arxiv: v2 [math.ap] 28 Oct 2017

Transcription

1 CONCENTRATION PHENOMENA FOR A FRACTIONAL SCHRÖDINGER-KIRCHHOFF TYPE EQUATION VINCENZO AMBROSIO AND TERESA ISERNIA arxiv: v2 [math.ap] 28 Oct 2017 Abstract. In this paper we deal with the multiplicity and concentration of positive solutions for the following fractional Schrödinger-Kirchhoff type equation ( 1 R6 u(x) u(y) 2 M dxdy + 1 ) V(x)u 2 dx [ε 2s ( ) s u+v(x)u] = f(u) in ε 3 2s x y 3+2s ε 3 where ε > 0 is a small parameter, s ( 3 4,1), ( )s is the fractional Laplacian, M is a Kirchhoff function, V is a continuous positive potential and f is a superlinear continuous function with subcritical growth. By using penalization techniques and Ljusternik-Schnirelmann theory, we investigate the relation between the number of positive solutions with the topology of the set where the potential attains its minimum. 1. Introduction In this paper we are interested in the multiplicity and concentration of positive solutions for the following fractional Schrödinger-Kirchhoff type problem ( 1 R6 u(x) u(y) 2 M ε 3 2s x y 3+2s dxdy + 1 ) [ ε 3 V(x)u 2 dx ε 2s ( ) u+v(x)u] s = f(u) in (1.1) where ε > 0 is a small parameter, s ( 3 4,1), ( )s denotes the usual fractional Laplacian operator, M : [0,+ ) [0,+ ) is the Kirchhoff term, V : R and f : R R are continuous functions satisfying suitable assumptions. When ε = 1 and V(x) 0, we obtain the fractional stationary Kirchhoff equation (R6 u(x) u(y) 2 ) M x y 3+2s dxdy ( ) s u = f(u) in (1.2) which has been introduced for the first time by Fiscella & Valdinoci in [28] (in the case of bounded domains) and extensively studied in the last years by many authors; see for instance [7, 9, 26, 36, 41, 42] and references therein for several existence and multiplicity results in any dimension, in the whole space and in bounded domains. We recall that the local counterpart of (1.2) is related to the famous Kirchhoff equation ( P0 ρu tt h + E L ) u x 2 dx u xx = 0 (1.3) 2L 0 introduced by Kirchhoff [31] in 1883 as a nonlinear extension of D Alembert s wave equation for free vibrations of elastic strings. Here u = u(x, t) is the transverse string displacement at the space coordinate x ant time t, L is the length of the string, h is the area of the cross section, E is Young s modulus of the material, ρ is the mass density, and P 0 is the initial tension Mathematics Subject Classification. 47G20, 35R11, 35A15, 58E05. Key words and phrases. Fractional Schrödinger-Kirchhoff problem; Variational Methods; Moser iteration; Nehari manifold; Ljusternik-Schnirelmann theory. 1

2 2 V. AMBROSIO AND T. ISERNIA The early investigations dedicated to the Kirchhoff equation (1.3) were given by Bernstein [12] and Pohozaev [40]. Anyway, Kirchhoff equation (1.3) began to call attention of several researchers only after the work of Lions [34], where a functional analysis approach was introduced to attack it. For more details on classical Kirchhoff problems, we refer to [1, 8, 10, 16, 27, 39, 49]. In a recent paper [28], Fiscella & Valdinoci have proposed an interesting physical interpretation of Kirchhoff equation in the fractional scenario. In their correction of the early (one-dimensional) model, the tension on the string, which classically has a nonlocal nature arising from the average of the kinetic energy ux 2 2 on [0, L], possesses a further nonlocal behavior provided by the H s -norm (or other more general fractional norms) of the function u. On the other hand, when M = 1, (1.1) becomes the time dependent fractional Schrödinger equation ε 2s ( ) s u+v(x)u = f(u) in (1.4) which plays a fundamental role in fractional quantum mechanic; see [17, 18, 32, 33] for a physical interpretation. Equation(1.4) can be seen as the fractional analogue of the celebrated Schrödinger equation ε 2s u+v(x)u = f(x,u) in R N (1.5) which has been widely investigated in the last two decades. Since we cannot review the huge bibliography of (1.5), we just cite [3, 19, 29, 43, 50] and references therein. In the last years, the concentration of positive solutions to (1.4) has attracted the attention of many mathematicians [2, 5, 6, 15, 18, 24, 30]. In particular, in [2] Alves & Miyagaki used the penalization method to study the concentration phenomenon of positive solutions for fractional Schrödinger equation (1.4) when V has a local minimum and f is subcritical. He & Zou [30] investigated the relation between the number of positive solutions of (1.4) with f(u) = g(u) + u 2 s 1, whereg is subcritical, andthe topology of theset wherethe potential V attains its minima. In [5] the first author complemented the results in [2] and [30] dealing with the multiplicity and concentration of solutions in the subcritical and supercritical cases. Motivated by the above papers, in this work we focus our attention on the multiplicity and the concentration behavior of positive solutions to the fractional Schrödinger-Kirchhoff type problem (1.1). To our knowledge, this type of investigation has not ever been done in fractional setting when M is not constant. The aim of this paper is to fill this gap. Before to state our result, we introduce the main assumptions. Along the paper we assume that M : R + R + is a continuous function satisfying (M 1 ) there exists m 0 > 0 such that M(t) m 0 for any t 0; (M 2 ) the function t M(t) is increasing; (M 3 ) for each t 1 t 2 > 0 it holds M(t 1 ) t 1 M(t 2) t 2 m 0 ( 1 t 1 1 t 2 As a model for M, we can take M(t) = m 0 +bt + k i=1 b it γ i with b i 0 and γ i (0,1) for all i {1,...,k}. Onthepotential V : R, wesupposethatv C(,R)andverifiesthefollowinghypotheses: (V 1 ) there exists V 0 > 0 such that V 0 := inf x V(x); (V 2 ) for each δ > 0 there is a bounded and Lipschitz domain Ω such that and ). V 0 < min Ω V, Λ = {x Ω : V(x) = V 0} Λ δ = {x : dist(x,λ) δ} Ω.

3 CONCENTRATION FOR FRACTIONAL SCHRÖDINGER-KIRCHHOFF EQUATION 3 Concerning the nonlinear term in (1.1), we assume that f : R R is a continuous function satisfying the following conditions: f(t) (f 1 ) lim t 0 + t 3 = 0; 6 (f 2 ) there is q (4, 3 2s ) such that lim t (f 3 ) there is ϑ (4, 6 3 2s f(t) = 0; tq 1 ) such that 0 < ϑf(t) f(t)t for any t > 0; (f 4 ) the function t f(t) t 3 is non-decreasing in (0, ). A typical example of f is given by k f(t) = a i (t + ) q i 1 i=1 6 with a i 0 not all identically zero and q i [ϑ, We note that the assumption (f 4 ) implies that 3 2s ) for all i {1,...,k}. t 1 f(t)t F(t) is nondecreasing for any t 0. (1.6) 4 Since we are interested in positive solutions, we assume that f vanishes in (,0). Now, we are ready to state our main result. Theorem 1.1. Let s ( 3 4,1) and assume that (M 1)-(M 3 ), (V 1 )- (V 2 ) and (f 1 )-(f 4 ) hold true. Then, given δ > 0 there is ε = ε(δ) > 0 such that the problem (1.1) has at least cat Λδ (Λ) positive solutions, for all ε (0, ε). Moreover, if u ε denotes one of these positive solutions and η ε its global maximum, then lim ε 0 V(η ε) = V 0. We recall that if Y is a given closed set of a topological space X, we denote by cat Y (Y) the Ljusternik-Schnirelmann category of Y in X, that is the least number of closed and contractible sets in X which cover Y; see [50]. The proof of Theorem 1.1 relies on variational methods developed in classical framework in [27]. Clearly, the presence of the fractional Laplacian makes our analysis more delicate and intriguing with respect to the one performed in local setting, and the recent results obtained in [2, 25] to study fractional Schrödinger equations will have a fundamental role to overcome our difficulties. In what follows, we give a sketch of the proof. The lack of informations on the behavior of V at infinity suggest us to use the penalization method introduced by Del Pino & Felmer [19]. Since f and M are only continuous, the Nehari manifold associated to the modified problem is not differentiable, so the well-known arguments on the Nehari manifold do not work in our setting. To circumvent this obstacle, we will use some abstract results due to Szulkin & Weth in [48]. After a careful study of the autonomous problem associated to (1.1), we deal with the multiplicity of solutions of the modified problem, by invoking the Ljusternik-Schnirelmann theory. Then, in order to prove that the solutions u ε of the truncated problem are also solutions to (1.1) when ε > 0 is sufficiently small, we argue as in [2], providing L estimates for u ε -adapting the Moser s iteration [37] in nonlocal framework- and by using some useful properties of the Bessel kernels established in [25]. We point out that the restriction s ( 3 4,1) is essential in our technical approach in order to guarantee the embedding of the space H s ( ) into the Lebesgue spaces L r (R N ) with 4 r < 6 3 2s (see conditions (f 1)-(f 3 )). Finally, we would like to emphasize that Theorem 1.1 corresponds to the nonlocal counterpart of Theorem 1.1 in [27]. As far as we know the results presented here are new in literature.

4 4 V. AMBROSIO AND T. ISERNIA The plan of the paper is the following. In Section 2 we give some useful results related to the fractional Sobolev spaces. In Section 3 we truncate the nonlinearity and we show that the modified problem admits a positive solution. In Section 4 we study the autonomous problem associated to (1.1). In Section 5, we introduce the barycenter map and its properties. This tool will be crucial to obtain a multiplicity result for the modified problem via the abstract category theory of Ljusternik-Schnirelmann. The last Section is devoted to the proof of Theorem Fractional Sobolev spaces In this section we offer a rather sketchy review of the fractional Sobolev spaces and some useful results which will be used later. For more details, we refer to [13, 20, 22, 35, 45, 46]. Fix s (0,1). Thefractional Laplacian ( ) s isapseudo-differential operator definedviafourier transform by F( ) s u(k) = k 2s Fu(k) (k R N ), when u : R N R belongs to the Schwarz space of rapidly decaying C functions in R N. Equivalently, ( ) s can be represented as ( ) s u(x) = C N,s u(x+y)+u(x y) 2u(x) 2 R N y N+2s dy (x R N ) where C N,s is a dimensional constant depending only on N and s; see [20] for more details. Let us denote by D s,2 (R N ) the completion of Cc (RN ) with respect to the Gagliardo (semi) norm R2N [u] 2 = ( ) 2u s 2 u(x) u(y) 2 dx = R N x y N+2s dxdy. Now, we define the fractional Sobolev space H s (R N ) = { u L 2 (R N ) : [u] < } endowed with the natural norm u H s (R N ) = [u] 2 + u 2 dx. R N We recall the following embeddings of the fractional Sobolev spaces into Lebesgue spaces. Theorem 2.1. [20] Let s (0,1) and N > 2s. Then there exists a sharp constant S = S(N,s) > 0 such that for any u D s,2 (R N ) u 2 L 2 s(r N ) S [u] 2. Moreover H s (R N ) is continuously embedded in L p (R N ) for any p [2,2 s] and compactly in L p loc (RN ) for any p [1,2 s ). The following lemma is a version of the well-known concentration-compactness principle: Lemma 2.1. [44] Let N > 2s. If {u n } n N is a bounded sequence in H s (R N ) and if lim sup u n 2 dx = 0 y R N B R (y) where R > 0, then u n 0 in L r (R N ) for all r (2,2 s). We also have the following useful result. Lemma 2.2. [38] Assume that N > 2s and u D s,2 (R N ). Let ϕ C c (RN ) and for each r > 0 we define ϕ r (x) = ϕ(x/r). Then, R N ( ) s 2(uϕ r ) 2 dx 0 as r 0. If in addition ϕ = 1 in a neighborhood of the origin, then R N ( ) s 2(uϕ r ) 2 dx R N ( ) s 2u 2 dx as r.

5 CONCENTRATION FOR FRACTIONAL SCHRÖDINGER-KIRCHHOFF EQUATION 5 3. The modified problem This section is devoted to the existence of positive solutions to (1.1). From now on, we assume N = 3 and s ( 3 4,1). After a change of variable, the problem (1.1) reduces to (R6 u(x) u(y) 2 ) M x y 3+2s dxdy + V(εx)u 2 dx [( ) s u+v(εx)u] = f(u) in. (3.1) Take K > 2 m 0 and a > 0 such that f(a) = V 0 Ka. Let us define { f(t) if t a f(t) = V 0 if t > a and g(x,t) = χ Ω (x)f(t)+(1 χ Ω (x)) f(t). From the assumptions on f we deduce that g is a Carathéodory function and satisfies g(x,t) (g 1 ) lim t 0 + t 3 = 0 uniformly in x ; g(x,t) (g 2 ) lim t t q 1 = 0 uniformly in x ; (g 3 ) (i) 0 ϑg(x,t) < g(x,t)t for any x Ω and for any t > 0, K t (ii) 0 2G(x,t) g(x,t)t V 0 K t2 for any x \Ω and for any t > 0; (g 4 ) for each x Ω the application t g(x,t) t 3 is increasing in (0, ) and for each x \ Ω the application t g(x,t) is increasing in (0,a). From the definition of g follows that t 3 g(x,t) f(t) for all t > 0, for all x, g(x,t) = 0 for all t < 0, for all x. In what follows, we consider the auxiliary problem (R6 u(x) u(y) 2 ) M x y 3+2s dxdy + V(εx)u 2 dx [( ) s u+v(εx)u] = g(εx,u) in. (3.2) Moreover, we focus our attention on positive solutions to (3.2) with u(x) a for each x \Ω. Indeed, from definitions of g, it is clear that solutions having the above property are also solutions to the starting problem (3.1). Therefore, solutions of (3.2) can be found as critical points of the following energy functional J ε (u) = 2 M 1 (R6 u(x) u(y) 2 ) x y 3+2s dxdy + V(εx)u 2 dx G(εx,u)dx where t t M(t) = M(τ)dτ and G(εx,t) = g(εx,τ)dτ, 0 which is well defined on the Hilbert space { } H ε = u H s ( ) : V(εx)u 2 dx < endowed with the inner product (u(x) u(y))(ϕ(x) ϕ(y)) (u,ϕ) ε = R 6 x y 3+2s dxdy + V(εx)u(x)ϕ(x)dx. 0

6 6 V. AMBROSIO AND T. ISERNIA The norm induced by the inner product is given by u 2 ε = R6 u(x) u(y) 2 x y 3+2s dxdy + V(εx)u 2 dx. From the assumptions on M and f, and by using Theorem 2.1, it is easy to check that J ε is well-defined, J ε C 1 (H ε,r) and that its differential J is given by J ε(u),ϕ = M( u 2 ε)(u,ϕ) ε g(εx,u)ϕdx, for any u,ϕ H ε. Let us introduce the Nehari manifold associated to J ε, that is The main result of this Section is the following. N ε = {u H ε \{0} : J ε(u),u = 0}. Theorem 3.1. Under the assumptions (M 1 )-(M 3 ), (V 1 )-(V 2 ) and (f 1 )-(f 4 ), the auxiliary problem (3.2) has a nonnegative ground state solution for all ε > 0. We denote by Ω ε = {x : εx Ω} and H + ε = {u H ε : supp(u + ) Ω ε > 0} H ε. Let S ε be the unit sphere of H ε and we denote by S + ε = S ε H + ε. We observe that H + ε is open in H ε. Indeed, let us consider a sequence {u n } n N H ε \H + ε such that u n u in H ε and assume by contradiction that u H + ε. Now, from the definition of H + ε it follows that supp(u + n) Ω ε = 0 for all n N and u + n(x) u + (x) a.e. in x Ω ε. So, u + (x) = lim u+ n (x) = 0 a.e. in x Ω ε, and this contradicts the fact that u H ε +. Therefore H+ ε is open. From the definition of S + ε and the fact that H+ ε is open in H ε, it follows that S + ε is a incomplete C 1,1 -manifold of codimension 1, modeled on H ε and contained in the open H ε +. Thus H ε = T u S + ε Ru for each u S + ε, where T u S + ε = {v H ε : (u,ϕ) ε = 0}. In the next lemma we prove that J ε has a mountain pass geometry. Lemma 3.1. The functional J ε satisfies the following (a) there exist α,ρ > 0 such that J ε (u) α with u ε = ρ; (b) there exists e H ε \B ρ (0) such that J ε (e) < 0. Proof. (a) From the assumptions (M 1 ), (g 1 ), (g 2 ) and Theorem 2.1, it follows that for any ξ > 0 J ε (u) = 1 2 M( u 2 ε) G(εx,u)dx m 0 2 u 2 ε ξc u 4 ε C ξ C u q ε. Thus, we can find α,ρ > 0 such that J ε (u) α with u ε = ρ. (b) By using the assumption (M 3 ) we can infer that there exists a positive constant γ such that M(t) γ(1+t) for all t 0. (3.3)

7 CONCENTRATION FOR FRACTIONAL SCHRÖDINGER-KIRCHHOFF EQUATION 7 Then, in view of (g 3 )-(i), we can see that, for any u H ε + and t > 0 J ε (tu) = 1 2 M( tu 2 ε) G(εx,tu)dx γ 2 t2 u 2 ε + γ 4 t4 u 4 ε Ω ε G(εx,tu)dx γ 2 t2 u 2 ε + γ 4 t4 u 4 ε C 1t ϑ Ω ε (u + ) ϑ dx+c 2 supp(u + ) Ω ε, (3.4) for some positive constants C 1 and C 2. Taking into account that ϑ (4, 6 3 2s ), we get J ε(tu) as t +. Since f and M are continuous functions, we need the next results to overcome the non-differentiability of N ε and the incompleteness of S + ε. Lemma 3.2. Assume that (M 1 ) (M 3 ), (V 1 ) (V 2 ) and (f 1 ) (f 4 ) hold true. Then, (i) For each u H + ε, let h : R + R be defined by h u (t) = J ε (tu). Then, there is a unique t u > 0 such that h u(t) > 0 in (0,t u ) h u (t) < 0 in (t u, ); (ii) there exists τ > 0 independent of u such that t u τ for any u S + ε. Moreover, for each compact set K S + ε there is a positive constant C K such that t u C K for any u K; (iii) The map ˆm ε : H ε + N ε given by ˆm ε (u) = t u u is continuous and m ε := ˆm ε S + ε is a homeomorphism between S + ε and N ε. Moreover m 1 ε (u) = u u ε ; (iv) If there is a sequence {u n } n N S + ε such that dist(u n, S + ε ) 0 then m ε (u n ) ε and J ε (m ε (u n )). Proof. (i) We know that h u C 1 (R +,R), and by Lemma 3.1 we have that h u (0) = 0, h u (t) > 0 for t > 0 small enough and h u (t) < 0 for t > 0 sufficiently large. So there exists t u > 0 such that h u(t u ) = 0, and t u is a global maximum for h u. Then, 0 = h u (t u) = J ε (t uu),u = 1 t u J ε (t uu),t u u from which we deduce that t u u N ε. Now, we aim to prove the uniqueness of such t u. Assume by contradiction that there exist t 1 > t 2 > 0 such that h u (t 1) = h u (t 2) = 0, or equivalently t 1 M( t 1 u 2 ε ) u 2 ε R = g(εx,t 1 u)udx 3 (3.5) t 2 M( t 2 u 2 ε) u 2 ε = g(εx,t 2 u)udx. (3.6) Dividing both members of (3.5) by t 3 1 u 4 ε we get M( t 1 u 2 ε) t 1 u 2 = 1 g(εx,t 1 u) ε u 4 ε (t 1 u) 3 u 4 dx, similarly, dividing both members of (3.6) by t 3 2 u 4 ε we obtain M( t 2 u 2 ε) t 2 u 2 = 1 g(εx,t 2 u) ε u 4 ε (t 2 u) 3 u 4 dx.

8 8 V. AMBROSIO AND T. ISERNIA Subtracting the above identities, and taking into account (M 3 ) and (g 4 ) we can see that ( m 0 1 u 2 ε t 2 1 ) 1 t 2 M( t 1u 2 ε ) 2 t 1 u 2 M( t 2u 2 ε ) ε t 2 u 2 ε = 1 [ g(εx,t1 u) u 4 ε (t 1 u) 3 g(εx,t ] 2u) (t 2 u) 3 u 4 dx = 1 [ g(εx,t1 u) u 4 ε \Ω ε (t 1 u) 3 g(εx,t ] 2u) (t 2 u) 3 u 4 dx+ 1 [ g(εx,t1 u) u 4 ε Ω ε (t 1 u) 3 g(εx,t ] 2u) (t 2 u) 3 u 4 dx 1 [ g(εx,t1 u) u 4 ε \Ω ε (t 1 u) 3 g(εx,t ] 2u) (t 2 u) 3 u 4 dx = 1 [ g(εx,t1 u) u 4 ε ( \Ω ε) {t 2 u>a} (t 1 u) 3 g(εx,t ] 2u) (t 2 u) 3 u 4 dx + 1 [ g(εx,t1 u) u 4 ε ( \Ω ε) {t 2 u a<t 1 u} (t 1 u) 3 g(εx,t ] 2u) (t 2 u) 3 u 4 dx + 1 [ g(εx,t1 u) u 4 ε ( \Ω ε) {t 1 u<a} (t 1 u) 3 g(εx,t ] 2u) (t 2 u) 3 u 4 dx =: I +II +III Let us observe that III 0 in view of (g 4 ) and t 1 > t 2. Taking into account the definition of g, we have I 1 [ V0 1 u 4 ε ( \Ω ε) {t 2 u>a} K (t 1 u) 2 V ] 0 1 K (t 2 u) 2 u 4 dx = 1 1 u 4 ε K ( 1 t t 2 2 ) V 0 u 2 dx. ( \Ω ε) {t 2 u>a} Regarding II, from the definition of g and taking into account that g(x,t) f(t), we can infer II 1 [ V0 1 u 4 ε ( \Ω ε) {t 2 u a<t 1 u} K (t 1 u) 2 f(t ] 2u) (t 2 u) 3 u 4 dx. Therefore we deduce ( m 0 1 u 2 ε t 2 1 ) 1 t 2 1 ( u 4 ε K t 2 1 ) 1 t u 4 ε t 2 1 t2 2 ( \Ω ε) {t 2 u a<t 1 u} Multiplying both sides by u 4 ε < 0, we have t 2 2 t2 1 m 0 u 2 ε 1 V 0 u 2 dx+ t2 1 t2 2 K ( \Ω ε) {t 2 u>a} t 2 2 t2 1 = 1 V 0 u 2 dx K ( \Ω ε) {t 2 u>a} t2 2 t 2 1 t2 2 1 K ( \Ω ε) {t 2 u a<t 1 u} \Ω ε V 0 u 2 dx 1 K u 2 ε. V 0 u 2 dx ( \Ω ε) {t 2 u>a} [ V0 1 K (t 1 u) 2 f(t 2u) (t 2 u) 3 ( \Ω ε) {t 2 u a<t 1 u} ] u 4 dx. [ V0 1 K (t 1 u) 2 f(t ] 2u) (t 2 u) 3 u 4 dx V 0 K u2 dx+ t2 1 f(t 2 u) t 2 1 t2 2 ( \Ω ε) {t 2 u a<t 1 u} t 2 u u2 dx

9 CONCENTRATION FOR FRACTIONAL SCHRÖDINGER-KIRCHHOFF EQUATION 9 Then, by using the fact u 0 and K > 2 m 0, we get m 0 1 K < m 0, and this is a contradiction. (ii) Let u S + ε. By (i) there exists t u > 0 such that h u(t u ) = 0, or equivalently t u M(t 2 u) = g(εx,t u u)udx. By assumptions (g 1 ) and (g 2 ), given ξ > 0 there exists a positive constant C ξ such that G(x,t) ξt 4 +C ξ t q, for every t R. The above inequality, the assumption (M 1 ) and the Sobolev embedding in Theorem 2.1 yield m 0 t u M(t 2 u )t u = g(εx,t u u)udx ξ t4 u 4 C 1 +C ξ t q u q C 2. Thus we obtain that there exists τ > 0, independent of u, such that t u τ. Now, let K S + ε be a compact set and we show that t u can be estimated from above by a constant depending on K. Assume by contradiction that there exists a sequence {u n } n N K such that t n := t un. Therefore, there exists u K such that u n u in H ε. From (3.4) we get J ε (t n u n ). (3.7) Fix v N ε. Then, by usingthefact that J ε(v),v = 0, andtheassumptions(g 3 )-(i) and(g 3 )-(ii), we can infer J ε (v) = J ε (v) 1 ϑ J ε (v),v = 1 2 M( v 2 ε) 1 ϑ M( v 2 ε) v 2 ε + 1 [g(εx,v)v ϑg(εx,v)]dx ϑ = 1 2 M( v 2 ε) 1 ϑ M( v 2 ε) v 2 ε + 1 [g(εx,v)v ϑg(εx,v)]dx+ 1 [g(εx,v)v ϑg(εx,v)]dx ϑ \Ω ε ϑ Ω ε 1 2 M( v 2 ε ) 1 ϑ M( v 2 ε ) v 2 ε + 1 [g(εx,v)v ϑg(εx,v)]dx ϑ \Ω ε 1 2 M( v 2 ε ) 1 ( ) ϑ 2 1 ϑ M( v 2 ε ) v 2 ε V(εx)v 2 dx 2ϑ K \Ω ε 2 M( v 1 2 ε ) 1 ( ) ϑ 2 1 ϑ M( v 2 ε ) v 2 ε 2ϑ K v 2 ε. Now, by using (M 3 ), we know that M(t) M(t)+m 0 t for any t 0. (3.8) 2

10 10 V. AMBROSIO AND T. ISERNIA This together with (M 1 ) implies that J ε (v) 1 [ ] M( v 2 4 ε )+m 0 v 2 ε 1 ϑ 2 ϑ M( v 2 ε) v 2 ε ( 2ϑ = ϑ 4 4ϑ M( v 2 ε ) v 2 ε + 1 ( ) ϑ m 0 v 2 ε 2ϑ K v 2 ε ( ϑ 4 4ϑ + 1 ) ( ) ϑ 2 1 m 0 v 2 ε 4 2ϑ K v 2 ε ( )( ϑ 2 = m 0 1 2ϑ K ) 1 K v 2 ε ) v 2 ε. (3.9) Taking into account that {t un u n } n N N ε and K > 2 m 0, from (3.9) we deduce that (3.7) does not hold. (iii) Firstly, we note that ˆm ε, m ε and m 1 ε are well defined. Indeed, by (i) for each u H ε + there exists a unique m ε (u) N ε. On the other hand, if u N ε then u H ε +. Otherwise if u / H+ ε, we have supp(u + ) Ω ε = 0, which together with (g3)-(ii) gives By using (M 1 ) and (3.10) we get 0 < M( u 2 ε ) u 2 ε R = g(εx,u)udx 3 = g(εx,u)udx+ g(εx,u)udx \Ω ε Ω ε = g(εx,u + )u + dx \Ω ε 1 V(εx)u 2 dx 1 K \Ω ε K u 2 ε. (3.10) 0 < m 0 u 2 ε M( u 2 ε) u 2 ε 1 K u 2 ε and this leads to a contradiction because 1 K < m 0 2 is well defined and continuous. Now, let u S + ε, then m 1 ε (m ε (u)) = m 1 ε (t u u) = t uu t u u ε = u u ε = u. As a consequence m 1 ε (u) = u u ε S + ε, m 1 ε from which m ε is a bijection. Now, our aim is to prove that ˆm ε is a continuous function. Let {u n } n N H ε + and u H+ ε such that u n u in H ε +. Thus, u n u in H ε. u n ε u ε Let v n := un u n ε and t n := t vn. By (ii) there exists t 0 > 0 such that t n t 0. Since t n v n N ε and v n ε = 1, we have M(t 2 n )t n = g(εx,t n v n )v n dx,

11 CONCENTRATION FOR FRACTIONAL SCHRÖDINGER-KIRCHHOFF EQUATION 11 or equivalently M(t 2 n)t n = 1 g(εx,t n v n )u n dx. u n ε By passing to the limit as n we obtain M(t 2 0 )t 0 = 1 u ε g(εx,t 0 v)udx, where v = u u ε, that implies that t 0 v N ε. By (i) we deduce that t v = t 0, and this shows that ( ) ( ) un u ˆm ε (u n ) = ˆm ε ˆm ε = ˆm ε (u) in H ε. u n ε u ε Therefore ˆm ε and m ε are continuous functions. (iv) Let {u n } n N S + ε be such that dist(u n, S + ε ) 0. Observing that for each p [2,2 s] and n N it holds u + n L p (Ω ε) inf u n v L v S ε + p (Ω ε) C p inf u n v ε, v S ε + by (g 1 ), (g 2 ), and (g 3 )-(ii), we can infer G(εx,tu n )dx = G(εx,tu n )dx+ G(εx,tu n )dx \Ω ε Ω ε t2 V(εx)u 2 K ndx+ F(tu n )dx \Ω ε Ω ε t2 K u n 2 ε +C 1t 4 (u + n )4 dx+c 2 t q (u + n )q dx Ω ε Ω ε from which, for all t > 0 t2 K +C 1t 4 dist(u n, S + ε ) 4 +C 2dist(u n, S + ε ) q lim sup R3 G(εx,tu n )dx t2 K. (3.11) Taking in mind the definitions of m ε (u n ) and M(t), and by using (3.11) and assumption (M 1 ) we have lim inf J ε(m ε (u n )) liminf J ε(m ε (u n )) = liminf [ 1 2 M( tu n 2 ε) ] G(εx,tu n )dx Recalling that K > 2/m 0 we get 2 M(t 1 2 ) t2 ( K 1 2 m 0 1 ) t 2. K lim J ε(m ε (u n )) =.

12 12 V. AMBROSIO AND T. ISERNIA Moreover, the definition of J ε (m ε (u n )) and (3.3) yield that J ε (m ε (u n )) 1 2 M(t 2 u n ) C(t un +t 2 u n ) for each n N. which gives m ε (u n ) ε as n. Let us define the maps by ˆψ ε (u) := J ε (ˆm ε (u)) and ψ ε := ˆψ ε S + ε. The next result is a consequence of Lemma 3.2. ˆψ ε : H + ε R and ψ ε : S + ε R, Proposition 3.1. Assume that the hypotheses (M 1 )-(M 3 ), (V 1 )-(V 2 ) and (f 1 )-(f 4 ) hold true. Then, (a) ˆψ ε C 1 (H ε +,R) and ˆψ ε(u),v = ˆm ε(u) ε J u ε(ˆm ε (u)),v ε for every u H ε + and v H ε ; (b) ψ ε C 1 (S + ε,r) and ψ ε(u),v = m ε (u) ε J ε(m ε (u)),v, for every v T u S + ε := {v H ε : (u,v) ε = 0}; (c) If {u n } n N is a (PS) d sequence for ψ ε, then {m ε (u n )} n N is a (PS) d sequence for J ε. If {u n } n N N ε is a bounded (PS) d sequence for J ε, then {m 1 ε (u n )} n N is a (PS) d sequence for the functional ψ ε ; (d) u is a critical point of ψ ε if, and only if, m ε (u) is a nontrivial critical point for J ε. Moreover, the corresponding critical values coincide and inf ψ ε (u) = inf J ε (u). u S + u N ε ε Remark 3.1. As in [48], we can see that, thanks to the assumptions (M 1 )-(M 3 ), the following equalities hold c ε := inf J ε (u) = inf max J ε(tu) = inf max J ε(tu). u N ε u H + t>0 ε u S + t>0 ε Now, we aim to show that the functional J ε satisfies the Palais-Smale condition. Firstly, we prove the following. Lemma 3.3. Let {u n } n N be a (PS) d sequence for J ε. Then {u n } n N is bounded in H ε. Proof. Let {u n } n N be a (PS) sequence at the level d, that is J ε (u n ) d and J ε(u n ) 0 in H 1 ε. Then, arguing as in the proof of Lemma 3.2-(ii) (see formula (3.9) there), we can see that C + u n ε J ε (u n ) 1 ϑ J ε (u n),u n ( )( ϑ 2 m 0 1 ) u n 2 2ϑ K ε. By using the fact that ϑ > 4 and K > 2/m 0, we deduce that {u n } n N is bounded in H ε. The next two lemmas are fundamental to obtain compactness of bounded Palais-Smale sequences.

13 CONCENTRATION FOR FRACTIONAL SCHRÖDINGER-KIRCHHOFF EQUATION 13 Lemma 3.4. Let {u n } n N be a (PS) d sequence for J ε. Then, for each ζ > 0, there exists R = R(ζ) > 0 such that [ R3 u n (x) u n (y) 2 ] lim sup x y 3+2s dy + V(εx)u 2 ndx < ζ. \B R \B R dx Proof. For any R > 0, let η R C ( ) be such that η R = 0 in B R and η R = 1 in B2R c, with 0 η R 1 and η R C R, where C is a constant independentof R. Since {η Ru n } n N is bounded in H ε, it follows that J ε(u n ),η R u n = o n (1), that is [ M( u n 2 ε ) u n (x) u n (y) 2 ] R 6 x y 3+2s η R (x)dxdy + V(εx)u 2 n η Rdx R 3 = o n (1)+ g(εx,u n )u n η R dx M( u n 2 ε ) (η R (x) η R (y))(u n (x) u n (y)) R 6 x y 3+2s u n (y)dxdy. Take R > 0 such that Ω ε B R. Then, by using (M 1 ) and (g 3 )-(ii) we have [ u n (x) u n (y) 2 ] m 0 R 6 x y 3+2s η R (x)dxdy + V(εx)u 2 n η Rdx R 3 1 K V(εx)u2 n η Rdx M( u n 2 ε ) (η R (x) η R (y))(u n (x) u n (y)) R 6 x y 3+2s u n (y)dxdy +o n (1) which gives ( m 0 1 )[R6 u n (x) u n (y) 2 ] K x y 3+2s η R (x)dxdy + V(εx)u 2 nη R dx R 3 M( u n 2 ε ) (η R (x) η R (y))(u n (x) u n (y)) R 6 x y 3+2s u n (y)dxdy +o n (1). (3.12) Let us observe that the boundedness of {u n } n N in H ε and the assumption (M 2 ), imply Now we claim that Since it is enough to show lim limsup R M( u n 2 ε) C for any n N. (3.13) R 6 (η R (x) η R (y))(u n (x) u n (y)) x y 3+2s u n (y)dxdy = 0. (3.14) (η R (x) η R (y))(u n (x) u n (y)) R 6 x y 3+2s u n (y)dxdy (R6 u n (x) u n (y) 2 x y 3+2s dxdy )1 ( 2 R6 )1 2 (R6 η R (x) η R (y) 2 C x y 3+2s u 2 n (y)dxdy to deduce that (3.14) holds. Firstly, we note that R 6 can be written as η R (x) η R (y) 2 )1 x y 3+2s u 2 2 n(y)dxdy R6 lim limsup η R (x) η R (y) 2 R x y 3+2s u 2 n (y)dxdy = 0 R 6 = (( \B 2R ) ( \B 2R )) (( \B 2R ) B 2R ) (B 2R ) =: X 1 R X2 R X3 R.

14 14 V. AMBROSIO AND T. ISERNIA Then η R (x) η R (y) 2 R 6 x y 3+2s u 2 n (x)dxdy = η R (x) η R (y) 2 X 1 x y 3+2s u 2 n (x)dxdy R η R (x) η R (y) 2 + x y 3+2s u 2 n (x)dxdy + η R (x) η R (y) 2 x y 3+2s u 2 n (x)dxdy. (3.15) X 2 R Now, we estimate each integrals in (3.15). Since η R = 1 in \B 2R, we have u n (x) 2 η R (x) η R (y) 2 x y 3+2s dxdy = 0. (3.16) Let k > 4. Clearly, we have X 1 R X 2 R = (R3 \B 2R ) B 2R = ((R 6 \B kr ) B 2R ) ((B kr \B 2R ) B 2R ). Let us observe that, if (x,y) (R 6 \B kr ) B 2R, then X 3 R x y x y x 2R > x 2. Therefore, taking into account that 0 η R 1, η R C R and applying Hölder inequality, we can see u n (x) 2 η R (x) η R (y) 2 X 2 x y 3+2s dxdy R u n (x) = dx \B kr B2R 2 η R (x) η R (y) 2 u n (x) x y 3+2s dy + dx B kr \B 2R B2R 2 η R (x) η R (y) 2 x y 3+2s dy 2 R 2+3+2s u n (x) dx 3 \B kr B2R 2 x 3+2s dy + C u n (x) R 2 dx B kr \B 2R B2R 2 dy x y 3+2(s 1) C u n (x) 2 \B kr x 3+2s dx+ C R 2(kR)2(1 s) u n (x) 2 dx B kr \B 2R ( ) 2 ( 2 C s )2s 3 1 u n (x) 2 sdx dx + Ck2(1 s) \B kr \B kr x R 2s u n (x) 2 dx 2s B kr \B 2R C k 3 ( \B kr u n (x) 2 sdx C k 3 + Ck2(1 s) R 2s ) 2 2 s + Ck2(1 s) R 2s B kr \B 2R u n (x) 2 dx B kr \B 2R u n (x) 2 dx. (3.17) Now, we fix δ (0,1), and we note that u n (x) 2 η R (x) η R (y) 2 X 3 x y 3+2s dxdy R R3 u n (x) 2 η R (x) η R (y) 2 R3 u n (x) 2 η R (x) η R (y) 2 = dx B 2R \B δr x y 3+2s dy + dx B δr x y 3+2s dy. (3.18)

15 CONCENTRATION FOR FRACTIONAL SCHRÖDINGER-KIRCHHOFF EQUATION 15 Let us estimate the first integral in (3.18). Then, u n (x) 2 η R (x) η R (y) 2 and B 2R \B δr dx B 2R \B δr dx from which we have B 2R \B δr dx {y: x y <R} {y: x y R} x y 3+2s u n (x) 2 η R (x) η R (y) 2 x y 3+2s R3 u n (x) 2 η R (x) η R (y) 2 x y 3+2s dy C R 2s u n (x) 2 dx B 2R \B δr dy C R 2s u n (x) 2 dx B 2R \B δr dy C R 2s u n (x) 2 dx. (3.19) B 2R \B δr Now, by using the definition of η R, δ (0,1), and 0 η R 1, we have R3 u n (x) 2 η R (x) η R (y) 2 u n (x) dx B δr x y 3+2s dy = dx B δr R3\BR 2 η R (x) η R (y) 2 x y 3+2s dy u n (x) 4 dx B δr R3\BR 2 dy x y 3+2s C u n 2 1 dx B δr (1 δ)r r 1+2sdr C = [(1 δ)r] 2s u n 2 dx (3.20) B δr where we have used the fact that if (x,y) B δr ( \B R ), then x y > (1 δ)r. Taking into account (3.18), (3.19) and (3.20) we deduce u n (x) 2 η R (x) η R (y) 2 dxdy X 3 R C R 2s x y 3+2s B 2R \B δr u n (x) p dx+ C [(1 δ)r] 2s u n (x) 2 dx. (3.21) B δr Putting together (3.15), (3.16), (3.17) and (3.21), we can infer R6 u n (x) 2 η R (x) η R (y) 2 x y 3+2s dxdy C k 3 + Ck2(1 s) R 2s u n (x) 2 dx B kr \B 2R + C R 2s u n (x) 2 C dx+ B 2R \B δr [(1 δ)r] 2s u n (x) 2 dx. B δr (3.22) Since {u n } n N is bounded in H s ( ), by using Theorem 2.1, we may assume that u n u in L 2 loc (R3 ) for some u H s ( ). Then, taking the limit as n in (3.22), we have R6 u n (x) 2 η R (x) η R (y) 2 lim sup x y 3+2s dxdy C k 3 + Ck2(1 s) R 2s u(x) 2 dx+ C B kr \B 2R R 2s C k 3 +Ck2 ( B kr \B 2R u(x) 2 sdx ) 2 2 s u(x) 2 C dx+ B 2R \B δr [(1 δ)r] 2s u(x) 2 dx B δr ( ) 2 2 ( ) s δ 2s ( +C u(x) 2 sdx +C u(x) 2 B 2R \B δr 1 δ B δr ) 2 2 sdx s,

16 16 V. AMBROSIO AND T. ISERNIA where in the last passage we have used the Hölder inequality. Since u L 2 s ( ), k > 4 and δ (0,1), we obtain lim sup u(x) 2 sdx = limsup u(x) 2 sdx = 0. R B kr \B 2R R B 2R \B δr Choosing δ = 1 k, we get lim sup R R6 u n (x) 2 η R (x) η R (y) 2 lim sup x y 3+2s dxdy ( [ C lim limsup k R k 3 +Ck2 u(x) 2 sdx B kr \B 2R ( ) 1 2s +C k 1 B 1k R u(x) 2 sdx 2 2 s ] ) 2 2 s +C B 2R \B 1k R u(x) 2 sdx ( ) C 1 2s ( ) 2 lim k k 3 +C u(x) 2 2 sdx s = 0 k 1 Putting together (3.12), (3.13), (3.14) and by using the definition of η R, we deduce that lim limsup R \B R dx This ends the proof of the Lemma. R3 u n (x) u n (y) 2 x y 3+2s dy + \B R V(εx)u 2 ndx = 0. Lemma 3.5. Let {u n } n N be a (PS) d sequence for J ε such that u n u. Then, for all R > 0 R3 u n (x) u n (y) 2 lim dx B R x y 3+2s dy + V(εx)u 2 ndx B R R3 u(x) u(y) 2 = dx B R x y 3+2s dy + V(εx)u 2 dx. B R Proof. By Lemma 3.3 we know that {u n } n N is bounded, so we may assume that u n u and u n ε t 0 0. Then, by the weak lower semicontinuity u ε t 0. Let η ρ C ( ) be such that η ρ = 1 in B ρ and η ρ = 0 in B2ρ c, with 0 η ρ 1. Fix R > 0 and choose ρ > R. Then we have [ R3 M( u n 2 (u n (x) u n (y)) (u(x) u(y)) 2 ] ε) dx B R x y 3+2s dy + V(εx)(u n u) 2 dx B R [R6 M( u n 2 (u n (x) u n (y)) (u(x) u(y)) 2 ] ε) x y 3+2s η ρ (x)dxdy + V(εx)(u n u) 2 η ρ (x)dx [R6 M( u n 2 u n (x) u n (y) 2 ] ε) x y 3+2s η ρ (x)dxdy + V(εx)u 2 nη ρ (x)dx [R6 +M( u n 2 u(x) u(y) 2 ] ε) x y 3+2s η ρ (x)dxdy + V(εx)u 2 η ρ (x)dx R [ 3 ] 2M( u n 2 ε ) (u n (x) u n (y))(u(x) u(y)) R 6 x y 3+2s η ρ (x)dxdy + V(εx)u n uη ρ (x)dx = I n,ρ II n,ρ +III n,ρ +IV n,ρ I n,ρ + II n,ρ + III n,ρ + IV n,ρ (3.23) 2 2 s

17 CONCENTRATION FOR FRACTIONAL SCHRÖDINGER-KIRCHHOFF EQUATION 17 where [R6 I n,ρ :=M( u n 2 u n (x) u n (y) 2 ] ε) x y 3+2s η ρ (x)dxdy + V(εx)u 2 nη ρ (x)dx g(εx,u n )u n η ρ dx, R [ 3 ] II n,ρ :=M( u n 2 ε ) (u n (x) u n (y))(u(x) u(y)) R 6 x y 3+2s η ρ (x)dxdy + V(εx)u n uη ρ (x)dx R 3 g(εx,u n )uη ρ dx, [ ] III n,ρ := M( u n 2 (u n (x) u n (y))(u(x) u(y)) ε) R 6 x y 3+2s η ρ (x)dxdy + V(εx)u n uη ρ (x)dx [R6 +M( u n 2 u(x) u(y) 2 ] ε) x y 3+2s η ρ (x)dxdy + V(εx)u 2 η ρ (x)dx, R 3 IV n,ρ := g(εx,u n )u n η ρ dx g(εx,u n )uη ρ dx. Let us prove that lim limsup I n,ρ = 0. (3.24) ρ Firstly, let us observe that I n,ρ can be written as I n,ρ = J ε (u n),u n η ρ M( u n 2 ε ) (u n (x) u n (y))(η ρ (x) η ρ (y)) R 6 x y 3+2s u n (y)dxdy. Since {u n η ρ } n N is bounded in H ε, we have J ε(u n ),u n η ρ = o n (1), so I n,ρ = o n (1) M( u n 2 ε ) R 6 (u n (x) u n (y))(η ρ (x) η ρ (y)) x y 3+2s u n (y)dxdy. (3.25) Arguing as in the proof of (3.14) (with η R = 1 η ρ ), we can infer that lim limsup ρ M( u n 2 ε ) (u n (x) u n (y))(η ρ (x) η ρ (y)) R 6 x y 3+2s u n (x)dxdy = 0, which together with (3.25) implies that (3.24) holds. Now, we note that II n,ρ = J ε(u n ),uη ρ M( u n 2 (u n (x) u n (y))(η ρ (x) η ρ (y)) ε) R 6 x y 3+2s u(x)dxdy. Similar calculations to the proof of (3.14) show that lim limsup ρ M( u n 2 (u n (x) u n (y))(η ρ (x) η ρ (y)) ε) R 6 x y 3+2s u(x)dxdy = 0, and by using J ε(u n ),uη ρ = o n (1), we obtain lim limsup II n,ρ = 0. (3.26) ρ On the other hand, from the weak convergence, we have lim III n,ρ = 0, (3.27) for any ρ > R. By using Theorem 2.1, we know that u n u in L p loc (R3 ) for 2 p < 6 3 2s. Hence, in view of (g 1 ) and (g 2 ), we deduce that for any ρ > R lim IV n,ρ = 0. (3.28)

18 18 V. AMBROSIO AND T. ISERNIA Putting together (3.23), (3.24), (3.26), (3.27) and (3.28), and recalling that u n ε t 0 we get the thesis. Taking into account the previous lemmas, we can demonstrate the following result. Proposition 3.2. The functional J ε verifies the (PS) d condition in H ε. Proof. Let {u n } n N be a (PS) sequence for J ε at the level d. By Lemma 3.3 we know that {u n } n N is bounded in H ε, thus, up to a subsequence, we deduce u n u in H ε. (3.29) By using Lemma 3.5 we know that R3 u n (x) u n (y) 2 lim dx B R x y 3+2s dy + V(εx)u 2 ndx B R R3 u(x) u(y) 2 = dx B R x y 3+2s dy + V(εx)u 2 dx. B R (3.30) Moreover, by Lemma 3.4 for each ζ > 0, there exists R = R(ζ) > C ζ such that [ R3 u n (x) u n (y) 2 ] lim sup dx \B R x y 3+2s dy + V(εx)u 2 n dx < ζ. (3.31) \B R Putting together (3.29), (3.30) and (3.31) we can infer u 2 ε liminf u n 2 ε limsup u n 2 ε [ R3 u n (x) u n (y) 2 = limsup dx B R x y 3+2s dy + V(εx)u 2 n dx B R R3 u n (x) u n (y) 2 ] + dx \B R x y 3+2s dy + V(εx)u 2 n dx \B R R3 u(x) u(y) 2 dx B R x y 3+2s dy + V(εx)u 2 dx+ζ. B R Taking the limit as ζ 0, we have R, therefore u 2 ε liminf u n 2 ε limsup u n 2 ε u 2 ε, which implies u n ε u ε. Since H ε is a Hilbert space, we can deduce u n u in H ε. Corollary 3.1. The functional ψ ε verifies the (PS) d condition on S + ε. Proof. Let {u n } n N be a (PS) sequence for ψ ε at the level d. Then ψ ε (u n ) d and ψ ε (u n) 0 in (T un S + ε ). From Proposition 3.1-(c) follows that {m ε (u n )} n N is a (PS) d sequence for J ε in H ε. Then, by using Proposition 3.2 we see that J ε verifies the (PS) d condition in H ε, so there exists u S + ε such that, up to a subsequence, m ε (u n ) m ε (u) in H ε. By applying Lemma 3.2-(iii) we can infer that u n u in S + ε. At this point, we are able to prove the main result of this Section.

19 CONCENTRATION FOR FRACTIONAL SCHRÖDINGER-KIRCHHOFF EQUATION 19 Proof of Theorem 3.1. In view of Lemma 3.1 and Proposition 3.2 we can apply the Mountain Pass Theorem [4], so we obtain the existence of a nontrivial critical point u ε of J ε. Now, we show that u ε 0 in. Since J ε(u ε ),u ε = 0, we can see that [ M( u ε 2 ε) R 6 (u ε (x) u ε (y))(u ε (x) u ε (y)) x y 3 2s dxdy + ] V(εx)u ε u ε dx = g(εx,u ε )u ε dx Recalling that (x y)(x y ) x y 2 and g(x,t) = 0 for t 0, we deduce that 0 M( u ε 2 ε ) u ε 2 ε 0. By using (M 1 ), we have u ε 2 ε = 0 that is u ε 0 in. 4. The autonomous problem In this section we deal with the limit problem associated to (3.1). More precisely, we consider the following problem (R6 u(x) u(y) 2 ) M x y 3+2s dxdy + V 0 u 2 dx [( ) s u+v 0 u] = f(u) in. (4.1) The Euler-Lagrange functional associated to (4.1) is J 0 (u) = 1 (R6 u(x) u(y) 2 ) 2 M x y 3+2s dxdy + V 0 u 2 dx F(u)dx which is well defined on the Hilbert space H 0 := H s ( ) endowed with the inner product (u(x) u(y))(ϕ(x) ϕ(y)) (u,ϕ) 0 = R 6 x y 3+2s dxdy + V 0 u(x)ϕ(x)dx. The norm induced by the inner product is u 2 0 = u(x) u(y) 2 R 6 x y 3+2s dxdy + The Nehari manifold associated to J 0 is given by V 0 u 2 dx. N 0 = {u H 0 \{0} : J 0(u),u = 0}. We denote by H + 0 the open subset of H 0 defined as H + 0 = {u H 0 : supp(u + ) > 0}, and S + 0 = S 0 H 0 +, where S 0 is the unit sphere of H 0. We note that S + 0 is a incomplete C1,1 - manifold of codimension 1 modeled on H 0 and contained in H 0 +. Thus H 0 = T u S + 0 Ru for each u S + 0, where T us + 0 = {u H 0 : (u,v) 0 = 0}. As in Section 3, we can see that the following results hold. Lemma 4.1. Assume that (M 1 ) (M 3 ) and (f 1 ) (f 4 ) hold true. Then, (i) For each u H + 0, let h : R+ R be defined by h u (t) = J 0 (tu). Then, there is a unique t u > 0 such that h u(t) > 0 in (0,t u ) h u (t) < 0 in (t u, ); (ii) there exists τ > 0 independent of u such that t u τ for any u S + 0. Moreover, for each compact set K S + 0 there is a positive constant C K such that t u C K for any u K;

20 20 V. AMBROSIO AND T. ISERNIA (iii) The map ˆm 0 : H 0 + N 0 given by ˆm 0 (u) = t u u is continuous and m 0 := ˆm 0 S + is a 0 homeomorphism between S + 0 and N 0. Moreover m 1 0 (u) = u u 0 ; (iv) If there is a sequence {u n } n N S + 0 such that dist(u n, S + 0 ) 0 then m 0(u n ) 0 and J 0 (m 0 (u n )). Let us define the maps by ˆψ 0 (u) := J 0 (ˆm 0 (u)) and ψ 0 := ˆψ 0 S +. 0 ˆψ 0 : H + 0 R and ψ 0 : S + 0 R, Proposition 4.1. Assume that assumptions (M 1 )-(M 3 ) and (f 1 )-(f 4 ) hold true. Then, (a) ˆψ 0 C 1 (H 0 +,R) and ˆψ 0(u),v = ˆm 0(u) 0 J u 0(ˆm 0 (u)),v 0 for every u H + 0 and v H 0; (b) ψ 0 C 1 (S + 0,R) and ψ 0 (u),v = m 0(u) 0 J 0 (m 0(u)),v, for every v T u S + 0 := {v H 0 : (u,v) 0 = 0}; (c) If {u n } n N is a (PS) d sequence for ψ 0, then {m 0 (u n )} n N is a (PS) d sequence for J 0. If {u n } n N N 0 is a bounded (PS) d sequence for J 0, then {m 1 0 (u n)} n N is a (PS) d sequence for the functional ψ 0 ; (d) u is a critical point of ψ 0 if, and only if, m 0 (u) is a nontrivial critical point for J 0. Moreover, the corresponding critical values coincide and inf ψ 0 (u) = inf J 0 (u). u S + u N 0 0 Remark 4.1. As in Section 3, we have the following equalities c 0 := inf J 0 (u) = inf max J 0(tu) = inf max J 0(tu). u N 0 u H + t>0 0 u S + t>0 0 The following Lemma is very important because permits to deduce that the weak limit of a (PS) d sequence is nontrivial. Lemma 4.2. Let {u n } n N H 0 be a (PS) d sequence for J 0 with u n 0. Then, only one of the alternative below holds: (a) u n 0 in H 0 ; (b) there are a sequence {y n } n N and constants R,β > 0 such that lim inf B R (y n) u 2 ndx β > 0. Proof. Assume that (b) does not hold. Then, for all R > 0 we have lim sup u 2 ndx = 0. y B R (y) Since {u n } n N is bounded in H 0, from Lemma 2.1 follows that u n 0 in L p ( ) for any 2 < p < 2 s.

21 CONCENTRATION FOR FRACTIONAL SCHRÖDINGER-KIRCHHOFF EQUATION 21 Moreover, by (f 1 ) and (f 2 ), we can see that lim f(u n )u n dx = 0. Then, by using J 0 (u n),u n = o n (1) and (M 1 ), we can see that Therefore it holds (a). 0 m 0 u n 2 0 M( u n 2 0 ) u n 2 0 = f(u n )u n dx+o n (1) = o n (1). Remark 4.2. Let us observe that, if {u n } n N is a (PS) sequence at the level c 0 for the functional J 0 such that u n u, then u 0. Otherwise, if u n 0 and, once it does not occur u n 0, in view of Lemma 4.2 we can find {y n } n N and R,β > 0 such that lim inf B R (y n) u 2 ndx β > 0. Set v n (x) = u n (x + y n ), and making a change of variable, we can see that {v n } n N is a (PS) sequence for J 0 at the level c 0, {v n } n N is bounded in H 0 and there exists v H 0 such that v n v and v 0. Theorem 4.1. The problem (4.1) admits a positive solution. Proof. Arguing as in the proof of Lemma 3.1, it is easy to check that J 0 has a mountain pass geometry. By using Theorem 1.15 in [50], we know that there exists a Palais-Smale sequence {u n } n N for J 0 at the level c 0, that is J 0 (u n ) c 0 and J 0 (u n) 0 in H 1 0. Let us observe that {u n } n N is a bounded sequence in H 0. Indeed, by using (3.8), assumptions (f 3 ) and (M 1 ), and taking into account that ϑ > 4, we have C + u n 0 J 0 (u n ) 1 ϑ J 0 (u n),u n = 1 n 2 M( u 2 0) 1 ϑ M( u n 2 0) u n [f(u)u F(u)]dx ϑ R ( ) M( u n 2 0 ϑ ) u n m 0 4 u n 2 0 ( ) ϑ 2 m 0 u n 2 2ϑ 0, which yields the boundedness of {u n } n N being ϑ > 4. Therefore, in view of Theorem 2.1, we may assume that u n u in H 0, (4.2) u n u in L p loc (R3 ) for all 2 p < 6 3 2s, (4.3) u n 0 t 0. (4.4) We recall that J 0 (u n),ϕ = o n (1) for any ϕ H 0, that is M( u n 2 0 )(u n,ϕ) 0 = f(u n )ϕdx+o n (1). (4.5)

22 22 V. AMBROSIO AND T. ISERNIA Take ϕ C c ( ). From (4.2) we have (u n,ϕ) 0 (u,ϕ) 0. (4.6) On the other hand, from (f 1 ), (f 2 ) and (4.3) we get f(u n )ϕdx f(u)ϕdx. (4.7) In order to prove that u is a weak solution to (4.1), it remains to prove that From (4.4), we can note that M( u n 2 0 ) M(t2 0 ). (4.8) u 2 0 liminf u n 2 0 = t 2 0, so, by using (M 2 ) we deduce that M( u 2 0 ) M(t2 0 ). At this point our aim is to prove that M( u 2 0 ) = M(t2 0 ). Assume by contradiction that M( u 2 0 ) < M(t2 0 ), then M( u 2 0) u 2 0 < M(t 2 0) u 2 0 = f(u)udx, that is J 0 (u),u < 0. Then, there exists t (0,1) such that tu N 0. Now, by using the assumption (M 3 ) and (1.6) we have c 0 J 0 (tu) = J 0 (tu) 1 4 J 0 (tu),tu = 1 2 M( tu 2 0) 1 [ ] 1 4 M( tu 2 0) tu f(tu)tu F(tu) dx < 1 2 M( u 2 0 ) 1 [ ] 1 4 M( u 2 0 ) u f(u)u F(u) dx { 1 liminf n 2 M( u 2 0) 1 [ ] 1 4 M( u n 2 0) u n f(u n)u n F(u n ) { = liminf J 0 (u n ) 1 } 4 J 0 (u n),u n = c 0 and this is a contradiction. Therefore, putting together (4.5), (4.6), (4.7) and (4.8) we obtain M( u 2 0 )(u,ϕ) 0 = f(u)ϕdx for any ϕ Cc (R3 ). Since Cc (R3 ) is dense in H 0, we deduce that J 0 (u) = 0. Now, weshowthatu > 0in. Firstlyweprovethatu 0. Indeed, observingthat J 0 (u),u = 0 and by using (x y)(x y ) x y 2 and f(t) = 0 for t 0, we have 0 M( u 0 2 0) u 2 0 0, which together with (M 1 ) implies u 0. Next, we show that u C 0,α ( ) L ( ) for some α (0,1). Let u v =. M( u 2 0 ) 1 q 2 Then v is a nonnegative solution to ( ) s v +V 0 v = h(v) in } dx

23 CONCENTRATION FOR FRACTIONAL SCHRÖDINGER-KIRCHHOFF EQUATION 23 where h is the following continuous function By using (f 3 ), we can see that lim t h(v) = f(vm( u 2 0 ) 1 h(t) = lim tq 1 t M( u 2 0 )q 1 q 2 q 2). q 2) f(tm( u 2 0 ) 1 (tm( u 2 0 ) 1 q 2 ) q 1 = 0, so we deduce that h(t) C(1+ t q 1 ) for any t R. Then, by applying Theorem 2.3 in [21], we deduce that v L ( ). In view of Proposition 2.9 in [47], we obtain that v C 0,β ( ) for some β (0,1). From theharnack inequality [14] weget v > 0 in. Thereforeu C 0,α ( ) L ( ) is a positive solution (4.1) and this ends the proof of theorem. The next result is a compactness result on the autonomous problem which we will use later. Lemma 4.3. Let {u n } n N N 0 be a sequence such that J 0 (u n ) c 0. Then {u n } n N has a convergent subsequence in H s ( ). Proof. Since {u n } n N N 0 and J 0 (u n ) c 0, we can apply Lemma 4.1-(iii) and Proposition 4.1-(d) and Remark 4.1 to infer that and v n = m 1 (u n ) = u n u n 0 S + 0 ψ 0 (v n ) = J 0 (u n ) c 0 = inf ψ 0 (v). v S + 0 Let us introduce the following map F : S + 0 R { } defined by setting { ψ 0 (u) if u S + 0 F(u) := if u S + 0. We note that (S + 0,d 0), where d(u,v) = u v 0, is a complete metric space; F C(S + 0,R { }), by Lemma 4.1-(iii); F is bounded below, by Proposition 4.1-(d). Hence, by applying the Ekeland s variational principle [23] to F, we can find {ˆv n } n N S + 0 such that {ˆv n } n N is a (PS) c0 sequence for ψ 0 on S + 0 and ˆv n v n 0 = o n (1). Then, by using Proposition 4.1, Theorem 4.1 andarguingas intheproofof Corollary 3.1 weobtain thethesis. 5. Barycenter map and multiplicity of solutions to (3.2) In this section, our main purpose is to apply the Ljusternik-Schnirelmann category theory to prove a multiplicity result for the problem (3.2). We begin by proving the following technical results. Lemma 5.1. Let ε n 0 + and {u n } n N N εn be such that J εn (u n ) c 0. Then there exists {ỹ n } n N such that the translated sequence ũ n (x) := u n (x+ỹ n ) has a subsequence which converges in H s ( ). Moreover, up to a subsequence, {y n } n N := {ε n ỹ n } n N is such that y n y 0 Λ.

24 24 V. AMBROSIO AND T. ISERNIA Proof. Since J ε n (u n ),u n = 0 and J εn (u n ) c 0, it is easy to see that {u n } n N is bounded. Let us observe that u n εn 0 since c 0 > 0. Therefore, arguing as in Remark 4.2, we can find a sequence {ỹ n } n N and constants R,α > 0 such that lim inf u n 2 dx α. B R (ỹ n) Set ũ n (x) := u n (x+ỹ n ). Then it is clear that {ũ n } n N is bounded in H s ( ), and we may assume that ũ n ũ weakly in H s ( ), for some ũ 0. Let {t n } n N (0,+ ) be such that ṽ n := t n ũ n N 0 (see Lemma 4.1-(i)), and set y n := ε n ỹ n. Then, by using (M 2 ) and g(x,t) f(t), we can see that c 0 J 0 (ṽ n ) = 1 2 M(t 2 n u n 2 0) F(t n u n )dx 1 2 M(t 2 n u n 2 ε n ) G(εx,t n u n )dx R N = J εn (t n u n ) J εn (u n ) = c 0 +o n (1), which gives J 0 (ṽ n ) c 0 and {ṽ n } n N N 0. (5.1) In particular, (5.1) implies that {ṽ n } n N is bounded in H s ( ), so we may assume that ṽ n ṽ. Obviously, {t n } n N is bounded and it results t n t 0 0. If t 0 = 0, from the boundedness of {ũ n } n N, we get ṽ n 0 = t n ũ n 0 0, that is J 0 (ṽ n ) 0 in contrast with the fact c 0 > 0. Then, t 0 > 0. From the uniqueness of the weak limit we have ṽ = t 0 ũ and ũ 0. By using Lemma 4.3 we deduce that which implies that ũ n = ṽn t n ṽ t 0 = ũ in H s ( ) and ṽ n ṽ in H s ( ), (5.2) J 0 (ṽ) = c 0 and J 0(ṽ),ṽ = 0. Now, we show that {y n } n N has a subsequence such that y n y 0 Λ. Assume by contradiction that {y n } n N is not bounded, that is there exists a subsequence, still denoted by {y n } n N, such that y n +. Since u n N εn, we can see that m 0 ũ n 2 0 g(ε n x+y n,ũ n )ũ n dx. Take R > 0 such that Ω B R (0). We may assume that y n > 2R, so, for any x B R/εn (0) we get ε n x+y n y n ε n x > R. Then, we deduce that m 0 v n 2 0 B R/εn (0) f(ũ n )ũ n dx+ f(ũ n )ũ n dx. \B R/εn (0) Since ũ n ũ in H s ( ), from the Dominated Convergence Theorem we can see that f(ũ n )ũ n dx = o n (1). \B R/εn (0)

25 CONCENTRATION FOR FRACTIONAL SCHRÖDINGER-KIRCHHOFF EQUATION 25 Recalling that f(ũ n ) V 0 Kũn, we get m 0 ũ n K B R/εn (0) V 0 ũ 2 ndx+o n (1), which yields ( m 0 1 ) ũ n 2 0 K o n(1). Since ũ n ũ 0, we have a contradiction. Thus {y n } n N is bounded and, up to a subsequence, we may assume that y n y 0. If y 0 / Ω, then there exists r > 0 such that y n B r/2 (y 0 ) \Ω for any n large enough. Reasoning as before, we get a contradiction. Hence y Ω. Now, we prove that V(y 0 ) = V 0. Assume by contradiction that V(y 0 ) > V 0. Taking into account (5.2), Fatou s Lemma and the invariance of by translations, we have c 0 < liminf [ 1 2 M ( ( ) 2ṽn s 2 +V(ε n z +y n )ṽn 2 liminf J ε n (t n u n ) liminf J ε n (u n ) = c 0 which gives a contradiction. ) ] F(ṽ n )dx Now, we aim to relate the number of positive solutions of (3.2) to the topology of the set Λ. For this reason, we take δ > 0 such that Λ δ = {x : dist(x,λ) δ} Ω, and we consider η C0 (R +,[0,1]) such that η(t) = 1 if 0 t δ 2 and η(t) = 0 if t δ. For any y Λ, we define ( ) εx y Ψ ε,y (x) = η( εx y )w ε where w H s ( ) is a positive ground state solution to the autonomous problem (4.1) (such a solution exists in view of Theorem 4.1). Let t ε > 0 be the unique number such that max t 0 J ε(tψ ε,y ) = J ε (t ε Ψ ε,y ). Finally, we consider Φ ε : Λ N ε defined by setting Φ ε (y) = t ε Ψ ε,y. Lemma 5.2. The functional Φ ε satisfies the following limit lim J ε(φ ε (y)) = c 0 uniformly in y Λ. ε 0 Proof. Assume by contradiction that there exists δ 0 > 0, {y n } n N Λ and ε n 0 such that J εn (Φ εn (y n )) c 0 δ 0. (5.3) Let us observe that by using the change of variable z = ε nx y n, if z B δ (0) Λ δ Ω, it ε n εn follows that ε n z B δ (0) and ε n x+y n B δ (y n ) Λ δ. Then, recalling that G = F in Ω and η(t) = 0 for t δ, we have J ε (Φ εn (y n )) = 1 ( )) (t 2 M 2εn ( ) s 2 (η( εn z )w(z)) 2 dz + V(ε n z +y n )(η( ε n z )w(z)) 2 dz R 3 F(t εn η( ε n z )w(z))dz. (5.4)

26 26 V. AMBROSIO AND T. ISERNIA Now, we aim to show that the sequence {t εn } n N verifies t εn 1 as ε n 0. From the definition of t εn, it follows that J ε n (Φ εn (y n )),Φ εn (y n ) = 0, which gives M(t 2 ε n A 2 n) t 2 ε n A 2 = 1 [ f(tεn η( ε n z )w(z)) ] n A 4 n (t εn η( ε n z )w(z)) 3 (η( ε n z )w(z)) 4 dz (5.5) where A n = ( ) s 2(η( ε n z )w(z)) 2 dz + V(ε n z +y n )(η( ε n z )w(z)) 2 dz. Since η = 1 in Bδ(0) B δ 2 εn (0) for all n large enough, we get from (5.5) M(t 2 ε n A 2 n) t 2 ε n A 2 n 1 [ f(tεn w(z)) ] A 4 n B δ2 (0) (t εn w(z)) 3 w 4 (z)dz. From the continuity of w we can find a vector ẑ such that so, by using (f 4 ), we deduce that M(t 2 ε n A 2 n) t 2 ε n A 2 1 [ f(tεn w(ẑ)) n A 4 n (t εn w(ẑ)) ]B 3 δ2 (0) w(ẑ) = min z B δ2 w(z) > 0, w 4 (z)dz 1 [ f(tεn w(ẑ)) ] A 4 n (t εn w(ẑ)) 3 Now, assume by contradiction that t εn. Let us observe that Lemma 2.2 yields So, by using t εn, (M 3 ) and (5.7), we can see that w 4 (ẑ) Bδ(0). (5.6) Ψ εn,y n 2 ε n = A 2 n w 2 0 (0, ). (5.7) M(t 2 ε lim n A 2 n ) γ(1+t 2 ε t 2 ε n A 2 lim n A 2 n ) n t 2 ε n A 2 C <. (5.8) n On the other hand, the assumption (f 3 ) implies that lim f(t εn w(ẑ)) =. (5.9) (t εn w(ẑ)) 3 Putting together (5.6), (5.8) and (5.9) we have a contradiction. Therefore {t εn } n N is bounded and, up to subsequence, we may assume that t εn t 0 for some t 0 0. Let us prove that t 0 > 0. Supposeby contradiction that t 0 = 0. Then, taking into account (5.7) and the assumptions (M 1 ), (f 1 ) and (f 2 ), we can see that (5.5) yields ] [Ct 2εn 0 < m 0 w 2 0 lim w 4 dz +Ct q 2 ε n w q dz which is impossible. Hence t 0 > 0. Thus, by passing to the limit as n in (5.5), we deduce from (5.7), the continuity of M and the Dominated Convergence Theorem that M(t 2 0 w 2 0 )t 0 w 2 0 = f(t 0 w)wdx. = 0 2 Since w N 0, we can see that M(t 2 0 w 2 0 ) t 2 0 w 2 0 M( w 2 0 ) w 2 0 = 1 [ f(t0 w) w 4 0 (t 0 w) 3 f(w) ] w 3 w 4 dx. (5.10)