On existence concentration of solutions to a class of quasilinear problems involving the 1 Laplace operator arxiv:1702.06718v1 [math.ap] 22 Feb 2017 Claudianor O. Alves 1 Marcos T. O. Pimenta 2,, 1. Unidade Acadêmica de Matemática Universidade Federal de Campina Gre 58429-900 - Campina Gre - PB, Brazil 2. Departamento de Matemática e Computação Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp), Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia 19060-900 - Presidente Prudente - SP, Brazil, * corresponding author E-mail addresses: coalves@dme.ufcg.edu.br, pimenta@fct.unesp.br Abstract In this work we use variational methods to prove results on existence concentration of solutions to a problem in involving the 1 Laplacian operator. A thorough analysis on the energy functional defined in the space of functions of bounded variation BV( ) is necessary, where the lack of compactness is overcome by using the Concentration of Compactness Principle of Lions. Key Words: bounded variation solutions, 1-Laplacian operator, concentration of solutions. AMS Classification: 35J62, 35J20. 1 Introduction some abstract results Several recent studies have focused on the nonlinear Schrödinger equation iǫ Ψ t = ǫ2 Ψ+(V(z)+E)Ψ f(ψ) for all z, (NLS)
where N 2, ǫ > 0 is a positive parameter V,f are continuous function verifying some conditions. This class of equation is one of the main objects of the quantum physics, because it appears in problems involving nonlinear optics, plasma physics condensed matter physics. The knowledge of the solutions for the elliptic equation ǫ 2 u+v(z)u = f(u) in, u H 1 ( ), (S) ǫ has a great importance in the study of sting-wave solutions of (N LS). The existence concentration of positive solutions for general semilinear elliptic equations (S) ǫ for the case N 3 have been extensively studied, see for example, Floer Weinstein [13], Oh [19], Rabinowitz [20], Wang [22], Cingolani Lazzo [6], Ambrosetti, Badiale Cingolani [1], Gui [14], del Pino Felmer [7] their references. In the above mentioned papers, the existence, multiplicity concentration of positive solutions have been obtained in connection with the geometry of the function V. In [20], by a mountain pass argument, Rabinowitz proves the existence of positive solutions of (S) ǫ for ǫ > 0 small lim infv(z) > inf V(z) = V 0 > 0. z z Later Wang [22] showed that these solutions concentrate at global minimum points of V as ǫ tends to 0. In [7], del Pino Felmer have found solutions which concentrate around local minimum of V by introducing a penalization method. More precisely, they assume that there is an open bounded set Λ such that 0 < V 0 inf V(z) < min V(z). z Λ z Λ Motivated by papers [20] [22], let us consider the following class of quasilinear elliptic problems ǫ 1 u+v(x) u u = f(u) in, u BV( ), (1.1) where ǫ > 0, N 2 the operator ( 1 is the ) well known 1 Laplacian operator, whose u formal definition is given by 1 u = div. The nonlinearity f is assumed to satisfy u the following set of assumptions: 2
(f 1 ) f C 1 (R); (f 2 ) f(s) = o(1) as s 0; (f 3 ) There exist constants c 1,c 2 > 0 p [1,1 ) such that f(s) c 1 +c 2 s p 1 s R; (f 4 ) There exists θ > 1 such that where F(s) = (f 5 ) f is increasing. s 0 f(t)dt; 0 < θf(s) f(s)s, for s 0, Hereafter, the potential is going to be considered satisfying some of the following conditions: (V 1 ) V L ( ) 0 < V 0 := inf V; (V 2 ) V := liminf x + V(x) > V 0; (V 3 ) V C( ), lim x + V(x) = V V V in. hold. Hereafter, we will say that V satisfies the Rabinowitz s condition when (V 1 ) (V 2 ) By studying problem (1.1) we are looking to get some results on existence concentration of solutions, as the parameter ǫ 0 +. The approach used as in the laplacian case is variational. However, the right space in which problem (1.1) takes place is the space of functions of bounded variation, BV( ). The energy function associated to (1.1) is I ǫ : BV( ) R, defined by I ǫ (u) = ǫ Du + V(x) u dx F(u)dx, where Du is the total variation of the vectorial Radon measure Du (see Section 2). Before we state our main results, we would like to mention the main difficulties in dealing with (1.1), which are organized in the list bellow: 3
Problem (1.1) is just a formal version of the correct Euler-Lagrange equation associated to the functional I ǫ, since it is not well defined wherever u or u vanishes. The correct one, i.e., the equation satisfied by the critical points of I ǫ is given by z L (, ), z 1, divz L N ( ), udivzdx = Du, z 2 LN ( ), z 2 V(x) u = u a.e. in RN, ǫdivz +z 2 = f(u), a.e. in RN, is going to be obtained in Section 2.1; The functional I ǫ is not C 1 (BV( )) then some other sense of critical point have to be considered. Since I ǫ is written like the difference between a convex locally Lipschitz functional a smooth one, the theory of sub-differential of Clarke (see [8,4]) can be applied. Following this theory, it is possible to define a sense of critical point, Palais-Smale sequence, etc., that provide us with the tools to carry a variational approach to (1.1); The space BV( ), the domain of I ǫ, is not reflexive neither uniformly convex. This is the reason why is so difficult to prove that the functionals defined in this space satisfy compactness conditions like the Palais-Smale one; The solutions we will get lacks smoothness, then a lot of arguments explored in the literature cannot be used here, like convergence in the sense C 2 loc (RN ), C 1 loc (RN ), etc. To overcome the above difficulties we have used in Section 3 the Concentration of Compactness Principle due to Lions, which is in our opinion an important novelty in the study of concentration of solution. Here, we must observe that our approach can also be used for concentration problem involving the laplacian operator. Heretogetasolutionwemustprovethatif(v n )isapalais-smalesequenceassociated with the energy functional we must have f(v n )v n dx f(v)vdx. For a lot of problems involving the Laplacian the above limit is not necessary to get a nontrivial solution, however for our problem this limit is crucial. 4
Our main results are the following theorems. Theorem 1. Suppose that f satisfies the conditions (f 1 ) (f 5 ) that V satisfies (V 1 ) (V 2 ). Then there exist ǫ 0 > 0 such that (1.1) has a nontrivial bounded variation solution u ǫ, for all 0 < ǫ < ǫ 0. Moreover, for each sequence ǫ n 0, up to a subsequence, the family (u ǫn ) n N concentrate around a point x 0 such that V(x 0 ) = V 0. More specifically, there exists C > 0 such that for all δ > 0, there exist R > 0 n 0 N such that, B c ǫnr (x 0) f(u n )u n dx < ǫ N n δ B ǫnr (x 0 ) f(u n )u n dx Cǫ N n, (1.2) for all n n 0. Oursecond resultshows theexistence of solution for all ǫ > 0when V is asymptotically linear it has the following statement. Theorem 2. Suppose that f satisfies the conditions (f 1 ) (f 5 ) also (V 1 ) (V 3 ), then there exist a nontrivial bounded variation solution u ǫ of (1.1) for all ǫ > 0. Here, we would like point out that a version of Theorem 2 for Laplacian operator was proved by Jianfu Xiping [16]. Before concluding this section, we would like to mention some paper involving the 1 on bounded domain, where the reader can find more references about this subject. In [9], Degiovanni Magrone study the version of Brézis-Nirenberg problem to the 1-Laplacian operator, corresponding to 1 u = λ u u + u 1 2 u in Ω, u = 0 on Ω. In [5], Chang uses this approach to study the spectrum of the 1 Laplacian operator, proving the existence of a sequence of eigenvalues. In [17], Kawohl Schuricht also study the spectrum of the 1 Laplacian operator reach the astonishing conclusion that an eigenfunction of this operator, in general satisfies infinity many Euler-Lagrange equations associated with it. Thepaper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we give a brief overview about the space BV( ), define the sense of solution we are going to deal with also find the precise 5
Euler-Lagrange equation associated to I ǫ. In Section 3 we prove Theorem 1, studying separately the arguments on existence concentration of the solutions. In Section 4 we prove Theorem 2. Finally, in the last section we prove the existence of a ground-state solution to the autonomous problem. 2 Preliminary results First of all let us note that the problem (1.1), through the change of variable v(x) = u(ǫx), is equivalent to the problem 1 v +V(ǫx) v v = f(v) in, u BV( ), (2.3) Let us introduce the space of functions of bounded variation, BV( ). We say that u BV( ), or is a function of bounded variation, if u L 1 ( ), its distributional derivative Du is a vectorial Radon measure, i.e., BV( ) = { u L 1 ( ); Du M(, ) }. It can be proved that u BV( ) is equivalent to u L 1 ( ) { } Du := sup udivφdx; φ Cc 1 (RN, ), s.t. φ 1 < +. The space BV( ) is a Banach space when endowed with the norm u := Du + u 1, which is continuously embedded into L r ( ) for all r [1,1 ]. As one can see in [3], the space BV( ) has different convergence density properties than the usual Sobolev spaces. For example, C0 (RN ) is not dense in BV( ) with respect to the strong convergence, since C0 (RN ) w.r.t. the BV( ) norm is equal to W 1,1 ( ), a proper subspace of BV( ). This has motivated people to define a weaker sense of convergence in BV( ), called intermediate convergence. We say that (u n ) BV( ) converge to u BV( ) in the sense of the intermediate convergence if u n u, in L 1 ( ) 6
Du n Du, as n. Fortunately, with respect to the intermediate convergente, C 0 (RN ) is dense in BV( ). For avectorial Radonmeasureµ M(, ), wedenotebyµ = µ a +µ s theusualdecomposition stated in the Radon Nikodyn Theorem, where µ a µ s are, respectively, the absolute continuous the singular parts with respect to the N dimensional Lebesgue measure L N. We denote by µ, the absolute value of µ, the scalar Radon measure defined like in [3][pg. 125]. By µ (x) we denote the usual Lebesgue derivative of µ with respect µ to µ, given by µ µ(b r (x)) (x) = lim µ r 0 µ (B r (x)). It can be proved that J : BV( ) R, given by J(u) = Du + u dx, (2.4) is a convex functional Lipschitz continuous in its domain. It is also well know that J is lower semicontinuous with respect to the L r ( ) topology, for r [1,1 ] (see [15] for example). Although non-smooth, the functional J admits some directional derivatives. More specifically, as is shown in [2], given u BV( ), for all v BV( ) such that (Dv) s is absolutely continuous w.r.t. (Du) s such that v is equal to 0 a.e. in the set where u vanishes, it follows that RN J (Du) a (Dv) a (u)v = (Du) a dx+ Du Du Dv (x) Dv (x) (Dv) s + sgn(u)vdx, (2.5) where sgn(u(x)) = 0 if u(x) = 0 sgn(u(x)) = u(x)/ u(x) if u(x) 0. In particular, note that, for all u BV( ), Let us define in the space BV( ) the following norms, v ǫ := Dv + V(ǫx) v dx, v := Dv + V v dx, J (u)u = J(u). (2.6) v 0 := Dv + V 0 v dx, 7
which by (V 1 ), (V 2 ) or (V 3 ), are equivalent to the usual norm in BV( ). Let us define also the functionals Φ ǫ,φ,φ 0 : BV( ) R by Φ ǫ (v) = v ǫ F(v)dx, Φ (v) = v F(v)dx Φ 0 (v) = v 0 F(v)dx. Denoting F(v) = F(v)dx J ǫ (v) = v ǫ, note that F C 1 (BV( )) J ǫ defines a locally Lipschitz continuous functional. Then we say that v ǫ BV( ) is a solution of (2.3) if 0 Φ ǫ (v ǫ ), where Φ ǫ (v ǫ ) denotes the generalized gradient of Φ ǫ in v ǫ, as defined in [4]. It follows that this is equivalent to F (v ǫ ) J ǫ (v ǫ ), since J ǫ is convex, this is written as w ǫ v ǫ ǫ f(v ǫ )(w v ǫ )dx, w BV( ). (2.7) Hence all v ǫ BV( ) such that (2.7) holds is going to be called a bounded variation solution of (2.3). Analogously we define critical points of the functionals Φ Φ 0, since they have the same properties that Φ ǫ. 2.1 The Euler-Lagrange equation Since (2.3) contains expressions that doesn t make sense when u = 0 or u = 0, then it can be understood just as the formal version of the Euler-Lagrange equation associated to the functional Φ ǫ. In this section we present the precise form of an Euler-Lagrange equation satisfied by all bounded variation critical points of Φ ǫ. In order to do so we closely follow the arguments in [17]. The first step is to consider the extension of the functionals J ǫ,f Φ ǫ to L 1 ( ), given respectively by J ǫ,f,φ ǫ : L 1 ( ) R, where J ǫ (v), if v BV( ), J ǫ (v) = +, if v L 1 ( )\BV( ), F(u) = F(u)dx 8
Φ ǫ = J ǫ F. It is easy to see that F belongs to C 1 (L 1 ( ),R) that J ǫ is a convex lower semicontinuous functional defined in L 1 ( ). Hence the subdifferential (in the sense of [21]) of J ǫ, denoted by J ǫ, is well defined. The following is a crucial result in obtaining an Euler-Lagrange equation satisfied by the critical points of Φ ǫ. Lemma 3. If v ǫ BV( ) is such that 0 Φ ǫ (v ǫ ), then 0 Φ ǫ (v ǫ ). Proof. Suppose that 0 Φ ǫ (v ǫ ), i.e., that v ǫ satisfies (2.7). We would like to prove that J ǫ (w) J ǫ (v ǫ ) F (v ǫ )(w v ǫ ), w L 1 ( ). To see why, consider w L 1 ( ) note that: if w BV( ) L 1 ( ), then J ǫ (w) J ǫ (v ǫ ) = J ǫ (w) J ǫ (v ǫ ) F (v ǫ )(w v ǫ ) = f(v ǫ )(w v ǫ )dx = F (v ǫ )(w v ǫ ); if w L 1 ( )\BV( ), since J ǫ (w) = + J ǫ (v ǫ ) < +, it follows that J ǫ (w) J ǫ (v ǫ ) = + F (v ǫ )(w v ǫ ). Therefore the result follows. Let us assume that v ǫ BV( ) is a bounded variation solution of (2.3), i.e., that v ǫ satisfies (2.7). Since 0 Φ ǫ (v ǫ ), by the last result it follows that 0 Φ ǫ (v ǫ ). Since J ǫ is convex F is smooth, it follows that F (v ǫ ) J ǫ (v ǫ ). Let us define now J 1 ǫ (v) := Dv J 2 ǫ (v) := V(ǫx) v dx. Then note that F (v ǫ ) J ǫ (v ǫ ) J 1 ǫ (v ǫ)+ J 2 ǫ (v ǫ). Then there exist z 1,z 2 LN ( ) such that z 1 J 1 ǫ (v ǫ ), z 2 J 2 ǫ(v ǫ ) F (v ǫ ) = z 1 +z 2 in L N ( ). 9
Following the same arguments that in [17, Proposition 4.23, pg. 529], we have that there exists z L (, ) such that z 1, divz = z 1 in L N ( ) (2.8) v ǫ divzdx = Dv ǫ, (2.9) where the divergence in (2.8) has to be understood in the distributional sense. Moreover, the same result implies that z 2 is such that z 2V(ǫx) v ǫ = v ǫ, a.e. in. (2.10) Therefore, it follows from (2.8), (2.9) (2.10) that v ǫ satisfies z L (, ), z 1, divz L N ( ), v ǫ divzdx = Dv ǫ, z 2 LN ( ), z 2 V(ǫx) v ǫ = v ǫ a.e. in, divz +z 2 = f(v ǫ), a.e. in. (2.11) Hence, (2.11) is the precise version of (1.1). 3 Existence concentration of solution with the Rabinowitz s condition Let us first observe that by stard calculations, it is possible to prove that Φ ǫ, Φ Φ 0 satisfy the geometrical conditions of the Mountain Pass Theorem. Then the following minimax levels are well defined c ǫ = inf sup Φ ǫ (γ(t)), γ Γ ǫ t [0,1] c = inf sup Φ (γ(t)) γ Γ t [0,1] c 0 = inf sup Φ 0 (γ(t)), γ Γ 0 t [0,1] where Γ ǫ = {γ C([0,1],BV( ); γ(0) = 0Φ ǫ (γ(1)) < 0} Γ,Γ 0 are defined in an analogous way. Moreover, by study made in Section 5, it follows that there exists a 10
critical point of Φ, w BV( ), such that Φ (w ) = c. By the same reason, there exists a critical point of Φ 0, w 0 BV( ), such that Φ 0 (w 0 ) = c 0. Let us definethe Nehari manifolds associated to Φ ǫ, Φ Φ 0, which are well defined by (2.6), respectively by N ǫ = {v BV( )\{0}; Φ ǫ(v)v = 0}, N = {v BV( )\{0}; Φ (v)v = 0} N 0 = {v BV( )\{0}; Φ 0 (v)v = 0}. By the discussion in [11], it follows that c ǫ = inf Nǫ Φ ǫ, c = inf N Φ c 0 = inf N0 Φ 0. 3.1 Existence results First of all we study the behavior of the minimax levels c ǫ, when ǫ 0 +. For the sake of simplicity, let us suppose without lack of generality that V(0) = V 0. Lemma 4. lim ǫ 0 +c ǫ = c 0. Proof. Let ǫ 0 as n +. Let ψ C 0 (RN ) be such that 0 ψ 1, ψ 0 in /B 2 (0), ψ 1 in B 1 (0) ψ C in. Let us define w ǫn (x) = ψ(ǫ n x)w 0 (x), where w 0 is the ground state critical point of Φ 0. Note that w ǫn w 0 in BV( ) Φ 0 (w ǫn ) Φ 0 (w) as n +. Let t ǫn be such that t ǫn w ǫn N ǫn let us suppose just for a while that t ǫn 1 as n +. Then c ǫn Φ ǫn (t ǫn w ǫn ) = Φ 0 (t ǫn w ǫn )+ (V(ǫ n x) V 0 )t ǫn w ǫn dx. Using the Lebesgue Dominated Theorem, it follows that lim supc ǫn Φ 0 (w 0 ) = c 0. n + 11
Then On the other h, since Φ 0 (v) Φ ǫn (v) for all v BV( ), it follows that c 0 c ǫn. lim n + c ǫ n = c 0. What is left to do is to prove that in fact t ǫn 1, as n +. Since Φ ǫ n (t ǫn w ǫn )w ǫn = 0, it follows that ) t ǫn Dw ǫn + V(ǫ n x) w ǫn dx = f(t ǫn w ǫn )w ǫn dx. ( We claim that (t ǫn ) ǫn>0 is bounded. In fact, on the contary, up to a subsequence, t ǫn +. Let Σ be such that Σ > 0 w 0 (x) 0 for all x Σ. Hence it holds for all n N that w ǫn ǫn = f(t ǫn w ǫn )t ǫn w ǫn dx t ǫn θf(t ǫn w ǫn ) dx. t ǫn Σ Then by (f 4 ) Fatou s Lemma it follows that w ǫn ǫn +, as n, which contradicts the fact that w ǫn w 0 in BV( ) as n. Now we have to verify that t ǫn 0 as n +. In fact, on the contrary, from (f 2 ) the fact that t ǫn w ǫn N ǫn, we would have that w ǫn ǫn = f(t ǫn w ǫn )w ǫn dx = o n (1), a clear contradiction. Then there exist α,β > 0 such that α t ǫn β for all n N then, up to a subsequence, t n t > 0, as n +. Since w ǫn w 0 in BV( ), from the definition of w 0, it follows by (f 5 ) that t = 1. Since by (V 2 ), V 0 < V, it follows from the monotonicity of the energy functional w.r.t. the potentials that c 0 < c. (3.12) As a consequence of Lemma 4 (3.12), it holds the following result. 12
Corollary 5. There exists ǫ 0 > 0 such that c ǫ < c for all ǫ (0,ǫ 0 ). By [12, Theorem 4], for each ǫ > 0, there exists a Palais-Smale sequence (v n ) BV( ) to Φ ǫ in the level c ǫ, i.e. lim Φ ǫ(v n ) = c ǫ (3.13) n w ǫ v n ǫ f(v n )(w v n )dx τ n w v n ǫ, w BV( ), (3.14) where τ n 0, as n. Lemma 6. The sequence (v n ) is bounded in BV( ). Proof. Let us consider w = 2v n in (3.14) note that v n ǫ f(v n )v n dx τ n v n ǫ, which implies that Then, by (f 4 ) (3.15), (1+τ n ) v n ǫ f(v n )v n dx. (3.15) c ǫ +o n (1) Φ ǫ (v n ) = v n ǫ + v n ǫ ( 1 1 θ τ n θ C v n ǫ, ( ) 1 θ f(v n)v n F(v n ) ) 1 dx θ f(v n)v n dx for some C > 0 which does not depend on n N. Then the result follows. By the last result the compactness of the embeddings of BV( ) in L q loc (RN ) for 1 q < 1, it follows that there exists v ǫ BV loc ( ) such that v n v ǫ in L q loc (RN ) for 1 q < 1 (3.16) v n v ǫ a.e. in, 13
as n +. Note that v ǫ BV( ). In fact, if R > 0, by the semicontinuity of the norm in BV(B R (0)) w.r.t. the L 1 (B R (0)) topology it follows that v ǫ BV (BR (0)) liminf n + v n BV(BR (0)) liminf n + v n BV ( ) C, (3.17) where C does not depend on n or R. Since the last inequality holds for every R > 0, then v ǫ BV( ). The following is a crucial result in our argument. In its proof we use the well known Concentration of Compactness Principle of Lions [18]. Proposition 7. If ǫ < ǫ 0, ǫ 0 like in Corollary 5, then v n v ǫ in L q ( ) for all 1 q < 1. (3.18) Proof. Let us apply the Concentration of Compactness Principle of Lions to the following bounded sequence in L 1 ( ), For future reference, note that ρ n (x) := v n(x) v n 1. v n 1 0, as n +. (3.19) In fact, otherwise, by the boundednessof (v n ) in L 1 ( ), by interpolation inequality (v n ) would converge to 0 in L q ( ) for all 1 q < 1. By taking w = v n +tv n in (3.14) doing t 0, it is easy to see that v n ǫ = f(v n )v n dx+o n (1). Then, by the last equality, (f 2 ), (f 3 ) the fact that v n 0 in L q ( ) for all 1 q < 1, the Lebesgue Convergence Theorem imply that v n 0 in BV( ), implying that c ǫ = 0, which contradicts the fact that c ǫ > 0. Since (ρ n ) is a bounded sequence in L 1 ( ), the Concentration of Compactness Principle implies that one only one of the following statements holds: (Vanishing) lim sup ρ n dx = 0, R > 0; n + y B R (y) 14
(Compactness) There exist (y n ) such that for all η > 0, there exists R > 0 such that B R (y n) ρ n dx 1 η, n N; (3.20) (Dichotomy) There exist (y n ), α (0,1), R 1 > 0, R n + such that the functions ρ n,1 (x) := χ BR1 (y n)(x)ρ n (x) ρ n,2 (x) := χ B c Rn (y n)(x)ρ n (x) satisfy ρ 1,n dx α ρ 2,n dx 1 α. (3.21) Our objective is to show that (ρ n ) verifies the Compactness condition in order to do so we act by excluding all the others possibilities. Note that Vanishing does not occur. In fact, otherwise, by [12, Theorem 1.1], it would hold that ρ n 0 in L q ( ), for all 1 q < 1. Taking (3.19) into account, this would imply that v n 0 in L q ( ), for all 1 q < 1 then, this would led us to c ǫ = 0, a clear contradiction. that Let us show now that Dichotomy also does not hold. Firstly note that (3.14) implies Φ ǫ (v n)v n = o n (1), as n +. (3.22) As far as the sequence (y n ) is concerned, let us consider the two possible situations. (y n ) is bounded: In this case the function v ǫ is nontrivial, since v n dx α, v n 1 implies that B R (y n) B R (y n) v n dx δ, for all n sufficiently large. Then, by taking R 0 > 0 such that B R (y n ) B R0 (0) for all n N, it follows that v n dx δ, for all n sufficiently large, B R0 (0) implying by (3.16) that B R0 (0) v ǫ dx δ. (3.23) Now let us show the following claim. 15
Claim 1. Φ ǫ(v ǫ )v ǫ 0. Note that, if ϕ C0 (RN ), 0 ϕ 1, ϕ 1 in B R (0) ϕ 0 in B 2R (0) c, for ϕ R := ϕ( /R), it follows that for all v BV( ), (D(ϕ R v)) s is absolutely continuous w.r.t. (Dv) s. (3.24) In fact, note that D(ϕ R v) = ϕ R v +ϕ R Dv = ϕ R v +ϕ R Dv a +ϕ R Dv s, in D ( ). Then it follows that (D(ϕ R v)) s = (ϕ R (Dv) s ) s = ϕ R (Dv) s. Taking (3.24) into account, the fact that ϕ R v n is equal to 0 a.e. in the set where v n vanishes also the fact that ϕ R µ ϕ R µ = µ µ a.e. in B R (0), it is well defined Φ ǫ(v n )(ϕ R v n ), by (2.5), it follows that Φ ǫ (v ((Dv n ) a ) 2 ϕ R +v n (Dv n ) a ϕ R n)(ϕ R v n ) = (Dv n ) a dx Dv n ϕ R (Dv n ) s + Dv n ϕ R (Dv n ) s ϕ R(Dv n ) s + + V(ǫx)sgn(v n )(ϕ R v n )dx f(v n )ϕ R v n dx R N = ϕ R (Dv n ) a v n (Dv n ) a ϕ R dx+ (Dv n ) a dx+ RN (Dv n ) s ϕ R (Dv n ) s + (Dv n ) s ϕ R (Dv n ) s ϕ R(Dv n ) s + V(ǫx) v n ϕ R dx R N f(v n )ϕ R v n dx. Thelast inequality together withthelower semicontinuity of thenorminbv(b R (0)) w.r.t. the L 1 (B R (0)) convergence the fact that Φ ǫ (v n)(ϕ R v n ) = o n (1) (since (ϕ R v n ) is bounded in BV( )), imply that v n (Dv n ) a ϕ R Dv ǫ +liminf B R (0) n (Dv n ) a dx+ V(ǫx)ϕ R v ǫ dx f(v ǫ )v ǫ ϕ R dx. (3.25) By doing R + in both sides of (3.25) we get that Dv ǫ + V(ǫx) v ǫ dx f(v ǫ )v ǫ dx (3.26) 16
what proves the claim. By the Claim (3.23), it follows that there exists t ǫ (0,1] such that t ǫ v ǫ N ǫ. Note also that c ǫ +o n (1) = Φ ǫ (v n )+o n (1) = Φ ǫ (v n ) Φ ǫ(v n )v n = (f(v n )v n F(v n ))dx. (3.27) Then applying Fatou Lemma in the last inequality together with (f 4 ), it follows that c ǫ (f(v ǫ )v ǫ F(v ǫ ))dx (f(t ǫ v ǫ )t ǫ v ǫ F(t ǫ v ǫ ))dx = Φ ǫ (t ǫ v ǫ ) Φ ǫ(t ǫ v ǫ )t ǫ v ǫ = Φ ǫ (t ǫ v ǫ ) c ǫ. Hence, t ǫ = 1 Φ ǫ (v ǫ ) = c ǫ. This together with (3.27) (f 4 ) yield f(v n )v n f(v ǫ )v ǫ in L 1 ( ) F(v n ) F(v ǫ ) in L 1 ( ) v n ǫ v ǫ ǫ, from where it follows that v n v ǫ in L 1 ( ). Here, we have used the fact that (f 4 ) implies that (1 θ)f(ṽ n )ṽ n f(ṽ n )ṽ n F(ṽ n ), then by applying the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem, it follows that f(v n )v n f(ṽ)ṽ in L 1 (R). As a consequence, since (y n ) is a bounded sequence R n +, the L 1 ( ) convergence of (v n ) leads to B c Rn (yn) v n dx 0 as n +. (3.28) 17
On the other h, since v n v ǫ 0 in L 1 ( ) by (3.21), it follows that B c Rn (yn) v n dx (1 α) v ǫ L 1 ( ) > 0, as n +, a clear contradiction with (3.28). (y n ) is unbounded: In this case we should proceed as in the case where (y n ) were bounded, but now dealing with the sequence (ṽ n ) where ṽ n = v n ( y n ). In fact, since v n BV ( ) = ṽ n BV ( ), it follows that (ṽ n ) is bounded then converges, upto a subsequence, to some function ṽ BV( ) in L 1 loc (RN ), where ṽ 0 by (3.21). Claim 2. Φ (ṽ)ṽ 0. (3.29) In order to prove this claim, let us denote, for v BV( ), v ǫ,yn := Dv + V(ǫx+ǫy n ) v dx Φ ǫ,yn (v) := v ǫ,yn F(v)dx. Note that, as before, Φ ǫ,y n (v)w is well defined for all v,w BV( ) such that (Dw) s is absolutely continuous w.r.t. (Dv) s w is equal to 0 a.e. in the set where v vanishes. Moreover, RN Φ (Dv) a (Dw) a Dv Dw ǫ,y n (v)w = (Dv) a dx+ (x) Dv Dw (x) (Dw) s (3.30) + V(ǫx+ǫy n )sgn(v)wdx f(v)wdx. Since Dv n = Dṽ n, from (3.14), by a change of variable, for all w BV( ) we have that w(.+y n ) ǫ,yn ṽ n ǫ,yn f(ṽ n )(w(.+y n ) ṽ n )dx ) τ n D(w( +y n ) v n ) + V(ǫx+ǫy n ) w(.+y n ) ṽ n dx, ( 18 (3.31)
For ϕ R := ϕ( /R), where ϕ C 0 (RN ), 0 ϕ 1, ϕ 1 in B R (0) ϕ 0 in B 2R (0) c, by taking in (3.31) w(x) = v n (x)+tϕ R (x y n )v n (x) making t 0, it follows that Φ ǫ,y n (ṽ n )(ϕ R ṽ n ) = o n (1). (3.32) From (3.32), proceeding as in (3.25) taking into account that y n +, we get that Dṽ + V ṽ dx f(ṽ)ṽdx, (3.33) which proves the claim. By the Claim 2 since ṽ 0, it follows that there exists t (0,1] such that tv N. On the other h, recalling that Note that c ǫ +o n (1) = Φ ǫ (v n )+o n (1) = Φ ǫ (v n ) Φ ǫ(v n )v n = (f(v n )v n F(v n ))dx = (f(ṽ n )ṽ n F(ṽ n ))dx. the Fatou s Lemma gives c ǫ (f(ṽ)ṽ F(ṽ))dx R N ( f( tṽ) tṽ F( tṽ) ) dx = Φ ( tṽ) c, which contradicts Corollary 5 when ǫ is small enough. Then we can conclude that Dichotomy in fact does not happen then, it follows that Compactness must hold. Claim 3. (y n ) in (3.20) is a bounded sequence in. Assuming this claim, for η > 0, there exists R > 0 such that, by (3.20), B c R (0) ρ n dx < η, n N, 19
which is equivalent to B c R (0) v n dx η v n 1 Cη, n N. (3.34) Since v ǫ L 1 ( ), there exists R 0 > 0 such that B c R 0 (0) v ǫ dx η. (3.35) Then, for R 1 max{r,r 0 }, since v n v ǫ in L 1 (B R1 (0)), there exists n 0 N such that B R1 (0) v n v ǫ dx η n n 0. (3.36) Then, by (3.34), (3.35) (3.36), it follows that if n n 0, v n v ǫ dx η+ B c R 1 (0) v n v ǫ dx η+ v n dx+ v ǫ dx C 1 η. BR c (0) B c 1 R (0) 1 Hence v n v ǫ in L 1 ( ) since (v n ) is bounded in L 1 ( ), by interpolation inequality it follows that v n v ǫ in L q ( ), for all 1 q < 1. Now, what is left is proving Claim 3. However, the proof of it consist in suppose by contradiction that, up to a subsequence, y n + then proceed as in the case of Dichotomy, where (y n ) were unbounded, reaching that c ǫ c. But the latter is a clear contradiction when ǫ < ǫ 0, in the light of Corollary 5. Now let us just remark that if ǫ < ǫ 0, then v ǫ is in fact a nontrivial solution of (2.3). First of all note that (3.18), (f 2 ) (f 3 ) implies that f(v n )v n dx f(v ǫ )v ǫ dx, as n +. (3.37) Then from (3.14), (3.37) the lower semicontinuity of ǫ w.r.t. the L 1 ( ) convergence imply that w ǫ v ǫ ǫ f(v ǫ )(w v ǫ )dx, w BV( ), (3.38) 20
then v ǫ is in fact a nontrivial solution of (2.3). Moreover, note that from (3.13) c ǫ Φ ǫ (v ǫ ) = Φ ǫ (v ǫ ) Φ ǫ(v ǫ )v ǫ = (f(v ǫ )v ǫ F(v ǫ ))dx liminf (f(v n )v n F(v n ))dx n = Φ ǫ (v n )+o n (1) = c ǫ. Then v ǫ is a ground-state solution of (2.3) consequently u ǫ = v ǫ ( /ǫ) is a ground-state bounded variation solution of (1.1). 3.2 Concentration behavior In the last section we have proved that for each ǫ (0,ǫ 0 ), there exists v ǫ BV( ) solution of (2.3) such that Φ ǫ (v ǫ ) = c ǫ. Now let us show that this sequence of solutions concentrate around a global minimum of V. Before it, let us state prove some preliminaries lemmas. Lemma 8. There exist {y ǫ } ǫ>0 R,δ > 0 such that lim inf ǫ 0 B R (y ǫ) v ǫ dx δ > 0. Proof. Infact, on the contrary, thanks to[12, Theorem 1], it follows that v ǫ 0 in L q ( ) for all 1 q < 1, as ǫ 0. Then, by (f 2 ), (f 3 ) the Lebesgue Convergence Theorem, it follows that f(v ǫ )v ǫ dx = o ǫ (1). Taking w = v ǫ ±tv ǫ in (2.7) passing to the limit as t 0 +, it follows that v ǫ ǫ = f(v ǫ )v ǫ dx = o ǫ (1), which implies that c ǫ = Φ ǫ (v ǫ ) = o ǫ (1), leading to a contradiction with Lemma 4. Lemma 9. The set {ǫy ǫ } ǫ>0 is bounded in. 21
Proof. Supposebycontradiction that thereexistǫ n 0, suchthat ǫ n y n, asn, where y n := y ǫn. In the following we proceed as in the proof of Claim 2 of Proposition 7. Let v n := v ǫn, note that, if ϕ R is like in the proof of such claim, it follows that Φ ǫ n,y n (ṽ n )(ϕ R ṽ n ) = 0, where ṽ n := v n ( y n ). As (v n ), (ṽ n ) is bounded in BV( ) then ṽ n ṽ in L 1 loc (RN ), up to a subsequence, where ṽ 0 by Lemma 8. Then, as before, we get that Φ (ṽ)ṽ 0 then there exists t (0,1] such that tṽ N. Hence in the same way that in Claim 2 this will lead us to the contradiction that c 0 = lim n c ǫn c. Corollary 10. If ǫ n 0, then up to a subsequence, ǫ n y n y where V(y ) = V 0 = inf V. Proof. If ǫ n 0, since by Lemma 9 (ǫ n y n ) n N is bounded, then ǫ n y n y up to a subsequence. As in the proof of Claim 2 of Proposition 7 of Lemma 9, it is possible to prove that c 0 = lim n c ǫ n c V(y ) c 0, where c V(y ) is the mountain pass minimax level of problem (2.3) with V(y ) playing the role of V(ǫx). Then it follows that V(y ) = inf V. Lemma 11. If ǫ n 0, then there exists ṽ BV( ) such that ṽ n := v n ( y n ) ṽ in L 1 loc (RN ) (3.39) f(ṽ n )ṽ n f(ṽ)ṽ in L 1 ( ). (3.40) Proof. First of all, note that as in Lemma 6, it is possible to prove that (v n ) is a bounded sequence in BV( ) then that v n ṽ in L q loc (RN ) for all 1 q < 1, where ṽ BV( ). As in the proof of Lemma 9, it is possible to prove that t (0,1] such that 22
tṽ N V(y ) = N V0 should verify t = 1. Hence ṽ N 0 note that Φ 0 (ṽ) = c 0. In fact c 0 Φ 0 (ṽ) = Φ 0 (ṽ) Φ 0(ṽ)ṽ = (f(ṽ)ṽ F(ṽ))dx liminf (f(ṽ n ) v n F(ṽ n ))dx n R ( N = lim Φǫn (v n ) Φ ) n ǫ n (v n )v n = lim n c ǫ n = c 0. Then lim (f(ṽ n ) v n F(ṽ n ))dx = (f(ṽ)ṽ F(ṽ))dx n hence f(ṽ n )ṽ n F(ṽ n ) f(ṽ)ṽ F(ṽ) in L 1 ( ). Thereby, by (f 4 ), f(v n )v n f(ṽ)ṽ in L 1 (R). As a consequence of the last result, we can finish the proof of Theorem 1, by proving (1.2). In fact, if ǫ n 0, as n, denoting L = f(ṽ)ṽdx, for a given δ > 0, by (3.40), there exists R > 0 n 0 N such that, for n n 0, f(ṽ n )ṽ n dx < δ. (3.41) BR c (0) From which it follows that B R (0) f(ṽ n )ṽ n dx L δ +o n (1). (3.42) By the change of variable ṽ n (x) = u n (ǫ n x+ǫ n y n ), (3.41) (3.42) imply that B c ǫnr (ǫnyn) f(u n )u n dx < ǫ N n δ (3.43) B ǫnr (ǫ ny n) f(u n )u n dx Cǫ N n, (3.44) 23
for n n 0, where C > 0. Taking into account the fact that ǫ n y n x 0 where V(x 0 ) = V 0, we can consider R > 0 such that, for n n 0, B R (ǫ n y n ) B R (x 0 ). Then from (3.43) (3.44), B c ǫnr (x 0) f(u n )u n dx < ǫ N n δ B ǫnr (x 0 ) for n n 0, what finishes de proof of Theorem 1. f(u n )u n dx Cǫ N n, 4 Existence of solutions in the asymptotic constant case In this section we prove Theorem 2 then we consider the assumptions (f 1 ) (f 5 ) (V 1 ) (V 3 ). As can be seen in the statement of Theorem 2, our existence result is independent of ǫ > 0 then we can suppose without lack of generality that ǫ = 1. Then, in this section 1 denotes ǫ when ǫ = 1. Let us define Φ : BV( ) R by Φ(u) = Du + V(x) u dx F(u)dx consider Φ like in Section 2. By the conditions on f, as in the last section, it is easy to see that Φ Φ satisfy the geometric conditions of the Mountain Pass Theorem then it is well defined the minimax levels where c = inf sup Φ(γ(t)), γ Γt [0,1] c = inf sup Φ (γ(t)) γ Γ t [0,1] Γ = {γ C([0,1],BV( )); γ(0) = 0Φ(γ(1)) < 0} Γ = {γ C([0,1],BV( ); γ(0) = 0Φ (γ(1)) < 0}. By (V 3 ), it is easy to see that Φ(u) Φ (u) for all u BV( ) as a consequence, c c. (4.45) 24
By the results in [11,12] together with the arguments explored in Section 5, it follows that there exists a critical point of Φ, w BV( ), such that Φ (w ) = c. Also by [12], it is possible to define the Nehari manifolds associated to Φ Φ, respectively by N = {v BV( )\{0}; Φ (v)v = 0} N = {v BV( )\{0}; Φ (v)v = 0}. By the discussion in [11] it follows that c = inf N Φ c = inf N Φ. Moreover, it has been proved there that if there exists u 0 BV( ) such that Φ(u 0 ) = inf N Φ, then u 0 is a bounded variation solution of (1.1). In order to effectively start with the proof of Theorem 2let us consider the two possible cases about c c. Case 1: c = c. If this situation occurs, problem (1.1) has a ground state solution. In fact, since w N, then Dw + V(x) w dx Dw + V w dx = f(w )w dx, i.e. Φ (w )w 0. Then there exists t (0,1] such that tw N. Hence, by (f 5 ), c Φ(tw ) = Φ(tw ) Φ (tw )tw = (f(tw )tw F(tw ))dx (f(w )w F(w ))dx = Φ (w ) = c = c. This means that t = 1 w is also a minimizer of Φ on N then is a groundstate bounded variation solution of (1.1). 25
Case 2: c < c. By [12, Theorem 4], there exist (u n ) BV( ) such that lim Φ(u n) = c (4.46) n w 1 u n 1 f(u n )(w u)dx τ n w u n 1, w BV( ), (4.47) where τ n 0, as n. As in Lemma 6, it is possible to prove that (u n ) is a bounded sequence in BV( ). By the compactness of the embeddings of BV( ) in L q loc (RN ) for 1 q < 1, it follows that there exists u 0 BV loc ( ) such that u n u 0 in L q loc (RN ) for 1 q < 1 u n u 0 a.e. in, as n +. Note that as in the last section, it is possible to prove that u 0 BV( ). Moreover, as in (3.19), u n 1 0, as n +. (4.48) As in the proof of Proposition 7, let us use the Concentration of Compactness Principle of Lions [18] to the following bounded sequence in L 1 ( ), ρ n (x) := u n(x) u n 1. By such a principle, one only one of the following statements hold: (Vanishing) lim sup ρ n dx = 0, R > 0; n + y B R (y) (Compactness) There exist (y n ) such that for all η > 0, there exists R > 0 such that B R (y n) ρ n dx 1 η, n N; (4.49) (Dichotomy) There exist (y n ), α (0,1), R 1 > 0, R n + such that the functions ρ n,1 (x) := χ BR1 (y n)(x)ρ n (x) ρ n,2 (x) := χ B c Rn (y n)(x)ρ n (x) satisfy ρ 1,n dx α ρ 2,n dx 1 α. (4.50) 26
Note that Vanishing does not occur, otherwise, by [12], it would hold that ρ n 0 in L q ( ), for all 1 q < 1. Taking (4.48) into account, this would imply that u n 0 in L q ( ), for all 1 q < 1 then this would led us to c = 0, a clear contradiction. The case in which Dichotomy takes place, we get a contradiction in both situations, when (y n ) is a bounded or an unbounded sequence, just repeating the arguments in the proof of Proposition 7. Then it follows that Compactness holds then, as in the proof of Claim 3 we can prove that (y n ) is a bounded sequence. Then, for η > 0, let R > 0 such that (4.49) holds note that this implies that ρ n dx < η, n N, BR c (0) which is equivalent to B c R (0) u n dx η u n 1 Cη, n N. (4.51) Since u 0 L 1 ( ), there exists R 0 > 0 such that B c R 0 (0) u 0 dx η. (4.52) Then, for R 1 max{r,r 0 }, since u n u 0 in L 1 (B R1 (0)), there exists n 0 N such that B R1 (0) Then, by (4.51), (4.52) (4.53), it follows that if n n 0, u n u 0 dx η + B c R 1 (0) u n u 0 dx η. (4.53) u n u 0 dx η + u n dx+ u 0 dx C 1 η. BR c (0) B c 1 R (0) 1 Hence u n u 0 in L 1 ( ) since (u n ) is bounded in L 1 ( ), by interpolation inequality it follows that u n u 0 in L q ( ), for all 1 q < 1. (4.54) From (4.54), (f 1 ) (f 2 ) it follows that f(u n )u n dx f(u 0 )u 0 dx, as n +. (4.55) 27
Then from (3.14), (3.40) the lower semicontinuity of 1 w.r.t. the L 1 ( ) convergence imply that w 1 u 0 1 f(u 0 )(w u 0 )dx, w BV( ), (4.56) then u 0 is in fact a nontrivial solution of (1.1). Moreover, note that from (4.46) c Φ(u 0 ) = Φ(vu 0 ) Φ (u 0 )u 0 = (f(u 0 )u 0 F(u 0 ))dx liminf (f(u n )u n F(u n ))dx n = Φ(u n )+o n (1) = c. Then u 0 is a ground-state bounded variation solution of (1.1) this finish the proof of Theorem 2. 5 Existence of ground state solution for autonomous case In this short section, let us prove that there exists a ground-state solution to the autonomous problem 1 v +V v v = f(v) in, u BV( ). (5.57) Let Φ, c N defined as in Section 3. By [12, Theorem 1.4], there exists (w n ) BV( ) such that Φ (w n ) c moreover, w n w n f(w n )(w w n )dx, w BV( ). (5.58) As in the proof of Lemma 6, it is possible to prove that (w n ) is a bounded sequence in BV( ) then w n w in L q loc (RN ), where 1 q < 1. It follows as in (3.17) that w BV( ). Also, there exist R,β > 0 a sequence (y n ) such that lim inf w n dx β. (5.59) n + B R (y n) 28
In fact, otherwise, by [12, Theorem 1.1], w n 0 in L q ( ) for 1 < q < 1 then, by (f 2 ) (f 3 ), Φ (w n ) 0, leading to a clear contradiction with the fact that c > 0. Then it follows that w 0. By proceeding exactly as in the proof of Proposition 7, Claim 1, it follows that Φ (w )w 0. Then there exists t (0,1] such that t w N. Note also that c +o n (1) = Φ (w n )+o n (1) = Φ (w n ) Φ (w n )w n = (f(w n )w n F(w n ))dx. (5.60) Then applying Fatou s Lemma in the last inequality together with (f 4 ), it follows that c (f(w )w F(w ))dx (f(t w )t w F(t w ))dx = Φ (t w ) Φ (t w )t w = Φ (t w ) c. Hence, t = 1, Φ (w ) = c, by [11, Theorem 5], it follows that w is a ground-state bounded variation solution of (5.57). Acknowledgment M.T.O. Pimenta has been supported by FAPESP CNPq/Brazil 442520/2014-0. C.O. Alves was partially supported by CNPq/Brazil 304036/2013-7 INCT-MAT. References [1] A. Ambrosetti, M. Badiale S. Cingolani, Semiclassical states of nonlinear Schrödinger equations, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 140 (1997), 285-300. [2] G. Anzellotti, The Euler equation for functionals with linear growth, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 290, No. 2, 483-501 (1985). [3] H. Attouch, G. Buttazzo G. Michaille, Variational analysis in Sobolev BV spaces: applications to PDEs optimization, MPS-SIAM, Philadelphia (2006). 29
[4] K. Chang, Variational methods for non-differentiable functionals their applications to partial differential equations, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 80, 102-129 (1981). [5] K. Chang, The spectrum of the 1 Laplace operator, Commun. Contemp. Math., 9, No. 4, 515-543 (2009). [6] S. Cingolani M. Lazzo, Multiple semiclassical sting waves for a class of nonlinear Schrödinger equations, Topol. Methods. Nonl. Analysis 10 (1997), 1-13. [7] M. del Pino P.L. Felmer, Local mountain pass for semilinear elliptic problems in unbounded domains, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 4, no. 2, (1996) 121-137. [8] F. Clarke, Generalized gradients applications, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 205, 247-262 (1975). [9] M. Degiovanni P. Magrone, Linking solutions for quasilinear equations at critical growth involving the 1 Laplace operator, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, 36, 591-609 (2009). [10] L. Evans R. Gariepy, Measure theory fine properties of functions, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (1992). [11] G.M. Figueiredo M.T.O. Pimenta, Nehari method for locally Lipschitz functionals with examples in problems in the space of bounded variation functions, to appear. [12] G.M. Figueiredo M.T.O. Pimenta, Strauss Lions type results in BV( ) with an application to 1-Laplacian problem, ArXiv 1610.07369v1. [13] A. Floer A. Weinstein, Nonspreading wave packets for the cubic Schrödinger equation with a bounded potential, J. Funct. Anal. 69, no. 3, (1986) 397-408. [14] C. Gui, Existence of multi-bump solutions for nonlinear Schrödinger equations via variational method, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 21, no. 5-6, (1996) 787-820. [15] E. Giusti, Minimal surfaces functions of bounded variation, Birkhäuser, Boston (1984). 30
[16] Y. Jianfu Z. Xiping, On the existence of nontrivial solution of quasilinear elliptic boundary value problem for unbounded domains, Acta Math. Sci. 7(3) 1987, 341-359. [17] B. Kawohl F. Schuricht, Dirichlet problems for the 1 Laplace operator, including the eigenvalue problem, Commun. Contemp. Math., 9, No. 4, 525-543 (2007). [18] P.L. Lions, The concentration-compactness principle in the Calculus ov Variations. The Locally compact case, part 2, Analles Inst. H. Poincaré Section C, 1, 223-283 (1984). [19] Y.G. Oh, On positive multi-lump bound states of nonlinear Schrödinger equations under multiple well potential, Comm. Math. Phys. 131, no. 2, (1990) 223-253. [20] P.H. Rabinowitz, On a class of nonlinear Schrödinger equations, Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 43, no. 2, (1992) 270-291. [21] A. Szulkin, Minimax principle for lower semicontinuous functions applications to nonlinear boundary value problems, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré, 3, n 2, 77-109 (1986). [22] X. Wang, On concentration of positive bound states of nonlinear Schrödinger equations, Comm. Math. Phys., 153, no. 2 (1993) 229-244. 31