Four Nontrivial Solutions for Kirchhoff Problems with Critical Potential, Critical Exponent and a Concave Term ()
Received 13 November 2015; accepted 27 December 2015; published 30 December 2015

1. Introduction
In this paper, we consider the multiplicity results of nontrivial solutions of the following Kirchhoff problem
(1.1)
where
, Ω is a smooth bounded domain of
,
,
,
,
,
,
is a real parameter,
with
is the topological dual of
satisfying suitable conditions, h is a bounded positive function on Ω.
The original one-dimensional Kirchhoff equation was introduced by Kirchhoff [1] in 1883. His model takes into account the changes in length of the strings produced by transverse vibrations.
In recent years, the existence and multiplicity of solutions to the nonlocal problem
(1.2)
has been studied by various researchers and many interesting and important results can be found. For instance, positive solutions could be obtained in [2] -[4] . Especially, Chen et al. [5] discussed a Kirchhoff type problem when
, where
if
,
if
and
with some proper conditions are sign-changing weight functions. And they have obtained the existence of two positive solutions if
,
.
Researchers, such as Mao and Zhang [6] , Mao and Luan [7] , found sign-changing solutions. As for in nitely many solutions, we refer readers to [8] [9] . He and Zou [10] considered the class of Kirchhoff type problem when
with some conditions and proved a sequence of a.e. positive weak solutions tending to zero in
.
In the case of a bounded domain of
with
, Tarantello [8] proved, under a suitable condition on f,
the existence of at least two solutions to (1.2) for
,
and
.
Before formulating our results, we give some definitions and notation.
The space
is equiped with the norm
![]()
wich equivalent to the norm
![]()
with
. More explicitly, we have
![]()
for all
, with
and
.
Let
be the best Sobolev constant, then
(2.1)
Since our approach is variational, we define the functional
on
by
(2.2)
A point
is a weak solution of the Equation (1.1) if it is the critical point of the functional
. Generally speaking, a function u is called a solution of (1.1) if
and for all
it holds
![]()
Throughout this work, we consider the following assumptions:
(F) There exist
and
such that
, for all x in
.
(H) ![]()
Here,
denotes the ball centered at a with radius r.
In our work, we research the critical points as the minimizers of the energy functional associated to the problem (1.1) on the constraint defined by the Nehari manifold, which are solutions of our system.
Let
be positive number such that
![]()
where
![]()
![]()
Now we can state our main results.
Theorem 1. Assume that
,
and (F) satisfied and
verifying
then the problem (1.1) has at least one positive solution.
Theorem 2. In addition to the assumptions of the Theorem 1, if (H) hold and
then there exists
such that for all
verifying
the problem (1.1) has at least two positive solutions.
Theorem 3. In addition to the assumptions of the Theorem 2, assuming
then the problem (1.1) has at least two positive solutions and two opposite solutions.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we give some preliminaries. Section 3 and 4 are devoted to the proofs of Theorems 1 and 2. In the last Section, we prove the Theorem 3.
2. Preliminaries
Definition 1. Let
E a Banach space and
.
i)
is a Palais-Smale sequence at level c (in short
) in E for I if
![]()
where
tends to 0 as n goes at infinity.
ii) We say that I satisfies the
condition if any
sequence in E for I has a convergent subsequence.
Lemma 1. Let X Banach space, and
verifying the Palais-Smale condition. Suppose that
and that:
i) there exist
,
such that if
then ![]()
ii) there exist
such that
and ![]()
let
where
![]()
then c is critical value of J such that
.
Nehari Manifold
It is well known that the functional
is of class
in
and the solutions of (1.1) are the critical points of
which is not bounded below on
. Consider the lowing Nehari manifold
![]()
Thus,
if and only if
(2.3)
Define
![]()
Then, for ![]()
(2.4)
Now, we split
in three parts:
![]()
![]()
![]()
Note that
contains every nontrivial solution of the problem (1.1). Moreover, we have the following results.
Lemma 2.
is coercive and bounded from below on
.
Proof. If
, then by (2.3) and the Hölder inequality, we deduce that
![]()
Thus,
is coercive and bounded from below on
.
We have the following results.
Lemma 3. Suppose that
is a local minimizer for
on
. Then, if
,
is a critical point of
.
Proof. If
is a local minimizer for
on
, then
is a solution of the optimization problem
![]()
Hence, there exists a Lagrange multipliers
such that
![]()
Thus,
![]()
But
, since
. Hence
. This completes the proof.
Lemma 4. There exists a positive number
such that, for all
we have
.
Proof. Let us reason by contradiction.
Suppose
such that
. Moreover, by the Hölder inequality and the Sobolev embedding theorem, we obtain
![]()
and
![]()
with
![]()
From (2.5) and (2.6), we obtain
, which contradicts an hypothesis.
Thus
. Define
![]()
For the sequel, we need the following Lemma.
Lemma 5. i) For all
such that
, one has
.
ii) There exists
such that for all
, one has
![]()
Proof. i) Let
. By (2.4), we have
![]()
and so
![]()
We conclude that
.
ii) Let
. By (2.4) and the Hölder inequality we get
![]()
Thus, for all
such that
, we have
.
For each
with
, we write
![]()
Lemma 6. Let
real parameters such that
. For each
with
, there exist unique
and
such that
,
,
,
![]()
Proof. With minor modifications, we refer to [11] .
Proposition 1. (see [11] )
i) For all
such that
, there exists a
sequence in
.
ii) For all
such that
, there exists a a
sequence in
.
3. Proof of Theorem 1
Now, taking as a starting point the work of Tarantello [8] , we establish the existence of a local minimum for
on
.
Proposition 2. For all
such that
, the functional
has a minimizer
and it satisfies:
i) ![]()
ii)
is a nontrivial solution of (1.1).
Proof. If
, then by Proposition 1. i) there exists a
sequence in
, thus it bounded by Lemma 2. Then, there exists
and we can extract a subsequence which will denoted by
such that
(3.1)
Thus, by (3.1),
is a weak nontrivial solution of (1.1). Now, we show that
converges to
strongly
in
. Suppose otherwise. By the lower semi-continuity of the norm, then either
and we obtain
![]()
We get a contradiction. Therefore,
converge to
strongly in
. Moreover, we have
. If not, then by Lemma 6, there are two numbers
and
, uniquely defined so that
and
. In particular, we have
. Since
![]()
there exists
such that
. By Lemma 6, we get
![]()
which contradicts the fact that
. Since
and
, then by Lemma 3, we may assume that
is a nontrivial nonnegative solution of (1.1). By the Harnack inequality, we conclude that
and
, see for exanmple [12] .
4. Proof of Theorem 2
Next, we establish the existence of a local minimum for
on
. For this, we require the following Lemma.
Lemma 7. Assume that
then for all
such that
, the functional
has a minimizer
in
and it satisfies:
i) ![]()
ii)
is a nontrivial solution of (1.1) in
.
Proof. If
, then by Proposition 1. ii) there exists a
,
sequence in
, thus it bounded by Lemma 2. Then, there exists
and we can extract a subsequence which will denoted by
such that
![]()
This implies that
![]()
Moreover, by (H) and (2.4) we obtain
![]()
if
we get
(4.1)
This implies that
![]()
Now, we prove that
converges to
strongly in
. Suppose otherwise. Then, either
. By Lemma 6 there is a unique
such that
. Since
![]()
we have
![]()
and this is a contradiction. Hence,
![]()
Thus,
![]()
Since
and
, then by (4.1) and Lemma 3, we may assume that
is a nontrivial nonnegative solution of (1.1). By the maximum principle, we conclude that
.
Now, we complete the proof of Theorem 2. By Propositions 2 and Lemma 7, we obtain that (1.1) has two positive solutions
and
. Since
, this implies that
and
are distinct.
5. Proof of Theorem 3
In this section, we consider the following Nehari submanifold of ![]()
![]()
Thus,
if and only if
![]()
Firsly, we need the following Lemmas.
Lemma 8. Under the hypothesis of theorem 3, there exist
such that
is nonempty for any
and
.
Proof. Fix
and let
![]()
Clearly
and
as
. Moreover, we have
![]()
If
for
, then there exists
such that
. Thus,
and
is nonempty for any
.
Lemma 9. There exist M positive real such that
![]()
for
and any ![]()
Proof. Let
then by (2.3), (2.4) and the Holder inequality, allows us to write
![]()
Thus, if
then we obtain that
(5.1)
Lemma 10. There exist r and
positive constants such that
i) we have
![]()
ii) there exists
when
, with
, such that
.
Proof. We can suppose that the minima of
are realized by
and
. The geometric conditions of the mountain pass theorem are satisfied. Indeed, we have
i) By (2.4), (5.1), the Holder inequality and the fact that
, we get
![]()
Thus, for
there exist
such that
![]()
ii) Let
, then we have for all ![]()
![]()
Letting
for t large enough, we obtain
For t large enough we can ensure
.
Let
and c defined by
![]()
and
![]()
Proof of Theorem 3.
If
then, by the Lemmas 2 and Proposition 1. ii),
verifying the Palais-Smale condition in
. Moreover, from the Lemmas 3, 9 and 10, there exists
such that
![]()
Thus
is the third solution of our system such that
and
. Since (1.1) is odd with respect u, we obtain that
is also a solution of (1.1).