The Existence Result for a Fractional Kirchhoff Equation Involving Doubly Critical Exponents and Combined Nonlinearities ()
1. Introduction
This paper is focused on the fractional Kirchhoff equation with combined nonlinearities as follows:
(1.1)
where a is a positive constant, which will be defined specifically in the sequel,
,
,
,
and
,
,
is a Lagrange constant. The fractional Laplacion
can be defined as
for
, where
is the Schwartz space of rapidly decaying
function,
denotes an open ball of radius
centered at
and the constant
.
For the case of
,
,
, problem (1.1) is a classical Kirchhoff equation. And this type of equation has been associated with the following equation
(1.2)
Problem 1.2 was proposed by Kirchhoff [1] in 1883 at the outset, where he obtained the classical D’Alembert wave equation, where the nonlinearity
is of general type. Besides, the physical and biological background of (1.2) can be found in [2] [3] and the references therein. And it has brought itself into notice after the seminal contribution of [4] . Next let’s study this type of equation:
(1.3)
When
, equation (1.3) is a type of typical Kirchhoff equation. And in the recent years, it has been studied by many authors. For example, in [5] , He and Zou obtained the existence and concentration behavior of positive solutions for a Kirchhoff equation. In [6] , Figueiredo et al. studied the existence and concentration results for a Kirchhoff type equation with general nonlinearities. For more results about the existence of solutions to the Kirchhoff type equation like (1.3) with
, we refer readers to [7] [8] and the references therein.
Moreover, for the case of
, namely, for the nonlocal operator
, its background can be found in several areas such as fractional quantum mechanics [9] , physics [10] and so on. About the fractional Kirchhoff problems, to the best of our knowledge, a lot of authors have obtained fruitful results. For example, in [11] , Caffarelli and Silvestre introduced the harmonic extension method changing this nonlocal problem into a local one in higher dimensions. In [12] , Gu and Yang studied a singular perturbation fractional Kirchhoff equation in the critical case. Furthermore, readers can refer to [13] [14] and the references therein for more results on the existence of solutions for the fractional Kirchhoff equation (1.3).
Motivated by Li and Chen ( [15] and [16] ), the aim of this paper is to generalize their results to the case of mixed nonlinearities.
By direct computation, it is easy to find that if
, the critical Sobolev exponent
and the fractional Gagliardo-Nirenberg-Sobolev critical exponent
are equal, moreover,
. And in this paper, we study the case of
, namely, the doubly critical exponents case. Besides, we have
(1.4)
It is customary that a (weak) solution of problem (1.1) is a critical point of the energy functional
constrained on
where
The fractional Sobolev space
is defined as
with the norm
where
By remark 1.5.1 of [17] , we know the fact that a (local) point of minimum of a differentiable functional is a critical point. Then we study the minimization problem with respect to the fractional Kirchhoff functional on the
-constrained manifold:
(1.5)
This paper
denotes the norm of
defined by
. If
, we denote the space
by
, the set
by
, the functional
by
, and
by
respectively.
By the above notations, we are ready to give the main result of this paper, namely, a result about the minimization problem (1.5).
Theorem 1.1. Let
,
and
(where
is defined in Lemma 2.1),
,
, and
satisfies the following condition:
(C)
,
,
, and there exists a sufficiently small
such that meas
.
Then, there exists a positive constant
such that if
, then
and
Furthermore,
has an energy minimizer for
, and has no minimizers for
.
Remark 1.1. By Theorem 1.1, we get a threshold value of
which separates the existence and nonexistence of minimizers, which improves ( [15] , Theorem 1.2), where the existence of minimizers for (1.1) with
and
is obtained. The main obstruction is to impose energy estimates to characterize the threshold value
and the infimum energy level
for
.
Remark 1.2. Theorem 1.1 is also true in the case of
, with only a small change in the case of
, which we omit here.
Remark 1.3. For
, readers can verify that it satisfies the condition (C) in Theorem 1.1.
This paper is organized as follows: We first list some preliminaries in Section 2, the main proof of Theorem 1.1 will be given in Section 3 and finally, we summarize the main contents of this paper in Section 4.
2. Preliminaries
In this section, some results which will be used frequently throughout the rest of the paper are firstly listed below.
Lemma 2.1. ( [18] ) Let
and
be such that
. Then, there exists a positive constant
such that, for any measurable and compactly supported function
, one has
(2.1)
where
is the so-called fractional critical Sobolev exponent. Moreover, equality (2.2) holds if and only if
with
,
,
fixed constants,
is the best Sobolev embedding constant.
Lemma 2.2 ( [19] ) Let
and
, then inequality
(2.2)
holds, where
,
and the function
optimizes (2.2) and is the unique nonnegative radically solution of the fractional nonlinear equation
According to Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2, when
and
, the fractional Sobolev inequality (2.1) and the Gagliardo-Nirenberg-Sobolev inequality (2.2) can be rewritten, in other words, the fractional Sobolev inequality (2.1) turns into
(2.3)
If we change p into
in (2.2), then the fractional Gagliardo-Nirenberg-Sobolev inequality (2.2) becomes
(2.4)
with the equality holds when
, where
and
.
Particularly, when
, where
, one has
Similar to ( [20] , Lemma 5.1), one gets the result about the embedding as follows:
Lemma 2.3. Assume that
satisfies condition (C), then the embedding
↪
is compact for
.
The proof of this lemma has already been given in ( [16] , Lemma 2.3), but for the readers’ convenience, we sketch it here again.
Proof. Step 1. We first show that
↪
holds for
.
By the Sobolev embedding theorem, one gets that
↪
continuously. Further, from
↪
continuously, we deduce that
↪
continuously.
Suppose that
is a sequence such that
in
. Then one gets
in
and
in
, where
is a ball in
with radius R centered at
.
From condition (C), one gets
, it follows that for any
, there exists
such that
Thus,
From this, we conclude that
Thus,
↪
is compact.
Step 2. We prove the case of
.
Since
↪
is compact by Step 1, one obtains that
in
. By the following fractional Gagliardo-Nirenberg-Sobolev inequality (
),
we can deduce that
in
for
.
The following lemma is adapted from ( [16] , Lemma 2.5), for readers’ convenience, we provide a brief proof.
Lemma 2.4. Assume that
and the energy functional
is defined as
Set
,
. Then
for
, where
Proof. Choosing
in
. Then
where
. By the assumption of
, it yields that for
,
(2.5)
where
is the surface area of unit sphere in
, and
(2.6)
(2.7)
For
, there is
(2.8)
Since
and
, we consider the computation of
in three cases as below:
1) If
, then
and
2) If
, then
and
3) If
, then
and
So, there exists a
such that
(2.9)
Then we consider a radially symmetric cut-off function
, which satisfies
in
,
in
and
,
.
Set
,
. Then it’s easy to get that
and
According to the definition of function
, it follows that
where
In addition, we get the following estimate
And it follows from Hölder inequality that
Choosing
, we obtain that
In addition,
where
is bounded from above by (2.8) and Hölder inequality. Then one gets
(2.10)
When
and R is sufficiently large, we get
Thus, it follows from (2.10) that
as
, i.e.,
for
.
In the following lemma, we give the estimates of
for
.
Lemma 2.5. Suppose
, d is a positive constant and
satisfies condition (C). Let
, then
Proof. 1) If
, we set
and choose
satisfying condition (C) in Theorem 1.1. Firstly, by Hölder inequality and
, we have
Then by Sobolev inequality, Young’s inequality, Hölder inequality and condition (C), we get for any
,
Let
, by direct computation, one gets
When
, there is
and
Thus, we get
If
, namely
, we set
satisties the condition that
and if
, i.e.,
, we set
satisties the condition that
Then we get
. This indicates that
for all
.
2) If
, then by (2.10) of Lemma 2.4, we obtain
Similar to the proof of Lemma 2.4, we choose R large enough such that
For
, we obtain that
It follows from the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem that
Therefore, according to the above inequalities and the definition of infimum, we deduce that
3) If
, then using the Sobolev inequality and Hölder inequality as in case (1), we have
Choosing appropriate
(Actually, we set
and
in Theorem), we conclude
for
.
Further, we prove that
for
. Analogous to the proof of Lemma 2.4, we get that there exists a
satisfying for
,
Repeating the previous proof, we get
So, there exists
such that
According to the previous analysis, we obtain
where
are all positive constants.
Setting
, we get
, namely,
. Thus, we deduce
.
3. Proof of the Main Result
In this section, we prove the main result of this paper.
Proof of Theorem 1.1. By Lemma 2.5, we only need to prove that
has no minimizers for
and it has an energy minimizer for all
when
.
If
and
, using the fractional Sobolev inequality (2.3) and the Hölder inequality as in the proof of Lemma 2.5 and the assumption about a in Theorem 1.1, we deduce
Arguing by contradiction that
can be obtained for
. Then, by Lemma 2.5, we deduce that
From this, we get
in
. So
in
, which is in contradiction with
. Therefore,
has no minimizers for
.
If
and
, let
be a minimizing sequence for
, then by the Fractional Sobolev inequality (2.3), we deduce that
From this, we can deduce
is bounded in
. According to Lemma 2.3, we may assume that there exists a
such that
in
and
in
for
, then
and there exists
such that
Set
. Then
Choosing
, we get
(3.1)
If we choose
in (3.1), then
Since
and
, we obtain
Therefore,
and
has an energy minimizer u.
4. Conclusion
In summary, in the previous sections, combining the fractional Gagliardo-Nirenberg-Sobolev inequality, and fractional Sobolev inequality with some energy estimates, we obtained the existing result of the fractional Kirchhoff equation with doubly critical exponents and mixed nonlinearities.