn = Gµ [τn ].
Since wn ≥ ψn > 0 for any n ≥ n0 for some n0 ∈ N, we have by straightforward calculations
wn
wn
wn 0 wn
wn
−∆(ψn φ( )) =(−∆ψn ) φ( ) −
φ ( ) + (−∆wn )φ0 ( )
ψn
ψn
ψn
ψn
ψn
2
wn wn − ψn φ00 ( ) ∇
.
ψn
ψn Now note that, since φ0 ≥ 0, we have
ψn
wn
wn
0 wn
(−∆wn )φ ( ) ≥ φ ( ) −∆ψn − µ 2 + µ 2 + ϕn .
ψn
ψn
δ
δ
0
This, together with the fact that φ(t) − tφ0 (t) + φ0 (t) ≥ 0 for any t ≥ 1, implies
wn
wn 0 wn
wn
(−∆ψn ) φ( ) −
φ ( ) + (−∆wn )φ0 ( )
ψn
ψn
ψn
ψn
wn
wn 0 wn
wn
wn
ψn
wn
≥ (−∆ψn ) φ( ) −
φ ( ) + φ0 ( ) + φ0 ( ) −µ 2 + µ 2 + ϕn
ψn
ψn
ψn
ψn
ψn
δ
δ
wn
ψn
wn 0 wn
wn
ψn
0 wn
0 wn
≥ µ 2 φ( ) −
φ ( ) + φ ( ) + φ ( ) −µ 2 + µ 2 + ϕn
δ
ψn
ψn
ψn
ψn
ψn
δ
δ
wn
w
µ
n
= 2 ψn φ( ) + φ0 ( )ϕn .
δ
ψn
ψn
Thus we have proved
−Lµ (ψn φ(
Also
ψn φ(
and
wn
wn
) ≤ ψn (φ(0) + φ0 (0) ) ≤ C(ψn + wn )
ψn
ψn
Z
wn
wn
))Lµ ξ dx ≥
φ0 ( )ϕn ξ dx, ∀ξ ∈ X(Ω).
ψn
ψn
Ω
Ω
By passing to the limit with Lebesgues theorem and Fatous lemma, we complete the proof.
−
Z
wn
wn
)) ≥ φ0 ( )ϕn .
ψn
ψn
(ψn φ(
In the next Lemma we will prove the 3-G inequality which will be useful later.
Lemma 3.2. There exists a positive constant C = C(N, µ, Ω) such that
Gµ (x, y)Gµ (y, z)
δ(y)α+
δ(y)α+
(3.1)
≤C
G
(x,
y)
+
G
(y,
z)
, ∀(x, y, z) ∈ Ω × Ω × Ω.
µ
µ
Gµ (x, z)
δ(x)α+
δ(z)α+
Proof. It follows from (2.3) and the inequality |δ(x) − δ(y)| ≤ |x − y| that
n
o
Gµ (x, y) ∼ min |x − y|2−N , δ(x)α+ δ(y)α+ |x − y|2−2α+ −N
n
o−1
∼ |x − y|2−N δ(x)α+ δ(y)α+ max δ(x)α+ δ(y)α+ , |x − y|2α+
∼ |x − y|2−N δ(x)α+ δ(y)α+ (max {δ(x), δ(y), |x − y|})−2α+
= δ(x)α+ δ(y)α+ N2α+ ,2 (x, y),
∀x, y ∈ Ω, x 6= y,
14
KONSTANTINOS T. GKIKAS AND PHUOC-TAI NGUYEN
where N2α+ ,2 (x, y) is defined in (1.20) with α = 2α+ and β = 2. By Proposition 3.13 we deduce
that there exists a positive constant C = C(N, µ, Ω) such that
1
1
1
.
(3.2)
≤C
+
N2α+ ,2 (x, y)
N2α+ ,2 (x, z) N2α+ ,2 (y, z)
Combining (3.2) and (3.2) implies (3.1).
+α+ −1)α+ 2α+ Lemma 3.3. Let γ ∈ −2(N
, N −2 , 0 < p < p∗µ,γ and τ ∈ M+ (Ω; δ α+ ). Then there
N +2α+ −2
exists constant C2 > 0 such that (1.14) holds.
Proof. First we assume that p > 1. By (2.11) we have that δ γ (Gµ [τ ])p ∈ L1 (Ω, δ α+ ). We write
Z
Z
Gµ (y, z)
Gµ [τ ](y) =
Gµ (y, z)dτ (z) =
δ(z)α+ dτ (z),
α+
Ω
Ω δ(z)
thus
γ
p
γ
δ(y) (Gµ [τ ](y)) ≤ C(N, µ, p, τ, Ω)δ(y)
Consequently,
Gµ [δ γ (Gµ [τ ])p ](x) ≤ C
(3.3)
Z Z
Ω
Z
α+
δ(z)
Ω
Gµ (y, z)
δ(z)α+
p
dτ (z).
δ(y)γ Gµ (x, y)(Gµ (y, z))p δ(z)α+ (1−p) dτ (z)dy.
Ω
Also by (3.1) we obtain
Z Z
δ(y)γ Gµ (x, y)(Gµ (y, z))p δ(z)α+ (1−p) dτ (z)dy
Ω
(3.4)
Ω
p−1 p !
G
(y,
z)
G
(y,
z)
µ
µ
Gµ (x, z) δ(y)γ+α+
≤C
+
dydτ (z)
δ(z)α+
δ(z)α+
Ω
Ω
Z
Z
Gµ (y, z) p
Gµ (x, y) p
γ+α+
+
dydτ (z),
≤C
Gµ (x, z) δ(y)
δ(x)α+
δ(z)α+
Ω
Ω
Z
Z
Gµ (x, y)
δ(x)α+
where in the last inequality we have used the Hölder inequality. By (3.3), (3.4) and Lemma 2.2
we derive that
Z
γ
p
Gµ [δ (Gµ [τ ]) ](x) ≤ C
Gµ (x, z)dτ (z).
Ω
Note that the above argument is still valid for p = 1.
If 0 ≤ p < 1 then
Gµ [δ γ (Gµ [τ ])p ] ≤ C(Gµ [δ γ ] + Gµ [δ γ Gµ [τ ]]).
Now let 0 < ε < 1, then the function ζ := δ α+ (1 − δ ε ) satisfies
−Lµ ζ − δ γ > 0,
∀x ∈ Ωβ ,
for β > 0 small enough, where Ωβ is defined in (2.19). Thus by a comparison argument we
deduce that
(3.5)
Choose know x0 ∈ Ω, r =
(3.6)
δ(x0 )
2
Gµ [δ γ ](x) ≤ Cζ(x),
∀x ∈ Ωβ .
and set τBr (x0 ) = χBr (x0 ) τ . Then we get
Gµ [τ ](x) ≥ CGµ [τBr (x0 ) ](x) ≥ Cδ(x)α+ ,
Thus (1.14) follows from (3.5) and (3.6).
∀x ∈ Ω \ Br (x0 ).
ON THE EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS
15
Actually (1.14) is a sufficient condition for the existence of weak solution of
−Lµ u = δ γ up + στ in Ω,
(3.7)
u = 0 on ∂Ω.
+α+ −1)α+ 2α+ Proposition 3.4. Let γ ∈ −2(N
, N −2 , 0 < p 6= 1, σ > 0 and τ ∈ M+ (Ω; δ α+ ).
N +2α+ −2
Assume that there exists a positive constant C2 such that (1.14) holds. Then problem (3.7)
admits a solution u satisfying
(3.8)
with a constant
C0
Gµ [στ ] ≤ u ≤ C 0 Gµ [στ ]
a. e. in Ω,
> 0, for any σ > 0 small enough if p > 1, for any σ > 0 if p < 1.
Proof. The proof is similar to that of [10, Theorem 3.4] with obvious modifications; hence we
omit it.
Estimate (1.14) is also a necessary condition for the existence of weak solution of (3.7).
+α+ −1)α+ 2α+ Proposition 3.5. Let γ ∈ −2(N
, N −2 , p > 1, σ > 0 and τ ∈ M+ (Ω; δ α+ ). Assume
N +2α+ −2
1
that problem (3.7) admits a solution. Then (1.14) holds with C2 = p−1
.
Proof. By adapting the argument used in the proof of [10, Proposition 3.5], together with Proposition 3.1, one can get the desired result.
−2(N +α+ −1)α+ 2α+ Proposition 3.6. Let γ ∈
, N −2 and 0 < p < p∗µ,γ . Assume that w is a solution
N +2α+ −2
of (3.7). Then there exists a positive constant C = C(N, µ, Ω, σ, τ ) such that
(3.9)
Gµ [στ ] ≤ w ≤ C(Gµ [στ ] + δ α+ )
a.e. in Ω.
Proof. We follows the idea in the proof of [10, Theorem 3.6]. We may assume that σ = 1. If
0 ≤ p < 1, then
w = Gµ [δ γ wp + τ ] ≤ C(Gµ [δ γ + τ ] + Gµ [δ γ w]).
On the other hand, from (3.5), we get Gµ [δ γ ] ≤ Cδ α+ a.e. in Ω. As a consequence
w ≤ C(Gµ [δ γ w] + Gµ [τ ] + δ α+ )
Therefore it is sufficient to deal with the term Gµ
[δ γ w]
a.e. in Ω.
and we may assume that p ≥ 1. Set
w1 := w − Gµ [τ ] = Gµ [δ γ wp ],
hence w = w1 + Gµ [τ ]. Since w ∈ Lp (Ω; δ α+ +γ ) (by assumption), it follows that δ γ w + τ ∈
M+ (Ω; δ α+ ), therefore by (2.11), w ∈ Ls (Ω; δ α+ +γ ), for all 1 ≤ s < p∗µ,γ . Thus there exists
k0 > 1 such that wp ∈ Lk0 (Ω; δ α+ +γ ).
Let p < s < p∗µ,γ . By Hölder inequality we obtain
Z
k0 s
Gµ (x, y)
γ+α+
p
w1 (x)k0 s = (Gµ [δ γ wp ](x)))k0 s =
δ(y)
w(y)
dy
α+
Ω δ(y)
Z
s Z
(k0 −1)s
k0
Gµ (x, y)
Gµ (x, y)
γ+α+
γ+α+
k0 p
≤
δ(y)
δ(y)
w(y)
dy
dy
α+
α+
Ω δ(y)
Ω δ(y)
s
Z Gµ (x, y)
≤C
δ(y)γ+α+ w(y)k0 p dy.
δ(y)α+
Ω
This, joint with Lemma 2.2, yields
Z
Z
Z Gµ (x, y) s
k0 s
γ+α+
k0 p
γ+α+
w1 (y) δ(y)
dy ≤ C
w(y) δ(y)
δ(x)γ+α+ dxdy < c.
δ(y)α+
Ω
Ω
Ω
16
KONSTANTINOS T. GKIKAS AND PHUOC-TAI NGUYEN
Since wp ≤ C(p)(w1p + (Gµ [τ ])p ), by Lemma 3.3 we have
w ≤ C (Gµ [δ γ (Gµ [τ ])p ] + w2 ) + Gµ [τ ] ≤ C(Gµ [τ ] + w2 ),
k 0 s2
where w2 := Gµ [δ γ w1p ]. Note that w2 ∈ L p2 (Ω; δ γ+α+ ).
p
By induction we define wn := Gµ [δ γ wn−1
] and we have
w ≤ C(Gµ [τ ] + wn )
and
k0 sn
.
pn
Since sn → ∞, by [29, Lemma 2.3.2] we have for 1 < s < p∗µ,γ ,
wnp ∈ Lsn (Ω; δ γ+α+ ),
sn =
p
wn = Gµ [δ γ wn−1
]
Z
p
|x − y|2−α+ −N wn−1
δ(y)γ+α+ dy
≤C
Ω
Z
Z
ps
2−α+ −N s−1
(2−α+ −N )s
γ+α+
γ+α+
dy +
|x − y|
wn−1 δ(y)
≤C
|x − y|
δ(y)
dy
Ω
Ω
0
≤C,
for n large enough. Therefore we obtain
w ≤ C(Gµ [τ ] + 1),
which implies, with another C > 0,
w ≤ C(Gµ [τ ] + Gµ [δ γ ]).
This, together with (3.5), implies (3.9) for some constant C > 0 depending on ||w||Lp (Ω,δγ+α+ ) .
Let ζ be the unique solution of
(
−Lµ ζ = δ γ+α+ in Ω
ζ = 0 on ∂Ω.
In view of the proof of (3.5) we deduce that ζ ∼ δ α+ . Since w is a weak solution of (3.7), by
taking ζ as a test function, we get
Z
Z
Z
Z
γ p
γ+α+
dx =
δ w ζdx +
ζdτ.
− wLµ ζdx =
wδ
Ω
Ω
Ω
Ω
By Hölder inequality we can easily conclude that the constant C in (3.9) does not depend on
||w||Lp (Ω,δγ+α+ ) .
3.2. New Green properties.
Lemma 3.7. Let γ ∈
(3.10)
−2(N +α+ −1)α+ 2α+ , N −2 ,
N +2α+ −2
0 < p < p∗µ,γ , τ ∈ M+ (Ω; δ α+ ) and s such that
2+γ
< s ≤ 1.
max 0, p −
N + α+ − 2
Then there exists constant C > 0 such that
(3.11)
Gµ [δ γ (Gµ [τ ])p ] ≤ C(Gµ [τ ])s
a.e. in Ω.
ON THE EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS
17
Proof. First we assume that p > 1. In view of the proof of Lemma 3.3, we have
Z Z
γ
p
Gµ [δ (Gµ [τ ]) ](x) ≤ C
δ(y)γ Gµ (x, y)((Gµ (y, z))p δ(z)α+ (1−p) dτ (z)dy
Ω Ω
Z Z
Gµ (y, z) p−s
=C
δ(z)α+ (1−s) dτ (z)dy
δ(y)γ (Gµ (x, y))1−s (Gµ (x, y))s (Gµ (y, z))s
α+ (z)
δ
Ω Ω
Z
Z
Gµ (y, z) p−s
γ+α+ Gµ (x, y)
s
α+ (1−s)
δ(y)
(3.12) ≤ C (Gµ (x, z)) δ(z)
dydτ (z)
δ(x)
δ(z)α+
Ω
Ω
Z
Z
Gµ (x, y) 1−s Gµ (y, z) p
(3.13) + C (Gµ (x, z))s δ(z)α+ (1−s)
δ(y)γ+α+
dydτ (z)
δ(x)
δ(z)α+
Ω
Ω
Z
Z
Gµ (x, y) p−s+1
γ+α+
s
α+ (1−s)
δ(y)
(3.14) ≤ C (Gµ (x, z)) δ(z)
dydτ (z)
δ(x)
Ω
Ω
Z
Z
Gµ (y, z) p−s+1
γ+α+
s
α+ (1−s)
δ(y)
(3.15) + (Gµ (x, z)) δ(z)
dydτ (z)
δ(z)α+
Ω
Ω
s
Z Gµ (x, z)
(3.16) ≤ C
δ(z)α+ dτ (z)
δ(z)α+
Ω
Z
s
Gµ (x, z)dτ (z) .
(3.17) ≤ C
Ω
Here (3.12) and (3.13) follow from (3.1), (3.14) and (3.15) follow from Hölder inequality, and
(3.16) follows from Lemma 2.2, Hölder inequality and (3.10).
Note that the above approach could be applied to the case p = 1.
If 0 ≤ p < 1 then
Gµ [δ γ (Gµ [τ ])p ] ≤ C(Gµ [δ γ ] + Gµ [δ γ Gµ [τ ]]) ≤ C(Gµ [δ γ ] + (Gµ [τ ])s )
Then (3.11) follows by the a similar argument as in the proof of Lemma 3.3.
3.3. Boundary value problem.
Lemma 3.8. Let γ > −1 − α+ , 0 < p < p∗µ,γ and ν ∈ M+ (∂Ω). Then there exists a constant
C1 > 0 such that (1.15) holds.
Proof. We first treat the case p ≥ 1.
Assume that σ = δξ , the Dirac measure concentrated at ξ ∈ ∂Ω. Then by (2.3) and (2.4) we
have
Z
Gµ [δ γ (Kµ [δξ ])p ](x) =
δ(y)γ Gµ (x, y)(Kµ (y, ξ))p dy
ZΩ
≤
δ(y)γ+pα+ Fµ (x, y)|y − ξ|−p(N +2α+ −2) dy.
Ω
where
n
o
Fµ (x, y) := |x − y|2−N min 1, δ(x)α+ δ(y)α+ |x − y|−2α+ , ∀x, y ∈ Ω, x 6= y.
Without loss of generality we assume that ξ = 0. Also we assume that −1 < γ + pα+ < 0.
18
KONSTANTINOS T. GKIKAS AND PHUOC-TAI NGUYEN
Let β ∈ (0, β ∗ ) such that δ ∈ C 2 (Ωβ ) where Ωβ is given in (2.19). Let φ ∈ C ∞ (Ω β ) be such
2
that 0 ≤ φ ≤ 1, φ = 1 in Ω β and φ = 0 in Ω \ Ω β . Then
4
Z
2
δ(y)γ+pα+ Fµ (x, y)|y|−p(N +2α+ −2) dy =
Ω
+
Z
ZΩ
Ω
δ(y)γ+pα+ Fµ (x, y)|y|−p(N +2α+ −2) φ(y)dy
δ(y)γ+pα+ Fµ (x, y)|y|−p(N +2α+ −2) (1 − φ(y))dy.
By definition of φ and using the inequality
Fµ (x, y) ≤ δ(x)α+ |x − y|2−α+ −N ,
we obtain
Z
Ω
δ(y)γ+pα+ Fµ (x, y)|y|−p(N +2α+ −2) (1 − φ(y))dy
Z
=
δ γ+pα+ (y)Fµ (x, y)|y|−p(N +2α+ −2) (1 − φ(y))dy
Ω\Ω β
4
≤ C(β, N, µ, γ)δ(x)α+ .
Let βe ∈ (0, β4 ) be such that |x − y| > r0 > 0 for any y ∈ Ωβe. Let ε > 0 be such that
p(N + α+ − 2) = N + α+ + γ − ε
and 0 < ε̃ < ε be such that
γ + pα+ + 1 − ε̃ > 0.
Then, by using the notation in (2.19), we have
Z
δ(y)γ+pα+ +1 Fµ (x, y)|y|−p(N +2α+ −2) dS(y)
Σβe
2−N −2α+
≤ δ(x)α+ r0
=
2−N −2α+
δ(x)α+ r0
Z
Σβe
Z
Σβe
δ(y)ε̃ |y|−p(N +α+ −2)+γ+pα+ +1−ε̃ dS(y)
δ(y)ε̃ |y|−N +1+α+ (p−1)+(ε−ε̃) dS(y).
Now note that by the choice of ε̃ we have N − 2 − N + 1 + α+ (p − 1) + (ε − ε̃) > −1, which
implies that
Z
sup
|y|−N +1+α+ (p−1)+(ε−ε̃) dS(y) < C.
β
e
β∈(0,
) Σβe
4
Combining above estimates leads to
Z
(3.18)
lim
δ(y)γ+pα+ +1 Fµ (x, y)|y|−p(N +2α+ −2) dS(y) = 0.
e
β→0
Σβe
ON THE EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS
19
Now note that
Z
∇δ(y)∇Fµ (x, y)δ(y)γ+pα+ +1 |y|−p(N +2α+ −2) φ(y)dy
−
Ωβ
n
o
∇δ(y) · (x − y)
−2α+
α+
α+
min
1,
δ(x)
δ(y)
|x
−
y|
|y|−p(N +2α+ −2) φ(y)dy
|x − y|N
Ωβ
o
n
|x − y|2−N |y|−p(N +2α+ −2) φ(y)dy.
∇δ(y)∇ min 1, δ(x)α+ δ(y)α+ |x − y|−2α+
= (N − 2)
−
Z
Ωβ
Z
On the other hand
n
o
− ∇y δ(y)∇y min 1, δ(x)α+ δ(y)α+ |x − y|−2α+
o
n
≤ 2α+ |x − y|−1 min 1, δ(x)α+ δ(y)α+ |x − y|−2α+ a.e in Ω.
By collecting above estimates, we obtain
Z
∇δ(y)∇Fµ (x, y)δ(y)γ+pα+ +1 |y|−p(N +2α+ −2) φ(y)dy
−
Ωβ
α+
≤ Cδ(x)
(3.19)
Z
Ω
|x − y|−(N +α+ −1) |y|−p(N +α+ −2)+1+γ dy.
It follows from integration by parts, (3.18) and (3.19) that
Z
δ(y)γ+pα+ Fµ (x, y)|y|−p(N +2α+ −2) φ(y)dy
Ωβ
Z
1
=
∇(δ(y)γ+pα+ +1 )∇δ(y)Fµ (x, y)|y|−p(N +2α+ −2) φ(y)dy
γ + pα+ + 1 Ωβ
Z
α+
≤ Cδ(x)
|x − y|−(N +2α+ −2) |y|−p(N +α+ −2)+α+ +γ dy
Ω
Z
α+
+ Cδ(x)
|x − y|−(N +α+ −1) |y|−p(N +α+ −2)+1+γ dy
Ω
=: M (x) + N (x).
We now estimate
Z
M (x)
N +2α+ −2
≤ cq+2
|x|
|x − y|−(N +2α+ −2) |y|−p(N +α+ −2)+α+ +γ dy
3
Kµ (x, 0)
Ω
Z
q+2
N
+α
+γ−p(N
+α
−2)
+
+
≤ c3 |x|
|ex − η|−(N +2α+ −2) |η|−p(N +α+ −2)+α+ +γ dη,
RN
where ex = |x|−1 x. The last integral is finite and independent of x since γ ≤ 0, 0 < α+ < 1 and
N ≥ 3. Similarly we have
Z
N (x)
N +2α+ −2
≤ cq+2
|x|
|x − y|−(N +α+ −1) |y|−p(N +α+ −2)+1+γ dy
4
Kµ (x, 0)
Ω
Z
N +α+ +γ−p(N +α+ −2)
≤ cq+2
|x|
|ex − η|−(N +α+ −1) |η|−p(N +α+ −2)+1+γ dη.
3
RN
Combining above estimates implies that there exists a positive constant C = C(Ω, N, µ, γ) > 0
such that
(3.20)
Gµ [δ γ (Kµ [δξ ])p ](x) ≤ C|x − ξ|N +α+ +γ−p(N +α+ −2) Kµ (x, ξ),
∀(x, ξ) ∈ Ω × ∂Ω.
20
KONSTANTINOS T. GKIKAS AND PHUOC-TAI NGUYEN
If γ + pα+ ≥ 0, (3.20) can be obtained by an argument similar to the proof of [8, Theorem
3.1].
Finally observe that
Z Z
γ
p
δ(y)γ Gµ (x, y)(Kµ (y, ξ))p dydν(ξ),
Gµ [δ (Kµ [ν]) ](x) ≤ C
∂Ω
Ω
which, joint with (3.20), yields (1.15).
Next, if p ∈ [0, 1) then
(3.21)
Gµ [δ γ (Kµ [ν])p ] ≤ C(Gµ [δ γ ] + Gµ [δ γ Kµ [ν]]) ≤ C(Gµ [δ γ ] + Kµ [ν]).
This, combined with the inequality
Gµ [δ γ ] ≤ cδ α+ ≤ c0 Kµ [ν]
a.e. in Ω,
leads to (1.15).
Estimate (1.15) is a sufficient condition for the existence of weak solutions of
−Lµ u = δ γ up in Ω,
(3.22)
u = %ν on ∂Ω.
Proposition 3.9. Let p > 0, γ > −1 − α+ and ν ∈ M+ (∂Ω).
(i) Assume that there exists a constant C1 > 0 such that (1.15) holds. Then problem (3.22)
admits a solution u satisfying
(3.23)
Kµ [%ν] ≤ u ≤ C 0 Kµ [%ν]
a.e. in Ω,
with a constant C 0 > 0, for any % ≥ 0 small enough if p > 1, for any % > 0 if p < 1.
(ii) Assume that u is a solution of (3.22) and 0 < p < p∗µ,γ . Then there exists a constant
C 00 > 0 such that
(3.24)
Kµ [%ν] ≤ u ≤ C 00 (Kµ [%ν] + δ α+ )
a.e. in Ω.
Proof. The existence and the a priori estimates can be obtained by using an argument as in the
proof of Proposition 3.4 and Proposition 3.6.
Definition 3.10. Let p > 0 and γ > −1 − α+ .
(i) We say that τ ∈ M+ (Ω; δ α+ ) is p admissible if and only if the problem (3.7) admits a
solution for σ > 0 small.
(ii) We say that ν ∈ M+ (∂Ω) is p admissible if and only if the problem (3.22) admits a solution
for % > 0 small.
The above results allow to study elliptic equations with interior and boundary measures.
+α+ −1)α+ 2α+ Proposition 3.11. Let p > 0, γ ∈ −2(N
, N −2 , σ > 0, % > 0, τ ∈ M+ (Ω; δ α+ ) and
N +2α+ −2
ν ∈ M+ (∂Ω) are p admissible. Then for σ > 0 and % > 0 small enough problem (1.16) has a
solution u satisfying
(3.25)
u ≤ C(Gµ [στ ] + Kµ [%ν])
a.e. in Ω
with a constant C > 0.
Furthermore when 0 < p < p∗µ,γ there exists another constant C > 0 such that if u is a solution
of (1.16) then the following a priori estimate holds
(3.26)
Gµ [στ ] + Kµ [%ν] ≤ u ≤ C(Gµ [στ ] + Kµ [%ν] + δ α+ )
a.e. in Ω.
ON THE EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS
21
Proof. The argument used in the proof of [8, Theorem 3.13] can be applied. Put v := u − Kµ [%ν]
then v satisfies
−Lµ v = δ γ (v + Kµ [%ν])p + στ in Ω,
(3.27)
v = 0 on ∂Ω.
Consider the following problem
−Lµ w = cp δ γ wp + cp δ γ (Kµ [%ν])p + στ
(3.28)
w = 0 on ∂Ω
in Ω,
where cp := max{1, 2p−1 }. Since ν is p admissible, it follows that δ γ (Kµ [%ν])p ∈ L1 (Ω; δ α+ ).
Since τ is p admissible, we deduce that problem (3.28) admits a solution w for σ > 0 and % > 0
small enough. Notice that w is a supersolution of (3.28), we infer that there is a solution v of
(3.27) satisfying v ≤ w a. e. in Ω. Since ν is p admissible, there exists a constant c such that
(3.29)
Gµ [δ γ (Kµ [%ν])p ] ≤ cKµ [%ν]
a.e. in Ω.
w ≤ c0 Gµ [δ γ (Kµ [%ν])p + στ ]
a.e. in Ω.
By Proposition 3.4 , we deduce that
This, together with (3.29), leads to (3.25).
If 0 < p < p∗µ,γ then (3.26) follows from Proposition 3.6 and Proposition 3.9.
Proof of Theorem A. Estimate (1.14) and (1.15) are proved in Lemma 3.8 and Lemma 3.3
respectively. The rest of the proof follows from Proposition 3.11.
3.4. Capacities and existence results. For a > −1, 0 ≤ α ≤ β < N and s > 1, let Nα,β ,
Nα,β and CapaNα,β ,s be defined as in (1.19), (1.20) and (1.21) respectively.
In this section, we are interested in the solvability of the following integral equations
u = Nα,β [δ a up ] + Nα,β [τ ],
where p > 1 and τ ∈ M+ (Ω). To this end, we will adapt the argument in [9, Section 2].
Let Z be a metric space and ω ∈ M+ (Z). Let J : Z × Z → (0, ∞] be a Borel positive kernel
such that J is symmetric and J −1 satisfies a quasi-metric inequality, i.e. there is a constant
C > 1 such that for all x, y, z, ∈ Z,
1
1
1
≤C
+
.
J(x, y)
J(x, z) J(z, y)
Under these conditions, one can define the quasi-metric d by
1
d(x, y) :=
J(x, y)
and denote by Br (x) := {y ∈ Z : d(x, y) < r} the open d-ball of radius r > 0 and center x.
Note that this set can be empty.
For ω ∈ M+ (Z) we define the potentials J[ω] and J[φ, ω] by
Z
Z
J[ω](x) :=
J(x, y)dω(y) and J[φ, ω](x) :=
J(x, y)φ(y)dω(y).
Z
For t > 1 the capacity
Z
CapωJ,t
in Z is defined by
Z
ω
t
CapJ,t (E) := inf
φ(x) dω(x) : φ ≥ 0, J[φ, ω] ≥ χE ,
Z
for any Borel E ⊂ Z.
22
KONSTANTINOS T. GKIKAS AND PHUOC-TAI NGUYEN
Proposition 3.12. ([20]) Let p > 1 and τ, ω ∈ M+ (Z) such that
Z 2r
Z r
ω (Bs (x))
ω (Bs (x))
(3.30)
ds
≤
C
ds,
2
s
s2
0
0
Z r
Z r
ω (Bs (y))
ω (Bs (x))
(3.31)
sup
ds
≤
C
ds,
2
s
s2
0
y∈Br (x) 0
for any r > 0, x ∈ Z, where C > 0 is a constant. Then the following statements are equivalent:
1. The equation u = J[uq , ω] + σJ[τ ] has a solution for σ > 0 small.
2. The inequality
Z
E
J[τE ]p dω ≤ Cτ (E),
holds for any Borel set E ⊂ Z where τE = χE τ.
3. For any Borel set E ⊂ Z there holds
τ (E) ≤ CCapωJ,p0 (E).
4. The inequality
J[(J[τ ])p , ω] ≤ CJ[τ ] < ∞
ω − a.e. holds.
We will point out below that Nα,β satisfies all assumptions of J in Proposition 3.12.
Proposition 3.13. ([9, Lemma 2.2]) Nα,β is symmetric and satisfies the quasi-metric inequality.
Next we give sufficient conditions for (3.30), (3.31) to hold.
Proposition 3.14. Let ω = δ(x)a χΩ (x) dx with a > −1. Then (3.30) and (3.31) hold.
Proof. If a ≥ 0 the the statement follows directly from [9, Lemma 2.3]. We are left with the
case −1 < a < 0.
We claim that for any 0 < s < 8diam(Ω) and any x ∈ Ω we have
ν(Bs (x)) ∼ max{δ(x), s}a sN .
(3.32)
Indeed, in order to obtain (3.32), we consider four cases.
Case 1: 4s ≤ δ(x). Then δ(x) ∼ δ(y) for any y ∈ Bs (x) and the proof of (3.32) can be obtained
easily.
Case 2: s >
δ(x)
4 .
Then δ(y) ≤ 5s thus
Z
δ(y)a dy ≥ Csa+N ≥ C max{δ(x), s}a sN .
Bs (x)∩Ω
Case 3:
(3.33)
δ(x)
4
≤ s ≤ 4δ(x). Since Ω is smooth there exists a r∗ > 0 such that
Z
C a+N
r∗
r∗
δ(y)a dy ≤
r0 , ∀r0 ≤
and δ(xi ) < .
a+1
8
4
Br0 (xi )∩Ω
δ(x)
Set r0 := r∗ 32diam(Ω)
, then there exists xi ∈ Bs (x) and i = 1, ..., k such that
Bs (x) ⊂ ∪ki=1 Br0 (xi ).
We note that k does not depend neither on x, nor on δ(x). Thus we have
Z
k Z
X
δ(y)a dy ≤
δ(y)a dy.
Bs (x)∩Ω
i=1
Br0 (xi )∩Ω
ON THE EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS
Now by (3.33) we get
Z
Br0 (xi )∩Ω
and
Z
Br0 (xi )∩Ω
δ(y)a dy ≤ Cδ(x)a+N ≤ C max{δ(x), s}a sN ,
δ(y)a dy ≤ C (r∗ )a δ(x)N ≤ C max{δ(x), s}a sN ,
23
if δ(xi ) <
r∗
4
if δ(xi ) ≥
r∗
4
and hence (3.32) follows.
s
Case 4: s ≥ 4δ(x). Set r0 := r∗ 32diam(Ω)
, then the proof of (3.32) follows due to a similar
argument as in Case 3.
The rest of the proof can be proceeded as in the proof of [9, Lemma 2.3] and we omit it. We recall below the definition of the capacity associated to Nα,β (see [20]).
Definition 3.15. Let a > −1, 0 ≤ α ≤ β < N and s > 1. Define CapaNα,β ,s by
Z
CapaNα,β ,s (E) := inf
δ a φs dy : φ ≥ 0, Nα,β [δ a φ] ≥ χE ,
Ω
for any Borel set E ⊂ Ω.
Clearly we have
CapaNα,β ,s (E)
= inf
Z
δ
−a(s−1) s
φ dy : φ ≥ 0, Nα,β [φ] ≥ χE
Ω
,
for any Borel set E ⊂ Ω. Furthermore we have by [1, Theorem 2.5.1]
1
n
o
s
0
CapaNα,β ,s (E) = inf ω(E) : ω ∈ M+
(Ω),
||N
[ω]||
≤
1
,
s
a
α,β
b
L (Ω;δ )
for any compact set E ⊂ Ω where s0 is the conjugate exponent of s.
Thanks to Proposition 3.13 and Proposition 3.14, we can apply Proposition 3.12 to obtain
Proposition 3.16. Let τ ∈ M+ (Ω), a > −1, 0 ≤ α ≤ β < N and p > 1. Then the following
statements are equivalent:
1. The equation u = Nα,β [δ a up ] + σNα,β [τ ] has a solution for some σ > 0.
2. The inequality
Z
E
δ a (Nα,β [τE ])p dx ≤ Cτ (E),
holds for any Borel set E ⊂ Ω where τE = χE τ.
3. For any compact set K ⊂ Ω, there holds
τ (K) ≤ CCapaNα,β ,p0 (K).
4. The inequality
holds for some C > 0.
Nα,β [δ a (Nα,β [τ ])p ] ≤ CNα,β [τ ] < ∞
a.e. in Ω,
We next recall the capacity Cap∂Ω
θ,s introduced in [9] which can be employed to deal with
boundary measures. Let θ ∈ (0, N − 1) and denote by Bθ the Bessel kernel in RN −1 with order
θ. For s > 1, define
Z
s
δ dy : φ ≥ 0, Bθ ∗ φ ≥ χF
(3.34)
CapBθ ,s (F ) := inf
RN −1
24
KONSTANTINOS T. GKIKAS AND PHUOC-TAI NGUYEN
for any Borel set F ⊂ RN −1 . Since Ω be a bounded smooth domain in RN , there exist open
sets O1 , ..., Om in RN , diffeomorphisms Ti : Oi → B1 (0) and compact sets K1 , ..., Km in ∂Ω such
that
(i) Ki ⊂ Oi , 1 ≤ i ≤ m and ∂Ω ∪m
i=1 Ki ,
(ii) Ti (Oi ∩ ∂Ω) = B1 (0) ∩ {xN = 0}, Ti (Oi ∩ Ω) = B1 (0) ∩ {xN > 0},
(iii) For any x ∈ Oi ∩ Ω, there exists y ∈ Oi ∩ ∂Ω such that δ(x) = |x − y|. We then define the
Cap∂Ω
θ,s −capacity of a compact set F ⊂ ∂Ω by
(3.35)
Cap∂Ω
θ,s (F ) :=
m
X
i=1
CapBθ ,s (T̃i (F ∩ Ki )),
where Ti (F ∩ Ki ) = T̃i (F ∩ Ki ) × {xN = 0}.
The following result is obtained by the same argument as in the proof of [9, Proposition 2.9].
Proposition 3.17. Let a > −1, 0 ≤ α ≤ β < N and s > 1. Assume that −1 + s0 (1 + α − β) <
a < −1 + s0 (N + α − β). Then there holds
(E),
CapaNα,β ,s (E) ∼ Cap∂Ω
β−α+ a+1 −1,s
s0
for any Borel E ⊂ ∂Ω.
By using Proposition 3.16, the fact that (p + 1)α+ + γ > −1 for p > 1 and γ > −2 and by
adapting the argument in the proof of [9, Theorem 1.2], we obtain easily the following results
whose proofs are omitted.
Proposition 3.18. Let p > 1, γ > −2, σ > 0 and τ ∈ M+ (Ω; δ α+ ). Then the following
statements are equivalent:
1. There exists C > 0 such that the following inequality hold
(p+1)α+ +γ
(E),
0
+ ,2 ,p
τ (E) ≤ CCapN2α
for any Borel E ⊂ Ω.
2. There exists a constant C2 > 0 such that (1.14) holds.
3. Problem (3.7) has a positive weak solution for σ > 0 small enough.
Combining Proposition 3.16 and Proposition 3.17 leads to the following result.
Proposition 3.19. Let p > 1, −2 < γ < −1 − α+ + p(N + α+ − 2), % > 0 and ν ∈ M+ (∂Ω).
Then, the following statements are equivalent:
1. There exists C > 0 such that the following inequality hold
ν(F ) ≤ CCap∂Ω
1−α+ +
1+α+ +γ 0
,p
p
(F ),
for any Borel F ⊂ ∂Ω.
2. There exists C1 > 0 such that (1.15) holds.
3. Problem (3.22) has a positive weak solution for % > 0 small enough.
Proof of Theorem B. The implications (i) ⇐⇒ (ii) =⇒ (iii) follow from Proposition 3.19,
Proposition 3.18 and Proposition 3.11. We will show that (iii) =⇒ (ii). Since (1.16) has a weak
solution for σ > 0 small and % > 0 small, it follows that (3.7) admits a solution for σ > 0 small
and (3.22) admits a solution for % > 0 small. Due to Proposition 3.19 and Proposition 3.18, we
derive (1.14) and (1.15). This completes the proof.
ON THE EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS
25
4. Elliptic systems: the power case
Let µ ∈ (0, 14 ]. In this section, we deal with system (1.27). We recall that
p+1
p̃ + 1
, q̃ := p
.
p̃ + 1
p+1
Without loss of generality, we can assume that 0 < p ≤ p̃. Then p ≤ q ≤ q̃ ≤ p̃ if pp̃ ≥ 1.
Put
2+γ
tγ := p̃ p −
.
N + α+ − 2
∗ then t < q < p∗ .
If q < qµ,γ
γ
µ,γ
+α+ −1)α+ 2α+ Lemma 4.1. Let p > 0, p̃ > 0, {γ, γ̃} ⊂ −2(N
, N −2 and τ ∈ M+ (Ω; δ α+ ). Assume
N +2α+ −2
∗
∗
q < min(pµ,γ , pµ,γ̃ ). Then for any t ∈ (max(0, tγ ), p̃], there exists a positive constant c =
c(N, p, p̃, µ, γ, γ̃, t, τ ) (independent of τ if p > 1) such that
q := p̃
(Gµ [δ γ (Gµ [τ ])p ])p̃ ≤ c(Gµ [τ ])t .
(4.1)
In particular,
(4.2)
(Gµ [δ γ (Gµ [τ ])p ])p̃ ≤ C(Gµ [τ ])q ,
(4.3)
Gµ [δ γ̃ (Gµ [δ γ (Gµ [τ ])p ])p̃ ] ≤ CGµ [τ ]
where C = C(N, p, p̃, µ, γ, γ̃, τ ).
Proof. Since q < p∗µ,γ , it follows that p < p∗µ,γ , hence max(0, p −
(max(0, tγ ), p̃] then max(0, p −
respectively in order to obtain
2+γ
N −2+α+ )
<
t
p̃
2+γ
N −2+α+ )
< 1. Let t ∈
≤ 1. By applying Lemma 3.7 with s replaced by
t
p̃
t
Gµ [δ γ (Gµ [τ ])p ] ≤ c(Gµ [τ ]) p̃ ,
which implies (4.1). Since tγ < q ≤ p̃, by taking t = q in (4.1) we obtain (4.2). Next, since
q < p∗µ,γ̃ , by apply Lemma 3.7 with γ replaced by γ̃ and (4.2), we get
Gµ [δ γ̃ (Gµ [δ γ (Gµ [τ ])p ])p̃ ] ≤ CGµ [δ γ̃ (Gµ [τ ])q ] ≤ CGµ [τ ].
M+ (Ω, δ α+ )
M+ (∂Ω).
Lemma 4.2. Let p > 0, p̃ > 0, γ > −2, γ̃ > −2, τ, τ̃ ∈
and ν, ν̃ ∈
Assume that there exist positive functions U ∈ Lp̃ (Ω; δ α+ +γ̃ ) and V ∈ Lp (Ω; δ α+ +γ ) such that
U ≥ Gµ [δ γ (V + Kµ [%̃ν̃])p ] + Gµ [στ ],
(4.4)
V ≥ Gµ [δ γ̃ (U + Kµ [%ν])p̃ ] + Gµ [σ̃τ̃ ]
in Ω. Then there exists a weak solution (u, v) of (1.27) such that
Gµ [στ ] + Kµ [%ν] ≤ u ≤ U,
(4.5)
Proof. Put u0 := 0 and
(4.6)
Gµ [σ̃τ̃ ] + Kµ [%̃ν̃] ≤ v ≤ V.
(
vn+1 := Gµ [δ γ̃ up̃n ] + Gµ [σ̃τ̃ ] + Kµ [%̃ν̃],
un :=
Gµ [δ γ vnp ]
+ Gµ [στ ] + Kµ [%ν],
n ≥ 0,
n ≥ 1.
We see that 0 ≤ v1 = Gµ [σ̃τ̃ ]+Kµ [%̃ν̃] ≤ V . It is easy to see that {un } and {vn } are nondecreasing
sequences, 0 ≤ un ≤ U and 0 ≤ vn ≤ V in Ω. By monotone convergence theorem, there exist
26
KONSTANTINOS T. GKIKAS AND PHUOC-TAI NGUYEN
u ∈ Lp̃ (Ω; δ α+ +γ̃ ) and v ∈ Lp (Ω; δ α+ +γ ) such that un → u in L1 (Ω), vn → v in L1 (Ω), up̃n → up̃
in L1 (Ω; δ α+ +γ̃ ), vnp → v p in L1 (Ω; δ α+ +γ ). Moreover u ≤ U and v ≤ V in Ω. By letting n → ∞
in (4.6), we obtain
(
v = Gµ [δ γ̃ up̃ ] + Gµ [σ̃τ̃ ] + Kµ [%̃ν̃],
(4.7)
u = Gµ [δ γ v p ] + Gµ [στ ] + Kµ [%ν].
Thus (u, v) is a weak solution of (1.27) and satisfies (4.5).
Proof of Theorem C. We first show that the follow system has weak a solution

− Lµ w = δ γ (w̃ + Kµ [%̃ν̃])p + στ in Ω,


(4.8)
− Lµ w̃ = δ γ̃ ˜(w + Kµ [%ν])p̃ + σ̃τ̃ in Ω,


u = v = 0 on ∂Ω.
Fix ϑi > 0, (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) and set
n
op̃
Ψ := δ γ̃ Gµ [ϑ1 τ + δ γ (Kµ [ϑ2 ν̃])p ] + δ γ̃ (Kµ [ϑ3 ν])p̃ + ϑ4 τ̃ .
For κ ∈ (0, 1], put
1
1
1
σ := κ p̃ ϑ1 , σ̃ := κϑ4 , % := κ p̃ ϑ3 , %̃ := κ pp̃ ϑ2 .
Then from the assumption, we deduce that Ψ ∈ M+ (Ω, δ α+ ). By Lemma 4.1,
Gµ [δ γ̃ (Gµ [δ γ (Gµ [Ψ])p ])p̃ ] ≤ CGµ [Ψ]
(4.9)
where C = C(N, p, p̃, µ, σ, σ̃, κ, τ, τ̃ ). Set
V := a3 Gµ [κΨ]
and U := Gµ [δ γ (V + Kµ [%̃ν̃])p + στ ]
where a3 will be determined later on. We have
δ γ̃ (U + Kµ [%ν])p̃ + σ̃τ̃
n h
ip̃
o
≤ c(p̃)δ γ̃ Gµ δ γ (a3 κGµ [Ψ] + Kµ [%̃ν̃])p
+ (Gµ [στ ])p̃ + (Kµ [%ν])p̃ + σ̃τ̃
n
p̃ p̃ o
pp̃
γ
p
γ
p
≤ c(p, p̃)δ γ̃ app̃
κ
G
[δ
(G
[Ψ])
]
+
G
[δ
(K
[%̃ν̃])
]
µ
µ
µ
µ
3
+ c(p̃)δ γ̃ (Gµ [στ ])p̃ + c(p̃)δ γ̃ (Kµ [%ν])p̃ + σ̃τ̃ .
It follows that
(4.10)
where
Gµ [δ γ̃ (U + Kµ [%ν])p̃ + σ̃τ̃ ] ≤ I1 + I2
n
h p̃ i
h p̃ io
γ
p
γ̃
γ
p
pp̃
γ̃
κ
G
δ
G
[δ
(G
[Ψ])
]
+
G
δ
G
[δ
(K
[%̃ν̃])
]
,
I1 := c(p, p̃) app̃
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
3
I2 := c(p̃)Gµ [δ γ̃ (Gµ [στ ])p̃ ] + c(p̃)Gµ [δ γ̃ (Kµ [%ν])p̃ ] + Gµ [σ̃τ̃ ].
We first estimate I1 . Observe that
p̃ i
h
p̃ i
h Gµ δ γ̃ Gµ [δ γ (Kµ [%̃ν̃])p ]
= Gµ κδ γ̃ Gµ [δ γ (Kµ [ϑ2 ν̃])p ]
≤ Gµ [κΨ].
This, together with (4.9) implies
(4.11)
pp̃−1
I1 ≤ c (app̃
+ 1)Gµ [κΨ].
3 κ
ON THE EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS
27
Next it is easy to see that
I2 ≤ c(p̃)Gµ [κΨ].
(4.12)
By collecting (4.10), (4.11) and (4.12), we obtain
pp̃−1
Gµ [δ γ̃ (U + Kµ [%ν])p̃ + σ̃τ̃ ] ≤ c(app̃
+ 1)Gµ [κΨ]
3 κ
(4.13)
with another constant c. We will choose a3 and κ such that
pp̃−1
c (app̃
+ 1) ≤ a3 .
3 κ
(4.14)
If pp̃ > 1 then we can choose a3 > 0 large enough and then choose κ > 0 small enough (depending
on a3 ) such that (4.14) holds. If pp̃ < 1 then for any κ > 0 there exists a3 large enough such
that (4.14) holds. For such a3 and κ, we obtain
Gµ [δ γ̃ (U + Kµ [%ν])p̃ + σ̃τ̃ ] ≤ V.
By Lemma 4.2, there exists a weak solution (w, w̃) of (4.8) for σ > 0, σ̃ > 0, ν > 0, ν̃ > 0 small
if pp̃ > 1, for any σ > 0, σ̃ > 0, ν > 0, ν̃ > 0 if pp̃ < 1. Moreover, (w, w̃) satisfies
(4.15)
w̃ ∼ Gµ [ω],
(4.16)
w ∼ Gµ [δ γ (Gµ [ω] + Kµ [ν̃])p ] + Gµ [τ ]
where C = C(N, p, p̃, µ, Ω, σ, σ̃, τ, τ̃ ).
Next put u := w+Kµ [%ν] and v := w̃+Kµ [%̃ν̃] then (u, v) is a weak solution of (1.27). Moreover
(1.28) and (1.29) follow directly from (4.15) and (4.16).
Proof of Theorem D. Put τ ∗ := max{τ, τ̃ } and ν ∗ := max{ν, ν̃}. Fix ϑ > 0, ϑ̃ > 0 and for
1
1
κ ∈ (0, 1], put σ = % = (κϑ) p̃ and σ̃ = κϑ̃, %̃ = (κϑ̃) pp̃ . Set
τ # := ϑτ + ϑ̃τ̃
and ν # := ϑν + ϑ̃ν̃
then τ # ≤ (ϑ + ϑ̃)τ ∗ and ν # ≤ (ϑ + ϑ̃)ν ∗ .
Put V := a4 (Gµ [κτ # ]+Kµ [κν # ]) where a4 will be determined later on and put U := Gµ [δ γ (V +
Kµ [%̃ν̃])p + στ ].
We have
n
p
# p p̃
p
# p p̃
pp̃ γ̃
κ
δ
G
[δ
(G
[τ
])
])
+
G
[δ
(K
[ν
])
])
δ γ̃ U p̃ + σ̃τ̃ ≤ c(p, p̃) app̃
µ
µ
µ
µ
4
o
+ σ p̃ δ γ̃ (Gµ [τ ])p̃ + %p̃ δ γ̃ (Kµ [ν])p̃ + σ̃τ̃ .
It follows that
(4.17)
Gµ [δ γ̃ (U + Kµ [%ν])p̃ + σ̃τ̃ ] ≤ c(p, p̃)(J1 + J2 )
where
pp̃
γ̃
p
# p p̃
γ̃
p
# p p̃
J1 := app̃
κ
G
[δ
G
[δ
(G
[τ
])
])
]
+
G
[δ
G
[δ
(K
[ν
])
])
]
,
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
4
J2 := σ p̃ Gµ [δ γ̃ (Gµ [τ ])p̃ ] + %p̃ Gµ [δ γ̃ (Kµ [ν])p̃ ] + σ̃Gµ [τ̃ ] + %̃Kµ [ν̃].
We first estimate J1 . We have
pp̃
pp̃
J1 ≤ app̃
Gµ [δ γ̃ Gµ [δ p (Gµ [τ ∗ ])p ])p̃ ] + Gµ [δ γ̃ Gµ [δ p (Kµ [ν ∗ ])p ])p̃ ] .
4 κ (ϑ + ϑ̃)
By (1.30), 1.31 and Proposition 3.19, Proposition 3.18 we infer that
J1 ≤ c a4pp̃ κpp̃ (ϑ + ϑ̃)pp̃ (Gµ [τ ∗ ] + Kµ [ν ∗ ])
28
KONSTANTINOS T. GKIKAS AND PHUOC-TAI NGUYEN
where c is a positive constant. Therefore
pp̃
pp̃
−1 −1
#
#
J1 ≤ c app̃
4 κ (ϑ + ϑ̃) max(ϑ , ϑ̃ )(Gµ [τ ] + Kµ [ν ]).
(4.18)
We next estimate I2 . Again by (1.30), 1.31 and Proposition 3.19, Proposition 3.18, we deduce
J2 ≤ c (σ p̃ Gµ [τ ] + %p̃ Kµ [ν] + σ̃Gµ [τ̃ ] + %̃Kµ [ν̃])
(4.19)
= c κ(Gµ [τ # ] + Kµ [ν # ]).
Combining (4.17), (4.18) and (4.19) implies
pp̃−1
Gµ [δ γ̃ U p̃ + σ̃τ̃ ] + Kµ [%̃ν̃] ≤ C(app̃
+ 1)(Gµ [κτ # ] + Kµ [κν # ])
4 κ
(4.20)
where C is another positive constant. We choose a4 > 0 and κ > 0 such that
pp̃−1
C(app̃
+ 1) ≤ a4 .
4 κ
(4.21)
Since pp̃ > 1, one can choose a4 large enough and then choose κ > 0 small enough such that
(4.21) holds. For such a4 and κ, we have
Gµ [δ γ̃ U p̃ + σ̃τ̃ ] + Kµ [%̃ν̃] ≤ V.
By Lemma 4.2, there exists a weak solution (u, v) of (1.27) which satisfies (1.32).
5. General nonlinearities
5.1. Absorption case. In this section we treat system (1.33) with = −1. We recall that Λg,γ
and Λg̃,γ̃ are defined in (1.34).
Proof of Theorem E.
Step 1: We claim that
Z
Z
(5.1)
g(Kµ [|ν̃|] + Gµ [|σ̃|])δ α+ +γ dx +
g̃(Kµ [|ν|] + Gµ [|τ |])δ α+ +γ̃ dx < ∞.
Ω
Ω
R
For λ > 0, set Ãλ := {x ∈ Ω : Kµ [|ν̃|] + Gµ [|τ̃ |] > λ} and a(λ) := Ãλ δ α+ +γ dx. We write
Z
kg(Kµ [|ν̃|] + Gµ [|τ̃ |])kL1 (Ω;δα+ +γ ) =
g(Kµ [|ν̃|] + Gµ [|τ̃ |])δ α+ +γ dx
Ã1
Z
g(Kµ [|ν̃|] + Gµ [|τ̃ |])δ α+ +γ dx
+
(5.2)
Ãc1
≤
We have
Z
Ã1
g(Kµ [|ν̃|] + Gµ [|τ̃ |])δ
Z
Ã1
g(Kµ [|ν̃|] + Gµ [|τ̃ |])δ α+ +γ dx + g(1)
α+ +γ
dx = a(1)g(1) +
Z
∞
Z
δ α+ +γ dx.
Ω
a(s)dg(s).
1
On the other hand, by (2.2) and Proposition 2.4 one gets, for every s > 0,
∗
∗
p∗µ,γ
p∗µ,γ
(5.3)
a(s) ≤ C kKµ [|ν̃|]k p∗µ,γ
+ kGµ [|τ̃ |]k qµ,γ
s−pµ,γ ≤ c1 s−pµ,γ
∗
α +γ
α +γ
Lw
(Ω;δ
+
)
Lw
(Ω;δ
+
)
where c1 = c1 (N, µ, Ω, γ, kν̃kM(∂Ω) , kτ̃ kM(Ω;δα+ ) ). Thus
Z ∞
Z ∞
∗
(5.4)
a(1)g(1) +
a(s)dg(s) ≤ C1 + C2
s−1−pµ,γ g(s)ds ≤ c1 p∗µ,γ Λg,γ .
1
1
ON THE EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS
By combining the above estimates we obtain
kg(Kµ [|ν̃|] + Gµ [|τ̃ |])kL1 (Ω;δα+ +γ ) ≤ c1 p∗µ,γ Λg,γ + g(1)
Similarly,
kg̃(Kµ [|ν|] + Gµ [|τ |])kL1 (Ω;δα+ +γ̃ ) ≤
∗
c̃1 qµ,γ̃
Λg̃,γ̃
+ g̃(1)
29
Z
Ω
δ α+ +γ dx ≤ c2 .
Z
Ω
δ α+ +γ̃ dx ≤ c̃2 .
Thus (5.1) follows directly.
Step 2: Existence.
Put u0 := Kµ [ν] + Gµ [τ ]. Let v0 be the unique weak solution of the following problem
(
−Lµ v0 + δ γ̃ g̃(u0 ) = τ̃ in Ω,
v0 = ν̃ on ∂Ω.
For any k ≥ 1, since g, g̃ satisfy (5.1) there exist functions uk and vk satisfying

in Ω,
 −Lµ uk + δ γ g(vk−1 ) = τ
−Lµ vk + δ γ̃ g̃(uk ) = τ̃
in Ω,
(5.5)

uk = ν, vk = ν̃ on ∂Ω.
Moreover
(5.6)
uk + Gµ [δ γ g(vk−1 )] = Gµ [τ ] + Kµ [ν],
vk + Gµ [δ γ̃ g̃(uk )] = Gµ [τ̃ ] + Kµ [ν̃].
Since g, g̃ ≥ 0, it follows that, for every k ≥ 1,
Kµ [ν] + Gµ [τ ] − Gµ [δ γ g(Kµ [ν̃] + Gµ [τ̃ ])] ≤ uk ≤ Kµ [ν] + Gµ [τ ] = u0
and
Kµ [ν̃] + Gµ [τ̃ ] − Gµ [δ γ̃ g̃(Kµ [ν] + Gµ [τ ])] ≤ vk ≤ Kµ [ν̃] + Gµ [τ̃ ]
in Ω. Now, suppose that for some k ≥ 1, uk ≤ uk−1 . Since g and g̃ are nondecreasing, we deduce
that
(5.7)
vk = Kµ [ν̃] + Gµ [τ̃ ] − Gµ [δ γ̃ g̃(uk )] ≥ Kµ [ν̃] + Gµ [τ̃ ] − Gµ [δ γ̃ g̃(uk−1 )] = vk−1 ,
uk+1 = Kµ [ν] + Gµ [τ ] − Gµ [δ γ g(vk )] ≤ Kµ [ν] + Gµ [τ ] − Gµ [δ γ g(vk−1 )] = uk .
This means that {vk } is nondecreasing and {uk } is nonincreasing. Hence, there exist u and v
such that uk ↓ u and vk ↑ v in Ω and
Kµ [ν] + Gµ [τ ] − Gµ [δ γ g(Kµ [ν̃] + Gµ [τ̃ ])] ≤ u ≤ Kµ [ν] + Gµ [τ ],
Kµ [ν̃] + Gµ [τ̃ ] − Gµ [δ γ̃ g̃(Kµ [ν] + Gµ [τ ])] ≤ v ≤ Kµ [ν̃] + Gµ [τ̃ ].
Since g and g̃ are continuous and nondecreasing, we infer from monotone convergence theorem and (5.1) that g(vk ) → g(v) in L1 (Ω; δ γ+α+ ) and g̃(uk ) → g̃(u) in L1 (Ω; δ γ̃+α+ ). As a
consequence,
Gµ [δ γ̃ g̃(uk )] → Gµ [δ γ̃ g̃(u)]
a.e. in Ω,
Gµ [δ γ g(vk )] → Gµ [δ γ g(v)]
By letting k → ∞ in (5.6), we obtain the desired result.
a.e. in Ω.
30
KONSTANTINOS T. GKIKAS AND PHUOC-TAI NGUYEN
5.2. Source case: subcriticality. In this section for simplicity we consider system (1.33) with
= 1. Assume that g(0) = g̃(0) = 0. Put
(5.8)
γ ∗ = min{α+ + γ, α+ + γ̃, −α− } > −1.
In preparation for proving Theorem F, we establish the following lemma:
Lemma 5.1. Assume = 1, g and g̃ are bounded, nondecreasing and continuous functions in
R. Let τ, τ̃ ∈ M(Ω; δ α+ ) and ν, ν̃ ∈ M(∂Ω). Assume there exist a1 > 0, b1 > 0 and q1 > 1
such that (1.35) and (1.36) are satisfied. Then there exist λ∗ , λ̃∗ , b∗ > 0 and %∗ > 0 depending
on N , µ, Ω γ, γ̃, Λγ,g , Λγ̃,g̃ , a1 , q1 such that the following holds. For every b1 ∈ (0, b∗ ) and
σ, σ̃, %̃, % ∈ (0, %∗ ) the system
(5.9)

 −Lµ u = δ γ g(v + %̃Kµ [ν̃] + σ̃Gµ [τ̃ ])
−Lµ v = δ γ̃ g̃(u + %Kµ [ν] + σGµ [τ ])

u = v = 0 on ∂Ω
in Ω,
in Ω,
admits a weak solution (u, v) satisfying
kuk
(5.10)
kvk
p∗
+ kukLq1 (Ω;δγ ∗ ) ≤ λ∗ ,
p∗
+ kvkLq1 (Ω;δγ ∗ ) ≤ λ̃∗ .
Lwµ,γ̃ (Ω;δ α+ +γ̃ )
Lwµ,γ (Ω;δ α+ +γ )
Proof. Without loss of generality, we assume that kτ kM(Ω;δα+ ) = kτ̃ kM(Ω;δα+ ) = kνkM(∂Ω) =
kν̃kM(∂Ω) = 1. We shall use Schauder fixed point theorem to show the existence of positive
solutions of (5.9).
Define
(5.11)
S(w) := Gµ [δ γ g(w + %̃Kµ [ν̃] + σ̃Gµ [τ̃ ])],
S̃(w) := Gµ [δ γ̃ g̃(w + %Kµ [ν] + σGµ [τ ])],
∀w ∈ L1 (Ω).
Set
M1 (w) := kwk
Lwµ,γ (Ω;δ α+ +γ )
M̃1 (w) := kwk
p∗
Lwµ,γ̃ (Ω;δ α+ +γ̃ )
p∗
M2 (w) = kwkLq1 (Ω;δγ ∗ ) ,
p∗
,
∀w ∈ Lwµ,γ (Ω; δ α+ +γ ),
,
∀w ∈ Lwµ,γ̃ (Ω; δ α+ +γ̃ ),
p∗
∗
∀w ∈ Lq1 (Ω; δ γ ),
p∗
∗
M(w) = M1 (w) + M2 (w),
∀w ∈ Lwµ,γ (Ω; δ α+ +γ ) ∩ Lq1 (Ω; δ γ ),
M̃(w) = M̃1 (w) + M2 (w),
∀w ∈ Lwµ,γ̃ (Ω; δ α+ +γ̃ ) ∩ Lq1 (Ω; δ γ ).
p∗
∗
p∗
Step 1: Upper bound for g(w + %̃Kµ [ν̃] + σ̃Gµ [τ̃ ]) in L1 (Ω; δ α+ +γ ) with w ∈ Lwµ,γ (Ω; δ α+ +γ ) ∩
∗
Lq1 (Ω; δ γ ).
ON THE EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS
31
R
For λ > 0, set B̃λ := {x ∈ Ω : |w| + %̃Kµ [|ν̃|] + σ̃Gµ [|τ̃ |] > λ} and b(λ) := B̃λ δ α+ +γ dx. We
write
Z
g(|w| + %̃Kµ [|ν̃|] + σ̃Gµ [|τ̃ |])δ α+ +γ dx
kg(w + %̃Kµ [ν̃] + σ̃Gµ [τ̃ ])kL1 (Ω;δα+ +γ ) ≤
Z B̃1
+
g(|w| + %̃Kµ [|ν̃|] + σ̃Gµ [|τ̃ |])δ α+ +γ dx
B̃1c
(5.12)
−
−
Z
B̃1
g(−|w| − %̃Kµ [|ν̃|] − σ̃Gµ [|τ̃ |])δ α+ +γ dx
B̃1c
g(−|w| − %̃Kµ [|ν̃|] − σ̃Gµ [|τ̃ |])δ α+ +γ dx
Z
=: I + II + III + IV.
We first estimate I. Since g ∈ C(R+ ) is nondecreasing, one gets
Z ∞
b(s)dg(s).
I = b(1)g(1) +
1
Since g is bounded, there exists an increasing sequence of real positive number {`j } such that
lim `j = ∞ and
(5.13)
j→∞
Observe that
Z
∞
−p∗µ,γ
lim `j
j→∞
b(s)dg(s) = lim
Z
`j
b(s)dg(s).
j→∞ λ
1
g(`j ) = 0.
On the other hand, by (2.2) one gets, for every s > 0,
(5.14) a(s) ≤ k|w| + %̃Kµ [|ν̃|] + σ̃Gµ [|τ̃ |]k
p∗µ,γ
∗
∗
where c31 = c31 (N, µ, Ω). Using (5.14), we obtain
Z `j
b(1)g(1) +
b(s)dg(s)
1
≤ c31 (M1 (w) + %̃ + σ̃)
p∗µ,γ
p∗µ,γ
g(1) + c31 (M1 (w) + %̃ + σ̃)
≤ c31 (M1 (w) + %̃ + σ̃)
p∗µ,γ
−p∗
`j µ,γ g(`j )
I≤
(5.15)
Z
`j
∗
s−pµ,γ dg(s)
1
∗
+ c31 p∗µ,γ (M1 (w) + %̃ + σ̃)pµ,γ
By virtue of (5.13), letting j → ∞ yields
c31 p∗µ,γ (M1 (w)
p∗µ,γ
+ %̃ + σ̃)
Z
∞
Z
∗
s−1−pµ,γ g(s)ds.
1
Similarly we have
∗
III ≤ −c31 p∗µ,γ (M1 (w) + %̃ + σ̃)pµ,γ
∗
s−pµ,γ ≤ c31 (M1 (w) + %̃ + σ̃)pµ,γ s−pµ,γ
p∗
Lwµ,γ (Ω;δ α+ +γ )
Z
1
∞
∗
s−1−pµ,γ g(−s)ds.
1
`j
∗
s−1−pµ,γ g(s)ds.
32
KONSTANTINOS T. GKIKAS AND PHUOC-TAI NGUYEN
∗
+γ
To handle the remaining terms II, III, without lost of generality, we assume q1 ∈ (1, NN
+α+ −2 ).
Since g satisfies condition (1.35), it follows that
Z
Z
max{II, IV } ≤ a1
(|w| + %̃Kµ [|ν̃|] + σ̃Kµ [|τ̃ |])q1 δ α+ +γ dx + b1
δ α+ +γ dx
B̃1c
(5.16)
≤ a1 c34
Z
Ω
B̃1c
|w|q1 δ α+ +γ dx + a1 c34 (%̃q1 + σ̃ q1 ) + c34 b1
≤ a1 c35 M2 (w)q1 + +a1 c34 (%̃q1 + σ̃ q1 ) + c34 b1
where ci = ci (N, µ, Ω), i = 33, 34.
Combining (5.12), (5.15) and (5.16) yields
∗
(5.17) kg(w + %̃Kµ [ν̃] + σ̃Gµ [τ̃ ])kL1 (Ω;δα+ +γ ) ≤ c33 Λg,γ M1 (w)pµ,γ + c35 a1 M2 (w)q1 + c34 b1 + d%̃,σ̃
∗
∗
where d%̃,σ̃ = c33 Λg,γ (%̃pµ,γ + σ̃ pµ,γ ) + c34 a1 (%̃q1 + σ̃ q1 ).
Step 2: Estimates on M1 , M2 and M.
From (2.11), we have
M̃1 (S(w)) = kGµ [δ γ g(w + %̃Kµ [ν̃] + σ̃Gµ [τ̃ ])k
(5.18)
p∗
Lwµ,γ̃ (Ω;δ α+ +
γ
)
≤ c7 kg(w + %̃Kµ [ν̃] + σ̃Gµ [τ̃ ])kL1 (Ω;δα+ +γ ) .
It follows that
∗
M̃1 (S(w)) ≤ c7 c33 Λg,γ M1 (w)pµ,γ + c7 c35 a1 M2 (w)q1 + c7 c34 b1 + c7 d%̃,σ̃ .
(5.19)
Applying (2.11), we get
M2 (S(w)) = Gµ [δ γ̃ g̃(w + %Kµ [ν] + σGµ [τ ])Lq1 (Ω;δγ ∗ )
≤ c36 kg̃(w + %Kµ [ν] + σGµ [τ ])kL1 (Ω;δα+ +γ ) ,
which implies
∗
M2 (S(w)) ≤ c36 c33 Λg,γ M1 (w)pµ,γ + c36 c35 a1 M2 (w)q1 + c36 c34 b1 + c36 d%̃,σ̃ .
(5.20)
Consequently,
∗
M̃(S(w)) ≤ c37 Λg,γ M1 (w)pµ,γ + c38 a1 M2 (w)q1 + c40 b1 + c39 d%̃,σ̃
(5.21)
where c37 = (c7 + c36 )c33 , c38 = (c7 + c36 )c35 , c39 = c7 + c36 , c40 = (c7 + c36 )c34 . Similarly, we
can show that
∗
M(S̃(w)) ≤ c̃37 Λg̃,γ̃ M̃1 (w)pµ,γ̃ + c̃38 a1 M2 (w)q1 + c̃40 b1 + c̃39 d%,σ
(5.22)
where c̃i (37 ≤ i ≤ 40) are positive constants. Define the functions η and η̃ as follows
∗
η(λ) := max{c37 Λg,γ , c̃37 Λg̃,γ̃ }λpµ,γ + max{c38 , c̃38 }a1 λq1 + max{c40 , c̃40 }b1 + max{c39 d% , c̃39 d˜% }
∗
η̃(λ) := max{c37 Λg,γ , c̃37 Λg̃,γ̃ }λpµ,γ̃ + max{c38 , c̃38 }a1 λq1 + max{c40 , c̃40 }b1 + max{c39 d% , c̃39 d˜% }.
By (5.21) and (5.22), we deduce
p∗µ,γ
p∗µ,γ̃
M̃(S(w)) ≤ η(M(w))
and M(S̃(w)) ≤ η̃(M̃(w)).
Since
> 1,
> 1 and q1 > 1, there exist %∗ > 0 and b∗ > 0 depending on N , µ, Ω, γ, γ̃,
Λγ,g , Λγ̃,g̃ , a1 , q1 such that for any %, %̃ ∈ (0, %∗ ) and b ∈ (0, b∗ ) there exist λ∗ > 0 and λ̃∗ > 0
such that
η(λ∗ ) = λ̃∗ and η̃(λ̃∗ ) = λ∗ .
ON THE EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS
33
Here λ∗ and λ̃∗ depend on N , µ, Ω, γ, γ̃, Λγ,g , Λγ̃,g̃ , a1 , q1 . Therefore,
M(w) ≤ λ∗ =⇒ M̃(S(w)) ≤ λ̃∗
(5.23)
M̃(w) ≤ λ̃∗ =⇒ M(S̃(w)) ≤ λ∗ .
Step 3: We apply Schauder fixed point theorem to our setting.
For w ∈ L1 (Ω), put
(5.24)
T(w1 , w2 ) = (S(w2 ), S̃(w1 )).
Set
D = {(ϕ, ϕ̃) ∈ L1+ (Ω) × L1+ (Ω) : M(ϕ) ≤ λ∗ and M̃(ϕ̃) ≤ λ̃∗ }.
Clearly, D is a convex subset of L1 (Ω) × L1 (Ω). We shall show that D is a closed subset
of (L1 (Ω))2 . Indeed, let {(ϕm , ϕ̃m )} be a sequence in D converging to (ϕ, ϕ̃) in (L1 (Ω))2 .
Obviously, ϕ ≥ 0 and ϕ̃ ≥ 0. We can extract a subsequence, still denoted by the same notation,
such that (ϕm , ϕ̃m ) → (ϕ, ϕ̃) a.e. in Ω. Consequently, by Fatou’s lemma,
Mi (ϕ) ≤ lim inf Mi (ϕm ),
m→∞
Mi (ϕ̃) ≤ lim inf Mi (ϕ̃m )
m→∞
for i = 1, 2. It follows that M(ϕ) ≤ λ∗ and M(ϕ̃) ≤ λ̃∗ . So (ϕ, ϕ̃) ∈ D and therefore D is a
closed subset of L1 (Ω) × L1 (Ω).
Clearly, T is well defined in D. For (w, w̃) ∈ D, we get M(w) ≤ λ∗ and M(w̃) ≤ λ̃∗ , hence
M̃(S(w)) ≤ λ̃∗ and M(S(w̃)) ≤ λ∗ . It follows that T(D) ⊂ D.
We observe that T is continuous. Indeed, if wm → w and w̃m → w̃ as m → ∞ in L1 (Ω) then
since g, g̃ ∈ C(R) ∩ L∞ (R), it follows that
g(w̃m + %̃Kµ [ν] + σ̃Gµ [τ̃ ]) → g(w̃ + %̃Kµ [ν] + σ̃Gµ [τ̃ ])
in L1 (Ω; δ α+ +γ ),
g̃(wm + %Kµ [ν] + σGµ [τ ]) → g̃(w + %Kµ [ν] + σGµ [τ ])
in L1 (Ω; δ α+ +γ̃ )
and
as m → ∞. By (2.11), S(w̃m ) → S(w̃) and S̃(wm ) → S̃(w) as m → ∞ in L1 (Ω). Thus
T(wm , w̃m ) → T(w, w̃) in L1 (Ω) × L1 (Ω).
We next show that T is a compact operator. Let {(wm , w̃n )} ⊂ D and for each m ≥ 1, put
ψm = S(w̃m ) and ψ̃m = S̃(wm ). Hence {∆ψm } and {∆ψ̃m } are uniformly bounded in Lp (G)
for every subset G b Ω. Therefore {ψm } is uniformly bounded in W 1,p (G). Consequently,
there exists a subsequence, still denoted by the same notation, and functions ψ, ψ̃ such that
(ψm , ψ̃m ) → (ψ, ψ̃) a.e. in Ω. By dominated convergence theorem, (ψm , ψ̃m ) → (ψ, ψ̃) in
L1 (Ω) × L1 (Ω). Thus T is compact.
By Schauder fixed point theorem there is (u, v) ∈ D such that T(u, v) = (u, v). If µ ∈ (0, CH ),
due to Proposition 2.6, tr ∗ (u) = tr ∗ (v) = 0 and the result follows.
Proof of Theorem F.I. Let {gn } and {g̃n } be the sequences of continuous, nondecreasing
functions defined on R+ such that
(5.25)
gn (0) = g(0), |gn | ≤ |gn+1 | ≤ |g|, sup |gn | = n and lim kgn − gkL∞ (R+ ) = 0,
R+
n→∞
loc
g̃n (0) = g̃(0), ˜|gn | ≤ |g̃n+1 | ≤ |g̃|, sup |g̃n | = n and lim kg̃n − g̃kL∞ (R+ ) = 0.
R+
n→∞
loc
Due to Lemma 5.1, there exists λ∗ , λ̃∗ , b∗ > 0 and %∗ > 0 depending on N , µ, Ω, γ, γ̃, Λγ,g ,
Λγ̃,g̃ , a1 , q1 such that for every b1 ∈ (0, b∗ ), %̃, % ∈ (0, %∗ ) and n ≥ 1 there exists a solution
34
KONSTANTINOS T. GKIKAS AND PHUOC-TAI NGUYEN
(wn , w̃n ) ∈ D of
(5.26)

 −Lµ wn = δ γ gn (w̃n + %̃Kµ [ν̃] + σ̃Gµ [τ̃ ])
−Lµ w̃n = δ γ̃ g̃n (wn + %Kµ [ν] + σGµ [τ ])

wn = w̃n = 0 on Ω.
in Ω,
in Ω,
For each n, set un = wn + %Kµ [ν] + σGµ [τ ] and vn = w̃n + %̃Kµ [ν̃] + σ̃Gµ [τ̃ ]. Then
Z
Z
Z
Z
φdτ − % Kµ [ν]Lµ φ dx, ∀φ ∈ X(Ω),
(5.27)
− un Lµ φdx = δ γ gn (vn )φdx + σ
(5.28)
Ω
Ω
Ω
Ω
Z
Z
Z
Z
γ̃
− vn Lµ φdx = δ g̃n (un )φdx + σ̃
φdτ̃ − %̃ Kµ [ν̃]Lµ φ dx,
Ω
Ω
Ω
Ω
∀φ ∈ X(Ω).
Since {(wn , w̃n )} ⊂ D and the fact that Λgn ,γ ≤ Λg,γ , we obtain from (5.17) that
p∗
kgn (vn )kL1 (Ω;δα+ +γ ) ≤ c33 Λg,γ λ∗µ,γ + c35 a1 λq∗1 + c34 b∗ + d%∗
(5.29)
Hence the sequence {g(vn )} is uniformly bounded in L1 (Ω; δ α+ +γ ). Since {(wn , wn )} ⊂ D, the
sequence { δµ2 wn } and { δµ2 w̃n } are uniformly bounded in Lq1 (G) for every subset G b Ω. As
a consequence, {∆wn } and {∆w̃n } are uniformly bounded in L1 (G) for every subset G b Ω.
By regularity result for elliptic equations, there exists a subsequence, still denoted by the same
notations, and functions w and w̃ such that (wn , w̃n ) → (w, w̃) a.e. in Ω. Therefore (un , vn ) →
(u, v) a.e. in Ω with u = w + %Kµ [ν] + σGµ [τ ] and u = w̃ + %̃Kµ [ν̃] + σ̃Gµ [τ̃ ]. Moreover
(g̃n (un ), gn (vn )) → ˜(g̃(u), g(v)) a.e. in Ω.
∗
We show that un → u in L1 (Ω; δ α+ ). Since {wn } is uniformly bounded in Lq1 (Ω; δ γ ), by
(2.12), we derive that {un } is uniformly bounded in Lq1 (Ω; δ α+ ). Due to Holder inequality, {un }
is uniformly integrable with respect to δ α+ dx. We invoke Vitali’s convergence theorem to derive
that un → u in L1 (Ω; δ α+ ). Similarly, one can prove that vn → v in L1 (Ω; δ α+ ).
We next prove that gnR(vn ) → g(v) in L1 (Ω; δ α+ +γ ). For λ > 0 and n ∈ N set Bn,λ := {x ∈ Ω :
|vn | > λ} and bn (λ) := Bn,λ δ α+ +γ dx. For any Borel set E ⊂ Ω,
Z
Z
Z
α+ +γ
α+ +γ
gn (vn )δ
dx =
gn (vn )δ
dx +
gn (vn )δ α+ +γ dx
E
c
E∩Bn,λ
E∩Bn,λ
(5.30)
≤
Z
gn (vn )δ α+ +γ dx + mg,λ
Bn,λ
≤ bn (λ)gn (λ) +
Z
Z
δ α+ +γ dx
E
∞
λ
bn (s)dgn (s) + mg,λ
Z
δ α+ +γ dx.
E
where mg,λ := sup[0,λ] g. By proceeding as in the proof of Lemma 5.1 in order to get (5.15), we
deduce
Z ∞
Z ∞
Z ∞
∗
−1−p∗µ,γ
(5.31)
bn (λ)gn (λ) +
bn (s)dgn (s) ≤ c41
s
gn (s)ds ≤ c41
s−1−pµ,γ g(s)ds
λ
λ
λ
where c41 depends on N , µ, γ, γ̃, Λγ,g , Λγ̃,g̃ , a1 , q1 . Note that the term on the right hand-side
of (5.31) tends to 0 as λ → ∞. Take arbitrarily ε > 0, there exists λ > 0 such that the right
hand-side of (5.31) is smaller than 2ε . Fix such λ and put η = 2mεg,λ . Then, by (5.30),
Z
Z
α+ +γ
δ(x)
dx ≤ η =⇒
gn (vn )δ(x)α+ +γ dx < ε.
E
E
Therefore the sequence {gn (vn )} is uniformly integrable with respect to δ α+ +γ dx. Due to Vitali
convergence theorem, we deduce that gn (vn ) → g(v) in L1 (Ω; δ α+ +γ ).
ON THE EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS
By sending n → ∞ in each term of (5.27) we obtain
Z
Z
Z
Z
γ
(5.32)
− uLµ φdx = δ g(v)φdx + σ φ dτ − % Kµ [ν]Lµ φ dx,
Ω
Ω
Ω
1
α
+γ̃
+
L (Ω; δ
).
Ω
35
∀φ ∈ X(Ω).
Similarly, one can show that g̃n (un ) → g̃(u) in
By letting n → ∞ in (5.28), we
get
Z
Z
Z
Z
γ̃
(5.33)
− vLµ φdx = δ g̃(u)φdx + σ̃ φ dτ̃ − %̃ Kµ [ν̃]Lµ φ dx, ∀φ ∈ X(Ω).
Ω
Ω
Ω
Ω
Thus (u, v) is a solution of (1.24). Moreover, if µ ∈ (0, CH ) then tr ∗ (u) = %ν and tr ∗ (v) =
%̃ν̃.
5.3. Source case : sublinearity. We next deal with the case where g and g̃ are sublinear.
Proof of Theorem F.II. The proof is similar to that of Lemma 5.1, also based on Schauder
fixed point theorem. So we point out only the main modifications. Let S and S̃ be the operators
defined in (5.11). Put
∗
N1 (w) := kwkLq1 (Ω;δγ ∗ ) ,
∀w ∈ Lq1 (Ω; δ γ ),
N2 (w) := kwkL1 (Ω;δγ ∗ ) ,
∀w ∈ L1 (Ω; δ γ ).
and
Combining (2.11), (2.12) and (1.37) leads to
∗
N2 (S(w)) ≤ c42 kg(w + %̃Kµ [ν̃] + σ̃Gµ [τ̃ ])kL1 (Ω;δα+ +γ )
Z
Z
≤ c42
a2 (|w| + %̃Kµ [|ν̃|] + σ̃Gµ [|τ̃ |])q1 δ α+ +γ dx + c42 b2
δ α+ +γ dx
Ω
Ω
Z
q1 α+ +γ
q1
q1
≤ c42 a2
|w| δ
dx + c43 (% + σ̃ + b2 )
Ω
≤ c44 a2 N1 (w)q1 + c43 (%̃q1 + σ̃ q1 + b2 )
where ci = ci (N, µ, Ω, γ, γ̃, q2 , q) (i = 42, 43, 44).
On the other hand
Z
1
Z
q1
q1
q1 q2 α+ +γ
N1 (S̃(w)) ≤ c42
a2 (|w| + %Kµ [|ν|] + σGµ [|τ |]) δ
dx
+ c42 b2
δ α+ +γ dx
Ω
Ω
Z
q2
.
≤ c42 a2
|w|δ α+ +γ dx
+ c43 (%q2 + σ q2 + b2 )
Ω
Define
≤ c44 a2 N2 (w)q2 + c43 (%q2 + σ q2 + b2 ).
ξ1 (λ) := c44 a2 λq1 + c43 (%̃q1 + σ̃ q1 + b2 ),
and
ξ2 (λ) := c44 a2 λq2 + c43 (%q2 + σ q2 + b2 ).
Then
N2 (S(w)) ≤ ξ1 (N1 (w)) and N1 (S̃(w)) ≤ ξ2 (N2 (w)),
If q1 q2 < 1 then we can find λ1 and λ2 such that ξ1 (λ1 ) = λ2 and ξ2 (λ2 ) = λ1 . Thus if
N1 (w2 ) < λ2 , then N2 (S(w2 )) < λ1 and if N2 (w1 ) < λ1 , then N1 (S̃(w1 )) < λ2 .
If q1 q2 = 1 and a2 small enough we can find, λ1 and λ2 such that ξ1 (λ1 ) = λ2 and ξ2 (λ2 ) = λ1 .
The rest of the proof can be proceeded as in the proof of Lemma 5.1 and the proof of Theorem
F.I. and we omit it.
36
KONSTANTINOS T. GKIKAS AND PHUOC-TAI NGUYEN
5.4. Source case : subcriticality and sublinearity.
Proof of Theorem F.III.
Set
N(w) := kwkLq1 (Ω;δγ ∗ ) ,
∗
∀w ∈ Lq1 (Ω; δ γ ).
By an argument similar to the proof of Lemma 5.1 and and Theorem F.II, we get
N(S(w)) ≤ kg(w + ρ̃Kµ [ν̃] + σ̃Gµ [τ̃ ])kL1 (Ω,δα+ +γ )
∗
≤ c33 Λg,γ M1 (w)pµ,γ + c35 a1 M2 (w)q1 + c34 b1 + d%̃,σ̃
∗
On the other hand
≤ c33 Λg,γ M1 (w)pµ,γ + c35 a1 M2 (w)q1 + c34 b1 + d%̃,σ̃ .
M(S̃(w)) ≤ 2 kg̃(w + ρKµ [ν] + σGµ [τ ])kL1 (Ω,δα+ +γ̃ )
Set
≤ 2c44 a2 N(w)q2 + 2c43 (%q2 + b2 ).
∗
ξˆ1 (λ) := c33 Λg,γ λpµ,γ + c35 a1 λq1 + c34 b1 + dρ ,
ξˆ2 (λ) := 2c44 a2 λq2 + 2c43 (ρq2 + b2 ).
Then
N(S(w)) ≤ ξˆ1 (M(w)) and M(S̃(w)) ≤ ξˆ2 (N(w)).
We consider there cases.
Case 1: q1 q2 > 1. Since p∗µ,γ > q1 , it follows that p∗µ,γ q2 > 1. Therefore there exist b∗ > 0 and
%∗ > 0 such that for b1 , b2 ∈ (0, b∗ ) and % ∈ (0, %∗ ) one can find λ∗ > 0 and λ̃∗ > 0 satisfying
(5.34)
ξˆ1 (λ∗ ) = λ̃∗ and ξˆ2 (λ̃∗ ) = λ∗ .
Case 2: p∗µ,γ q2 = 1. In this case, there exist a∗ > 0 such that if a2 ∈ (0, a∗ ) then for every
% > 0 and %̃ > 0 one can find λ∗ > 0 and λ̃∗ > 0 satisfying (5.34).
Case 3: p∗µ,γ q2 < 1. In this case for every % > 0 and %̃ > 0 one can find λ∗ > 0 and λ̃∗ > 0
such that (5.34) holds.
Hence, in any case,
M(w) ≤ λ∗ =⇒ N(S(w)) ≤ ξˆ1 (λ∗ ) = λ̃∗
(5.35)
N(w) ≤ λ̃∗ =⇒ M(S̃(w)) ≤ ξˆ2 (λ̃∗ ) = λ∗ .
The rest of the proof can be proceeded as in the proof of Lemma 5.1 and the proof of Theorem
F.II. and we omit it.
References
[1] D. R. Adams, L.I. Heberg, Function Spaces and Potential Theory, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wisenschaften 31, Springer-Verlag (1999).
[2] A. Ancona, Theorié du potentiel sur les graphes et les variétés, in Ecole d’été de Probabilités de Saint-Flour
XVIII-1988, Springer Lecture Notes in Math, 1427 (1990), 1-112.
[3] A. Ancona, Negatively curved manifolds, elliptic operators and the Martin boundary, Ann. of Math. (2), 125
(1987), 495-536.
[4] A. Ancona and M. Marcus, Positive solutions of a class of semilinear equations with absorption and
schrodinger equations, J. Math. Pures et Appl. 104, 587-618 (2015).
[5] C. Bandle, M. Marcus and V. Moroz, Boundary singularities of solutions of semilinear elliptic equations in
the half-space with a Hardy potential, http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.08830.
[6] C. Bandle, V. Moroz and W. Reichel, Boundary blowup type sub-solutions to semilinear elliptic equations
with Hardy potential, J. London Math. Soc. 2 (2008), 503-523.
ON THE EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS
37
[7] C. Bandle, V. Moroz and W. Reichel, Large solutions to semilinear elliptic equations with Hardy potential
and exponential nonlinearity, Around the research of Vladimir Maz’ya. II, 1-22, Int. Math. Ser. (N. Y.), 12,
Springer, New York, 2010.
[8] M. F. Bidaut-Véron and L. Vivier, An elliptic semilinear equation with source term involving boundary
measures: the subcritical case, Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana 16 (2000), 477-513.
[9] M. F. Bidaut-Véron, G. Hoang, Q. H. Nguyen, L. Véron, An elliptic semilinear equation with source term
and boundary measure data: the supercritical case, Journal of Functional Analysis 269 (2015), 1995-2017.
[10] M.F. Bidaut-Véron and C. Yarur, Semilinear elliptic equations and systems with measure data: existence and
a priori estimates, Adv. Differential Equations 7 (2002), 257-296
[11] H. Brezis and X. Cabré, Some simple nonlinear PDE’s without solutions, Boll. Unione Mat. Italiana, 8 (1998),
223-262.
[12] H. Brezis and M. Marcus, Hardy inequalities revisited, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) 25 (1997)
217-237.
[13] H. Chen, P. Felmer and L. Véron, Elliptic equations involving general subcritical source nonlinearity and
measures, arxiv.org/abs/1409.3067 (2014).
[14] J.Dávila and L. Dupaigne, Hardy-type inequalities, J. Eur. Math. Soc. 6 (2004), 335-365.
[15] E. B. Dynkin, Superdiffusions and Positive Solutions of Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations, Amer.
Math. Soc., Providence, RI,
[16] S. Filippas, L. Moschini and A. Tertikas, Sharp two-sided heat kernel estimates for critical Schrodinger
operators on bounded domains, Commun. Math. Phys. 273 (2007), 237-281.
[17] M. Garcı́a-Huidobro, R. Manásevich, E. Mitidieri, Enzo; C. S. Yarur, Existence and nonexistence of positive
singular solutions for a class of semilinear elliptic systems, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 140 (1997), no. 3,
253-284.
[18] K. T. Gkikas and L. Véron, Boundary singularities of solutions of semilinear elliptic equations with critical
Hardy potentials, Nonlinear Anal. 121 (2015), 469540.
[19] A. Gmira and L. Véron, Boundary singularities of solutions of some nonlinear elliptic equations, Duke Math.
J. 64 (1991), 271-324.
[20] N.J. Kalton and I.E. Verbitsky, Nonlinear equations and weighted norm inequality, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.
351 (1999) 3441-3497.
[21] M. Marcus, V. J. Mizel and Y. Pinchover, On the best constant for Hardy’s inequality in RN , Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 350 (1998), 3237-3255.
[22] M. Marcus and V. Moroz, Moderate solutions of semilinear elliptic equations with Hardy potential under
minimal restrictions on the potential, http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.09265.
[23] M. Marcus and P.-T. Nguyen, Moderate solutions of semilinear elliptic equations with Hardy potential. (to
apear in Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire).
[24] B. Mselati, Classification and probabilistic representation of the positive solutions of a semilinear elliptic
equations, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 168 (2004), no. 798.
[25] M. Marcus and I. Shafrir, An eigenvalue problem related to Hardy’s Lp inequality, Ann. Scuola. Norm. Sup.
Pisa. Cl. Sc. 29 (2000), 581-604.
[26] M. Marcus and L. Véron, The boundary trace of positive solutions of semilinear elliptic equations: the
subcritical case, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 144 (1998), 201-231.
[27] M. Marcus and L. Véron, The boundary trace of positive solutions of semilinear elliptic equations: the
supercritical case, J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 77 (1998), 481-524.
[28] M. Marcus and L. Véron, Removable singularities and boundary trace, J. Math. Pures Appl. 80 (2001),
879-900.
[29] M. Marcus and L. Véron, Nonlinear second order elliptic equations involving measures, De Gruyter Series in
Nonlinear Analysis and Applications, 2013.
[30] G. Mingione, The Calderón-Zygmund theory for elliptic problems with measure data, Ann. SNS Pica Cl. Sci.
6 (2007), 195-261.
[31] P.-T. Nguyen, Semilinear elliptic equations with Hardy potential and subcritical source term,
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.03803.
[32] P. Quittner and P. Souplet, Superlinear parabolic problems. Blow-up, global existence and steady states,
Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2007. xii+584 pp.
[33] L. Véron and C. Yarur, Boundary value problems with measures for elliptic equations with singular potentials,
J. Funct. Anal. 262 (2012) 733-772.
38
KONSTANTINOS T. GKIKAS AND PHUOC-TAI NGUYEN
Centro de Modelamiento Matemático (UMI 2807 CNRS), Universidad de Chile, Casilla 170 Correo
3, Santiago, Chile.
Departamento de Matemática, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile