Abstract
We consider a Robin problem driven by the (p, q)-Laplacian plus an indefinite potential term. The reaction is either resonant with respect to the principal eigenvalue or \((p-1)\)-superlinear but without satisfying the Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz condition. For both cases we show that the problem has at least five nontrivial smooth solutions ordered and with sign information. When \(q=2\) (a (p, 2)-equation), we show that we can slightly improve the conclusions of the two multiplicity theorems.
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Introduction
Let \(\Omega \subseteq {\mathbb {R}}^N\) be a bounded domain with a \(C^2\)-boundary \(\partial \Omega \). In this paper, we study the following nonlinear, nonhomogeneous Robin problem
with \(1<q<p\). For every \(r\in (1,\infty )\), by \(\Delta _r\) we denote the r-Laplace differential operator defined by
In problem (1.1) we have the sum of two such operators. So, the differential operator in (1.1) is not homogeneous and so many of the techniques used in p-Laplacian equations, can not be employed here. Equations driven by the sum of two operators of different nature, arise often in the mathematical models of various physical processes. We mention the works of Bahrouni-Rădulescu-Repovš [3] (transonic flow problems), Benci-D’Avenia-Fortunato-Pisani [5] (quantum physics), Cherfils-Il’yasov [7] (reaction-diffusion systems), Zhikov [34] (nonlinear elasticity theory).
In problem (1.1), in addition to the (p, q)-differential operator there is also a potential term \(\xi (z) |u|^{p-2}u\), with the potential function \(\xi \in L^\infty (\Omega )\) being in general indefinite (that is, sign-changing). This means that the left-hand side of (1.1) is not coercive, an additional difficulty in dealing with problem (1.1).
In the reaction (right-hand side of (1.1)), the function f(z, x) is a Carathéodory function (that is, \(z\mapsto f(z,x)\) is measurable for all \(x\in {\mathbb {R}}\) and \(x\mapsto f(z,x)\) is continuous for a.a. \(z\in \Omega \)). We consider two different cases concerning the growth of \(f(z,\cdot )\) as \(x\rightarrow \pm \infty \). First we assume that \(f(z,\cdot )\) exhibits \((p-1)\)-linear growth as \(x\rightarrow \pm \infty \) (that is, \(f(z,\cdot )\) is asymptotically \((p-1)\)-homogeneous). In this case we permit resonance with respect to the principal eigenvalue of \(u\mapsto -\Delta _p u + \xi (z)|u|^{p-2}u\) with Robin boundary condition. The resonance occurs from the right of the principal eigenvalue \({\widehat{\lambda }}_1(p)\), in the sense that
uniformly for a.a. \(z\in \Omega \), as \(x\rightarrow \pm \infty \), with \(F(z,x)=\int _0^x f(z,s)\,\mathrm{d}s\).
This makes the energy (Euler) functional of the problem unbounded from below (hence noncoercive) and so we can not use the direct method of the calculus of variations. In the second case we assume that \(f(z,\cdot )\) is \((p-1)\)-superlinear as \(x\rightarrow \pm \infty \) but without satisfying the usual in such cases Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz condition (the “AR-condition” for short). In both cases we assume that \(f(z,\cdot )\) is concave near the origin and also has an oscillatory behavior.
In the boundary condition \(\frac{\partial u}{\partial n_{pq}}\) denotes the conormal derivative corresponding to the (p, q)-Laplacian. This directional derivative is interpreted using the nonlinear Green’s identity (see Papageorgiou-Rădulescu-Repovš [21], Corollary 1.5.16, p. 34) and if \(u\in C^1({\overline{\Omega }})\), then
with \(n(\cdot )\) being the outward unit normal on \(\partial \Omega \).
Using variational tools based on the critical point theory together with truncation and comparison techniques, we show that in both cases problem (1.1) has at least five nontrivial smooth solutions which are ordered and we provide sign information for all of them.
The starting point of our work here is the recent paper of Papageorgiou-Scapellato [24] where the authors deal with a generalized version of the classical concave-convex problem, for equations driven only by the p-Laplacian. The reaction there is parametric and nonnegative and they prove a bifurcation-type theorem describing the changes in the set of positive solutions as the parameter \(\lambda >0\) varies. Here there is no parameter and for this reason we require that \(f(z,\cdot )\) changes sign. Moreover, in the present work in addition to constant sign solutions, we also produce nodal (that is, sign-changing) solutions.
Multiplicity results for (p, q)-equations with resonant or superlinear reaction, can be found in Candito-Gasiński-Livrea [6], Filippakis-Papageorgiou [8], Gasiński-Papageorgiou [10], Gasiński-Winkert [12], Li-Rong-Liang [16], Papageorgiou-Rădulescu [17, 18], Papageorgiou-Scapellato [25], Papageorgiou-Vetro-Vetro [26], Pei-Zhang [29], Sun [31]. Also our work here extends that of Gasiński-Papageorgiou [11], where the authors permit only nonuniform nonresonance for equations driven by the Dirichlet p-Laplacian with no potential term. We also mention the very recent work of Vetro [32], where the author examines perturbations (both sublinear and superlinear) of the eigenvalue problem for the operator \(u\mapsto -\Delta _p u+\xi (z)|u|^{p-2}u\) with Robin boundary condition. Finally we should also mention the works of Amster [2], Papageorgiou-Rădulescu-Repovš [22, 23] and Papageorgiou-Zhang [28], where the authors deal with problems involving concave terms.
2 Mathematical background-hypotheses
In the analysis of problem (1.1), the main spaces are the Sobolev space \(W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) and the Banach space \(C^1({\overline{\Omega }})\). By \(\Vert \cdot \Vert \) we denote the norm of \(W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) defined by
The space \(C^1({\overline{\Omega }})\) is an ordered Banach space with positive (order) cone \(C_+=\{u\in C^1(\overline{\Omega }): u(z)\ge 0 \; \text {for all}\, z\in \overline{\Omega }\}\). This cone has a nonempty interior given by
Let \(r\in (1,\infty )\). By \(A_r: W^{1,r}(\Omega )\rightarrow W^{1,r}(\Omega )^*\) we denote the nonlinear operator defined by
The next proposition summarizes the main properties of this map (see Gasiński-Papageorgiou [12], p. 279).
Proposition 2.1
The operator \(A_r: W^{1,r}(\Omega )\rightarrow W^{1,r}(\Omega )^*\) is bounded (that is, it maps bounded sets to bounded sets), continuous, monotone (hence maximal monotone too) and of type \((S)_+\), that is, it has the following property
“If \(u_n \xrightarrow {w}{u}\) in \(W^{1,r}(\Omega )\) and \(\displaystyle \lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }\langle A_r(u_n), u_n-u\rangle \le 0\), then \(u_n \rightarrow u\) in \(W^{1,r}(\Omega )\)”.
For \(x\in {\mathbb {R}}\), we set \(x^\pm =\max \{\pm x,0\}\). Then, for \(u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\), we define \(u^\pm (z)=u(z)^\pm \) for all \(z\in \Omega \). We know that
If \(h_1,h_2:\Omega \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) are two measurable functions such that \(h_1(z)\le h_2(z)\) for a.a. \(z\in \Omega \), then we define the order interval \([h_1,h_2]\) in \(W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) by
Also, we define
Given a set \(S\subseteq W^{1,p}(\Omega )\), we say that S is downward (resp. upward) directed, if for every \(u_1,u_2\in S\) we can find \(u\in S\) such that \(u\le u_1\), \(u\le u_2\) (resp. \(u_1\le u\), \(u_2\le u\)).
Let X be a Banach space and \(\varphi \in C^1(X)\). By \(K_\varphi \) we denote the critical set of \(\varphi \), that is,
We say that \(\varphi (\cdot )\) satisfies the C-condition, if it has the following property
“Every sequence \(\{u_n\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subseteq X\) such that
$$\begin{aligned}&\{\varphi (u_n)\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subseteq {\mathbb {R}}\; \text {is bounded},\\&(1+\Vert u_n\Vert _X)\varphi '(u_n)\rightarrow 0\; \text {in}\, X^{*} \,\text {as}\, n\rightarrow \infty , \end{aligned}$$admits a strongly convergent subsequence”.
For \(c\in {\mathbb {R}}\), let \(\varphi ^c=\{u\in X: \varphi (u)\le c\}\). Let \(Y_2\subseteq Y_1\subseteq X\). For every \(k\in {\mathbb {N}}_0={\mathbb {N}}\cup \{0\}\), by \(H_k(Y_1,Y_2)\) we denote the \(k^{\mathrm{th}}\) relative singular homology group with integer coefficients for the pair \((Y_1,Y_2)\). Suppose that \(u\in K_\varphi \) is isolated and let \(c=\varphi (u)\). Then, the critical groups of \(\varphi (\cdot )\) at u, are defined by
where \({\mathcal {U}}\) is an open neighborhood of u such that \(K_\varphi \cap \varphi ^c \cap {\mathcal {U}}=\{u\}\).
The excision property of singular homology, implies that this definition is independent of the choice of the isolating neighborhood \({\mathcal {U}}\).
In the resonant case we will use the spectrum of the operator \(u\mapsto -\Delta _p u +\xi (z)|u|^{p-2}u\) with the Robin boundary condition. So, for \(\xi \in L^\infty (\Omega )\) and \(\beta \in C^{0,\alpha }(\partial \Omega )\) (\(0< \alpha <1\)), \(\beta \ge 0\), we consider the following nonlinear eigenvalue problem
We say that \({\widehat{\lambda }}\in {\mathbb {R}}\) is an eigenvalue, if problem (2.1) admits a nontrivial solution \({\widehat{u}}\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\), known as an eigenfunction corresponding to the eigenvalue \({\widehat{\lambda }}\in {\mathbb {R}}\). The nonlinear regularity theory (see Lieberman [15]) implies that \({\widehat{u}}\in C^1({\overline{\Omega }})\). The eigenvalue problem (2.1) was studied by Fragnelli-Mugnai-Papageorgiou [9], who established the existence of a smallest eigenvalue \({\widehat{\lambda }}_1(p)\in {\mathbb {R}}\), which is simple, isolated and admits the following variational characterization
Here \(\gamma _p: W^{1,p}(\Omega )\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) is the \(C^1\)-functional defined by
with \(\sigma (\cdot )\) denoting the \((N-1)\)-dimensional Hausdorff (surface) measure on \(\partial \Omega \). The infimum in (2.2) is realized on the corresponding one-dimensional eigenspace, the elements of which have fixed sign. By \({\widehat{u}}_1(p)\) we denote the positive, \(L^p\)-normalized (that is, \(\Vert {\widehat{u}}_1(p)\Vert _p=1\)) eigenfunction for \({\widehat{\lambda }}_1(p)\). The nonlinear regularity theory and the nonlinear maximum principle, imply that \({\widehat{u}}_1(p)\in \mathrm{int}\, C_+\). Note that if \(\xi \ge 0\) and \(\xi \not \equiv 0\) or \(\beta \not \equiv 0\), then \({\widehat{\lambda }}_1(p)>0\) (see [9]).
We mention that \({\widehat{\lambda }}_1(p)\) is the only eigenvalue with eigenfunctions of fixed sign. All other eigenvalues have nodal (that is, sign-changing) eigenfunctions.
Now we can introduce our hypotheses on the data of problem (1.1).
-
\(\mathrm{H}_0\): \(\xi \in L^\infty (\Omega )\), \(\beta \in C^{0,\alpha }(\partial \Omega )\), \(\beta (z)\ge 0\) for all \(z\in \partial \Omega \).
Remarks
We stress thay \(\xi (\cdot )\) is in general sign changing. If \(\beta \equiv 0\), then we have a Neumann problem.
For the resonant case, the hypotheses on the reaction f(z, x) are the following (recall that \(F(z,x)=\int _0^x f(z,s)\,\mathrm{d}s\)).
-
\({\mathrm{H}}_1\): \(f:\Omega \times {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) is a Carathéodory function such that \(f(z,0)=0\) for a.a. \(z\in \Omega \) and
-
(i) \(|f(z,x)|\le a(z)[1+|x|^{p-1}]\) for a.a. \(z\in \Omega \), all \(x\in {\mathbb {R}}\), with \(a\in L^\infty (\Omega )\);
-
(ii) \(\displaystyle \lim _{x\rightarrow \pm \infty }\frac{p F(z,x)}{|x|^p}={\widehat{\lambda }}_1 (p)\) uniformly for a.a. \(z\in \Omega \);
-
(iii) there exists \(\tau \in (q,p)\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} \limsup _{x\rightarrow \pm \infty }\frac{f(z,x)x-pF(z,x)}{|x|^\tau }\le -\gamma _0<0\quad \text {uniformly for a.a.}\, z\in \Omega ; \end{aligned}$$ -
(iv) there exist \(\mu \in (1,q)\) and \(\delta >0\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} c_0 |x|^\mu \le f(z,x)x\le \mu F(z,x)\quad \text {for a.a.}\, z\in \Omega ,\, \text {all}\, |x|\le \delta ; \end{aligned}$$ -
(v) there exist \(\vartheta _-<0<\vartheta _+\) such that for a.a. \(z\in \Omega \) we have
$$\begin{aligned} f(z,\vartheta _+)-\xi (z)\vartheta _+^{p-1}\le -{\widehat{c}}_+<0<{\widehat{c}}_-\le f(z,\vartheta _-)+\xi (z)|\vartheta _-|^{p-1};\end{aligned}$$ -
(vi) for every \(\rho >0\), there exists \({\widehat{\xi }}_\rho >0\) such that for a.a. \(z\in \Omega \), the function \(x\mapsto f(z,x)+{\widehat{\xi }}_\rho |x|^{p-2}x\) is nondecreasing on \([-\rho ,\rho ]\).
-
Remarks
If \(\lim _{x\rightarrow \pm \infty }\frac{f(z,x)}{|x|^{p-2}x}={\widehat{\lambda }}_1(p)\) uniformly for a.a. \(z\in \Omega \), then hypothesis \(\mathrm{H}_1\)(ii) is satisfied. Therefore we see thay hypothesis \(\mathrm{H}_1\)(ii) covers the case of problems which are resonant as \(x\rightarrow \pm \infty \) with respect to the principal eigenvalue \({\widehat{\lambda }}_1 (p)\). In the process of the proof, we will show that
uniformly for a.a. \(z\in \Omega \). This means that the resonance occurs from the right of \({\widehat{\lambda }}_1 (p)\) and this makes the energy functional of the problem noncoercive, hence we can not employ the direct method of the calculus of variations. Hypothesis \(\mathrm{H}_1\)(iv) implies the presence of a concave term near zero. When there is no potential term (that is, \(\xi \equiv 0\)), then hypotheses \(\mathrm{H}_1\)(iv), (v) dictate an oscillatory behavior for \(f(z,\cdot )\) near zero. In the general case the oscillatory behavior concerns the function \(x\mapsto f(z,x)-\xi (z)|x|^{p-2}x\). Hypothesis \(\mathrm{H}_1\)(vi) is essentially a one-sided Hölder condition. It is satisfied if \(f(z,\cdot )\) is differentiable for a.a. \(z\in \Omega \) and for every \(\rho >0\), we can find \({\widehat{\xi }}_\rho >0\) such that \(f_x' (z,x)x^2\ge -{\widehat{\xi }}_\rho |x|^p\) for a.a. \(z\in \Omega \), all \(|x|\le \rho \).
3 Constant sign solutions
In this section we produce multiple constant sign solutions.
We start by producing two nontrivial smooth solutions, one positive and the other negative, using only the conditions on \(f(z,\cdot )\) near zero.
Proposition 3.1
If hypotheses \(\mathrm{H}_0\), \(\mathrm{H}_1\) (iv), (v), (vi) hold, then problem (1.1) has two constant sign solutions \(u_0\in \mathrm{int}\, C_+\), \(v_0\in -\mathrm{int}\, C_+\) and \(\vartheta _-< v_0(z)<0<u_0(z)<\vartheta _+\) for all \(z\in {\overline{\Omega }}\).
Proof
First we produce the positive solution.
Let \(\eta >\Vert \xi \Vert _\infty \) (see hypotheses \(\mathrm{H}_0\)) and consider the Carathéodory function \(k_+:\Omega \times {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) defined by
We set \(K_+(z,x)=\int _0^x k_+(z,s)\,\mathrm{d}s\) and consider the \(C^1\)-functional \(w_+: W^{1,p}(\Omega )\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) defined by
From (3.1) and since \(\eta >\Vert \xi \Vert _\infty \) and \(\beta \ge 0\) (see hypotheses \(\mathrm{H}_0\)), we see that \(w_+(\cdot )\) is coercive. Also, using the Sobolev embedding theorem, we show that \(w_+(\cdot )\) is sequentially weakly lower semicontinuous. So, by the Weierstrass-Tonelli theorem, we can find \(u_0\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) such that
Let \(u\in \mathrm{int}\, C_+\) and choose \(t\in (0,1)\) small such that
with \(\delta >0\) as in hypothesis \(\mathrm{H}_1\)(iv). We have
Since \(\mu <q\) (see \(\mathrm{H}_1\)(iv)), choosing \(t\in (0,1)\) even smaller if necessary, we have
From (3.2) we have
Evidently
Choosing \(h=-u_0^-\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) in (3.4), we obtain
Next in (3.4) we choose \(h=[u_0-\vartheta _+]^+\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\). We have
So, we have proved that
From (3.5), (3.1) and (3.4) it follows that
From Proposition 2.10 of Papageorgiou-Rădulescu [18] we have that \(u_0\in L^\infty (\Omega )\). So, we can apply the nonlinear regularity theory of Lieberman [15] and infer that \(u_0\in C_+{\setminus } \{0\}\). For \(\rho =\Vert u_0\Vert _\infty \), let \({\widehat{\xi }}_\rho >0\) be as postulated by hypothesis \(\mathrm H_1\)(vi). We have
Clearly we can always assume that \({\widehat{\xi }}_\rho >\Vert \xi \Vert _\infty \). We have
On account of hypothesis \(\mathrm H_1\)(v) and using Proposition 2.10 of Papageorgiou-Rădulescu-Repovš [20], from (3.6) we infer that
Suppose that for some \(z_0\in \partial \Omega \) we have \(u_0(z_0)=\vartheta _+\). Then, from [20] we have \(\frac{\partial u_0}{\partial n}(z_0)>0\). On the other hand from the Robin boundary condition, we have
a contradiction. Therefore, we conclude that
For the negative solution, we introduce the Carathéodory function \(k_-(z,x)\) defined by
We set \(K_-(z,x)=\int _0^x k_-(z,s)\,\mathrm{d}s\) and consider the \(C^1\)-functional \(w_-: W^{1,p}(\Omega )\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) defined by
Using \(w_-(\cdot )\), (3.7) and the direct method of the calculus of variations, as before, we produce a negative solution \(v_0\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) for problem (1.1) such that
\(\square \)
Using these two constant sign solutions and activating the asymptotic hypotheses as \(x\rightarrow \pm \infty \) (see \(\mathrm H_1\)(ii), (iii)), we can produce two more constant sign smooth solutions localized with respect to \(u_0\) and \(v_0\) respectively.
So, let \(u_0\in \mathrm{int}\,C_+\) and \(v_0\in -\mathrm{int}\, C_+\) be the two solutions from Proposition 3.1. As before, let \(\eta >\Vert \xi \Vert _\infty \) and consider the Carathéodory functions \({\widehat{g}}_+,{\widehat{g}}_-:\Omega \times {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) defined by
We set \({\widehat{G}}_+(z,x)=\int _0^x {\widehat{g}}_+(z,s)\,\mathrm{d}s\) and \({\widehat{G}}_-(z,x)=\int _0^x {\widehat{g}}_-(z,s)\,\mathrm{d}s\) and consider the \(C^1\)-functionals \({\widehat{\varphi }}_+, {\widehat{\varphi }}_-: W^{1,p}(\Omega )\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) defined by
for all \(u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\).
Since \(u_0(z)<\vartheta _+\) and \(\vartheta _-<v_0(z)\) for all \(z\in {\overline{\Omega }}\) (see Proposition 3.1), we can also introduce the following truncations of \({\widehat{g}}_\pm (z,\cdot )\)
Both are Carathéodory functions. We set \({\widehat{G}}_+^*(z,x)=\int _0^x {\widehat{g}}_+^* (z,s)\,\mathrm{d}s\) and \({\widehat{G}}_-^*(z,x)=\int _0^x {\widehat{g}}_-^* (z,s)\,\mathrm{d}s\) and consider the \(C^1\)-functionals \({\widehat{\varphi }}_+^*, {\widehat{\varphi }}_+^*:W^{1,p}(\Omega )\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) defined by
for all \(u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\).
From (3.10) and (3.11) and since \(\eta >\Vert \xi \Vert _\infty \), we see that the functionals \({\widehat{\varphi }}_+^*, {\widehat{\varphi }}_+^*\) are coercive. Moreover, from (3.8), (3.9), (3.10), (3.11), we have that
Similarly for \({\widehat{\varphi }}_-\) and \({\widehat{\varphi }}_-^*\) on \([\vartheta _-,0]\).
Proposition 3.2
If hypotheses \(\mathrm{H}_0\), \(\mathrm{H}_1\) hold, then the functionals \({\widehat{\varphi }}_+, {\widehat{\varphi }}_+\) satisfy the C-condition.
Proof
We do the proof for \({\widehat{\varphi }}_+(\cdot )\), the proof for \({\widehat{\varphi }}_-(\cdot )\) being similar.
So, we consider a sequence \(\{u_n\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subseteq W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) such that
From (3.14) we have
In (3.15) we choose \(h=-u_n^-\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\). Then, from (3.8) we have
Next we show that \(\{u_n^+\}\subseteq W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) is bounded too. We argue by contradiction. So, by passing to a subsequence if necessary, we may assume that
We set \(y_n=\frac{u_n^+}{\Vert u_n^+\Vert }\), \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\). Then \(\Vert y_n\Vert =1\), \(y_n\ge 0\) for all \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\). We may assume that
From (3.13) and (3.16), we have
Hypotheses \(\mathrm{H}_1\)(ii), (iii) imply that given \(\epsilon >0\), we can find \(c_8>0\) such that
We return to (3.19) and (3.20). We obtain
We pass to the limit as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) and use (3.18) and the weak lower semicontinuity of \(\gamma _p(\cdot )\) (since \(\gamma _p(\cdot )\) is continuous, convex). We obtain
Since \(\epsilon >0\) is arbitrary, we let \(\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+\) and we have
From (3.14), (3.16) and (3.8), we have
Hypothesis \(\mathrm{H}_1\)(i) implies that
So, if in (3.22) we choose \(h=y_n-y\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\), pass to the limit as \(n\rightarrow +\infty \) and use (3.17), (3.18) and (3.23), we obtain
From (3.21) and (3.24), we infer that
Then it follows that
From (3.13), (3.16), (3.8) and (3.17), we have
On the other hand, from (3.15) with \(h=u_n^+\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\), (3.16) and (3.8), we have
We add (3.26) and (3.27). Then we have
Comparing (3.28) and (3.25), we have a contradiction. Hence
We may assume that
In (3.15) we choose \(h=u_n-u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\), pass to the limit as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) and use (3.29). Then
This proves that \({\widehat{\varphi }}_+(\cdot )\) satisfies the C-condition.
In a similar fashion, we show that \({\widehat{\varphi }}_-(\cdot )\) satisfies the C-condition. \(\square \)
Proposition 3.3
If hypotheses \(\mathrm{H}_0\), \(\mathrm{H}_1\) hold, the \({\widehat{\varphi }}_\pm (t{\widehat{u}}_1(p))\rightarrow -\infty \) as \(t\rightarrow \pm \infty \).
Proof
For a.a. \(z\in \Omega \) and all \(x>0\), we have
On account of hypothesis \(\mathrm{H}_1\)(iii), we can find \(\gamma _2\in (0,\gamma _0)\) and \(M>0\) such that
We return to (3.30) and use (3.31). Then
We pass to the limit as \(x\rightarrow +\infty \) and use hypothesis \(\mathrm{H}_1\)(ii). Then
We infer that
Then we have
Using (3.32) and the fact that \(\tau >q\) (see hypothesis \(\mathrm{H}_1\)(iii)), we infer that
In a similar fashion we show that
\(\square \)
Using (3.8) and (3.9), we can easily check that
We may assume that
Otherwise we already have two more constant sign solutions, one positive different from \(u_0\) in \([u_0,\vartheta _+]\cap \mathrm{int}\, C_+\) and the other negative different from \(v_0\) in \([\vartheta _-,v_0]\cap (-\mathrm{int}\, C_+)\). So, we are done.
Clearly the functionals \({\widehat{\varphi }}_+^*\) and \({\widehat{\varphi }}_-^*\) are coercive (see (3.10) and (3.11)) and sequentially weakly lower semicontinuous. Moreover, we can easily check that
The Weierstrass-Tonelli theorem, together with (3.34), (3.35) and (3.12) and the fact that \(u_0\in \mathrm{int}\,_{C^1({\overline{\Omega }})}[0,\vartheta _+]\) (that is, the interior in \(C^1({\overline{\Omega }})\) of \([0,\vartheta _+]\cap C^1({\overline{\Omega }})\)), \(v_0\in \mathrm{int}\,_{C^1({\overline{\Omega }})}[-\vartheta _-,0]\) (that is, the interior in \(C^1({\overline{\Omega }})\) of \([\vartheta _-,0]\cap C^1({\overline{\Omega }})\)), imply that
and
From Papageorgiou-Rădulescu [18] (see also Bai-Gasiński-Winkert-Zeng [4] for a nonsmooth version), we have
and
Note that we may say that the sets
otherwise on account of (3.35), (3.8), (3.9) we already have a sequence of distinct positive solutions bigger than \(u_0\) and a sequence of distinct negative solutions smaller than \(v_0\) and so we are done. From (3.36), (3.37), (3.38) and Theorem 5.7.6, p. 449, of Papageorgiou-Rădulescu-Repovš, we see that we can find \(\rho \in (0,1)\) small such that
Now we are ready to produce two more constant sign solutions for problem (1.1).
Proposition 3.4
If hypotheses \(\mathrm{H}_0\), \(\mathrm{H}_1\) hold, then problem (1.1) has two more constant sign solutions \({\widehat{u}}\in \mathrm{int}\, C_+\), \(u_0\le {\widehat{u}}\), \(u_0\ne {\widehat{u}}\), \({\widehat{v}}\in - \mathrm{int}\, C_+\), \({\widehat{v}}\le v_0\), \({\widehat{v}}\ne v_0\).
Proof
Propositions 3.2 and 3.3 and (3.39), (3.40) permit the use of the mountain pass theorem on the functionals \({\widehat{\varphi }}_+\), \({\widehat{\varphi }}_-\). Hence we can find \({\widehat{u}}\in K_{{\widehat{\varphi }}_+}\subseteq [u_0)\cap \mathrm{int}\, C_+\), \({\widehat{v}}\in K_{{\widehat{\varphi }}_-}\subseteq (v_0]\cap (-\mathrm{int}\, C_+)\) (see (3.33)) such that
From (3.39), (3.40), (3.41) we infer that
\(\square \)
4 Extremal constant sign solutions
In this section we show that problem (1.1) has extremal constant sign solutions, that is, there exist a smallest positive solution and a biggest negative solution. Using these extremal solutions, in the next section, we will be able to produce a nodal (sign-changing) solution.
Let \(S_+\) (resp. \(S_-\)) be the set of positive (resp. negative) solutions of (1.1). In Sect. 3, we saw that
Proposition 4.1
If hypotheses \(\mathrm{H}_0\), \(\mathrm{H}_1\) hold, then problem (1.1) admits a smallest positive solution \(u_*\in \mathrm{int}\, C_+\) and a biggest negative solution.
Proof
From Papageorgiou-Rădulescu-Repovš [19] (see the proof of Proposition 7), we know that \(S_+\) is downward directed. So, using Lemma 3.10, p. 178, of Hu-Papageorgiou [14], we can find a decreasing sequence \(\{u_n\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}}\subseteq S_+\) such that
We have
From (4.1) (with \(h=u_n\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\)), (4.2) and hypothesis \(\mathrm{H}_1\)(i) it follows that \(\{u_n\}_{n\ge 1}\subseteq W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) is bounded. So, we may assume that
In (4.1) we choose \(h=u_n-u_*\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\), pass to the limit as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) and use (4.3). Then, as in the proof of Proposition 3.2, we obtain
So, passing to the limit as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) in (4.1) and using (4.4), we have that
If we show that \(u_*\ne 0\), then \(u_*\in S_+\) and so \(u_*=\inf S_+\).
On account of hypotheses \(\mathrm{H}_1\)(i), (iv), we have
The unilateral growth restriction on \(f(z,\cdot )\) leads to the following auxiliary Robin problem
From Proposition 12 of Papageorgiou-Vetro-Vetro [27], we know that this problem has a unique positive solution \({\widetilde{u}}\in \mathrm{int}\, C_+\) and since the equation is odd, \({\widetilde{v}}=-{\widetilde{u}}\in -\mathrm{int}\, C_+\) is the unique negative solution of (4.6).
Claim. \({\widetilde{u}}\le u\) for all \(u\in S_+\) and \(v\le {\widetilde{v}}\) for all \(v\in S_-\).
Let \(u\in S_+\) and consider the Carathéodory function \(k_+:\Omega \times {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) defined by
We set \(K_+(z,x)=\int _0^x k_+(z,s)\,\mathrm{d}s\) and consider the \(C^1\)-functional \(\psi _+: W^{1,p}(\Omega )\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) defined by
with \({\widehat{\gamma }}_p\in C^1(W^{1,p}(\Omega ))\) being defined by
Note that \(\psi _+(\cdot )\) is coercive (see (4.7)). Indeed, for every \(v\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) we have that
From this we infer the coercivity of \(\psi _+ (\cdot )\) since \(p>1\).
Also \(\psi _+(\cdot )\) is sequentially weakly lower semicontinuous. So, we can find \({\widetilde{u}}_0\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) such that
Since \(\mu<q<p\), it follows that
Using (4.7) and the nonlinear regularity theory (see [15]), we obtain
From (4.8), (4.9) it follows that
Similarly we show that \(v\le {\widetilde{v}}\) for all \(v\in S_-\). This proves the Claim.
From (4.4) and the Claim, we have \({\widetilde{u}}\le u_*\). Hence \(u_*\ne 0\) and so \(u_*\in S_+\), \(u_*=\inf S_+\).
Similarly, we prove the existence of \(v_*\in S_-\) and \(v\le v_*\) for all \(v\in S_-\). We point out that now \(S_-\) is upward directed. \(\square \)
5 Nodal solutions
In this section, using the extremal constant sign solutions \(u_*\in \mathrm{int}\,C_+\) and \(v_*\in - \mathrm{int}\,C_+\) produced in Proposition 4.1, we show the existence of a nodal (sign-changing) solution. The idea is simple. We focus on the order interval \([v_*,u_*]\) and using a combination of tools and techniques we show that the problem has a solution in \([v_*,u_*]\) distinct from 0, \(u_*\), \(v_*\). Then, on account of the extremality of \(u_*\), \(v_*\), such a solution will be nodal.
To this end, let \(\eta >\Vert \xi \Vert _\infty \) and consider the Carathéodory function \(l:\Omega \times {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) defined by
Also, we consider the positive and negative truncations of \(l(z,\cdot )\), namely the Carathéodory functions \(l_\pm : \Omega \times {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) defined by
We set \(L(z,x)=\int _0^x l(z,s)\,\mathrm{d}s\), \(L_\pm (z,s)=\int _0^x l_\pm (z,s)\,\mathrm{d}s\) and consider the \(C^1\)-functionals \(\lambda ,\lambda _\pm : W^{1,p}(\Omega )\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) defined by
for all \(u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\).
Using (5.1), (5.2) and the nonlinear regularity theory (see [15]), we show that
From (5.4) and the extremality of \(u_*\) and \(v_*\), we conclude that
Proposition 5.1
If hypotheses \(\mathrm{H}_0\), \(\mathrm{H}_1\) hold, then problem (1.1) admits a nodal solution \(y_0\in C^1({\overline{\Omega }})\) such that \(v_*\le y_0\le u_*.\)
Proof
Clearly \(\lambda _+\) is coercive (see (5.1), (5.2)). Also it is sequentially weakly lower semicontinuous. So, we can find \({\widetilde{u}}_*\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) such that
On account of hypothesis \(\mathrm{H}_1\) (iv), we have
Since \(\lambda \Big |_{C_+}=\lambda _+\Big |_{C_+}\) and \(u_*\in \mathrm{int}\, C_+\), it follows that
Similarly, using this time \(\lambda _-(\cdot )\) we obtain that
We may assume that \(\lambda (v_*)\le \lambda (u_*)\), the analysis is similar if the opposite inequality holds, using (5.8) instead of (5.7). From (5.1) and (5.3) we see that we may assume that \(K_\lambda \) is finite (otherwise, we already have a whole sequence of distinct smooth nodal solutions in \([v_*,u_*]\)).
Then from (5.7) and using Theorem 5.7.6, p. 449, of Papageorgiou-Rădulescu-Repovš [21], we can find \(\rho \in (0,1)\) small such that
Since \(\lambda (\cdot )\) is coercive (see (5.1)), it satisfies the C-condition. This fact and (5.9), permit the use of the mountain pass theorem. So, we can find \(y_0\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) such that
Evidently \(y_0\notin \{v_*, u_*\}\) (see (5.9), (5.10)). Also from Theorem 6.5.8, p. 527, of Papageorgiou-Rădulescu-Repovš [21], we have
On the other hand, from hypothesis \(\mathrm{H}_1\)(iv) and Proposition 3.7 of Papageorgiou-Rădulescu [17], we have that
Comparing (5.11) and (5.12), we see that \(y_0\ne 0\) and so \(y_0\in C^1({\overline{\Omega }})\) is a nodal solution of (1.1) and \(v_*\le y_0\le u_*\). \(\square \)
So, summarizing the situation for the resonant case, we can state the following multiplicity theorem for problem (1.1).
Theorem 5.2
If hypotheses \(\mathrm{H}_0\), \(\mathrm{H}_1\) hold, then problem (1.1) has at least five nontrivial solutions \(u_0,{\widehat{u}}\in \mathrm{int}\, C_+\), \(u_0\le {\widehat{u}}\),\(u_0\ne {\widehat{u}}\), \( v_0,{\widehat{v}}\in - \mathrm{int}\, C_+\), \({\widehat{v}}\le v_0\), \(v_0\ne {\widehat{v}}\), \(y_0\in C^1({\overline{\Omega }})\) nodal, \(v_0\le y_0\le u_0\).
6 Superlinear problem
In this section we examine what happens when the reaction \(f(z,\cdot )\) is \((p-1)\)-superlinear as \(x\rightarrow \pm \infty \). The precise hypotheses on the reaction f(z, x) are the following:
-
\({\mathrm{H}}_1'\): \(f:\Omega \times {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) is a Carathéodory function such that \(f(z,0)=0\) for a.a. \(z\in \Omega \) and
-
(i) \(|f(z,x)|\le a(z)[1+|x|^{r-1}]\) for a.a. \(z\in \Omega \), all \(x\in {\mathbb {R}}\), with \(a\in L^\infty (\Omega )\), \(p<r<p^*\);
-
(ii) \(\displaystyle \lim _{x\rightarrow \pm \infty }\frac{F(z,x)}{|x|^p}=+\infty \) uniformly for a.a. \(z\in \Omega \);
-
(iii) there exists \(\tau \in \left( \max \left\{ 1,\frac{N}{p}\right\} (r-p), p^*\right) \), \(\tau >q\), such that
$$\begin{aligned} 0<{\widehat{\gamma }}_0\le \liminf _{x\rightarrow \pm \infty }\frac{f(z,x)x-pF(z,x)}{|x|^\tau } \quad \text {uniformly for a.a.}\, z\in \Omega ; \end{aligned}$$ -
(iv) there exist \(\mu \in (1,q)\) and \(\delta >0\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} c_0 |x|^\mu \le f(z,x)x\le \mu F(z,x)\quad \text {for a.a.}\, z\in \Omega ,\, \text {all}\, |x|\le \delta ; \end{aligned}$$ -
(v) there exist \(\vartheta _-<0<\vartheta _+\) such that for a.a. \(z\in \Omega \) we have
$$\begin{aligned}f(z,\vartheta _+)-\xi (z)\vartheta _+^{p-1}\le -{\widehat{c}}_+<0<{\widehat{c}}_-\le f(z,\vartheta _-)+\xi (z)|\vartheta _-|^{p-1};\end{aligned}$$ -
(vi) for every \(\rho >0\), there exists \({\widehat{\xi }}_\rho >0\) such that for a.a. \(z\in \Omega \), the function \(x\mapsto f(z,x)+{\widehat{\xi }}_\rho |x|^{p-2}x\) is nondecreasing on \([-\rho ,\rho ]\).
-
Remarks
So now compared with hypotheses \(\mathrm{H}_1\), the conditions determining the behavior of \(f(z,\cdot )\) near zero remain the same (see hypotheses \(\mathrm{H}_1'\)(iv), (v), (vi)) and change the asymptotic conditions as \(x\rightarrow \pm \infty \) (see hypotheses \(\mathrm{H}_1'\)(ii), (iii)). Hypotheses \(\mathrm{H}_1'\)(ii), (iii) imply that for a.a. \(z\in \Omega \), \(f(z,\cdot )\) is \((p-1)-\)superlinear, but need not satisfy the usual in superlinear problems Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz condition (the AR-condition for short). Our framework incorporates also superlinear nonlinearities with “slower” growth as \(x\rightarrow \pm \infty \). For example, if \(\xi \equiv 0\) (no potential term), then the function
wth \(\mu<q<p\), \(\vartheta >\mu \), satisfies hypotheses \(\mathrm{H}_1'\) but fails to satisfy the AR-condition.
We argue as in the resonant case. In this case, Proposition 3.2 (the C-condition for the functionals \({\widehat{\varphi }}_+\), \({\widehat{\varphi }}_-\)), is proved as in the Claim in the proof of Proposition 2 in Papageorgiou-Scapellato [24]. Moreover, in this case Proposition 3.3, is an immediate consequence of hypothesis \(\mathrm{H}_1'\)(ii). Since the conditions near zero are the same, the rest of the results (Proposition 3.4 and those in Sect. 4), remain valid and so finally we can state the following multiplicity theorem for the superlinear problem.
Theorem 6.1
If hypotheses \(\mathrm{H}_0\), \(\mathrm{H}_1'\) hold, then problem (1.1) has at least five nontrivial solutions \(u_0,{\widehat{u}}\in \mathrm{int}\, C_+\), \(u_0\le {\widehat{u}}\), \(u_0\ne {\widehat{u}}\), \(v_0,{\widehat{v}}\in - \mathrm{int}\, C_+\), \({\widehat{v}}\le v_0\), \(v_0\ne {\widehat{v}}\), \(y_0\in C^1({\overline{\Omega }})\) nodal, \(v_0\le y_0\le u_0\).
Remark
We stress that in both Theorems 5.2 and 6.1 the solutions are ordered.
7 The (p, 2)-equation
In this section we show that when \(q=2\), we can slightly improve the two multiplicity theorems (Theorem 5.2 and Theorem 6.1). Our work in this section is also related to the recent paper of Vetro [33] on semilinear equations driven by the Robin Laplacian plus an indefinite potential. The author proves a multiplicity result using the reduction technique of Amann [1].
So, now the problem under consideration is the following
with \(2<p\).
Let \(a:{\mathbb {R}}^N\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^N\) be defined by
Evidently
Note that \(a\in C^1({\mathbb {R}}^N,{\mathbb {R}}^N)\) and we have
We have
So, invoking the tangency principle of Pucci-Serrin [30] (Theorem 2.5.2, p. 35) and using Proposition 2.10 of [20], we obtain
In a similar fashion we also have
Therefore for problem (7.1) we can have the following slightly improved version of Theorems 5.2 and 6.1.
Theorem 7.1
If hypotheses \(\mathrm{H}_0\), \(\mathrm{H}_1\) (with \(q=2\)) or hypotheses \(\mathrm{H}_0\), \(\mathrm{H}_1'\) (with \(q=2\)) hold, then problem (7.1) has at least five nontrivial solutions \( u_0,{\widehat{u}}\in \mathrm{int}\, C_+\), \({\widehat{u}}-u_0\in \mathrm{int}\,C_+\), \( v_0,{\widehat{v}}\in - \mathrm{int}\, C_+\), \(v_0-{\widehat{v}}\in \mathrm{int}\, C_+\), \(y_0\in C^1({\overline{\Omega }})\) nodal, \(y_0\in \mathrm{int}_{C^1({\overline{\Omega }})}[v_0,u_0]\).
Change history
16 May 2021
Funding note updated.
References
Amann, H.: Saddle points and multiple solutions of differential equations. Math. Z. 169, 127–166 (1979)
Amster, P.: Multiple solutions for an elliptic system with indefinite Robin boundary conditions. Adv. Nonlinear Anal. 8(1), 603–614 (2019)
Bahrouni, A., Rădulescu, V.D., Repovš, D.D.: Double phase transonic flow problems with variable growth: nonlinear patterns and stationary waves. Nonlinearity 32, 2481–2495 (2019)
Bai, Y., Gasiński, L., Winkert, P., Zeng, S.: \(W^{1, p}\) versus \(C^1\): the nonsmooth case involving critical growth. Bull. Math. Sci. 10, 2050009 (2020)
Benci, V., D’Avenia, P., Fortunato, D., Pisani, L.: Solitons in several dimensions: Derrick’s problem and infinitely many solutions. Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 154, 297–324 (2000)
Candito, P., Gasiński, L., Livrea, R.: Three solutions for parametric problems with nonhomogeneous \((a,2)\)-type differential operators and reaction terms sublinear at zero. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 480, 123398 (2019)
Cherfils, L., Il’yasov, Y.: On the stationary solutions of generalized reaction diffusion equations with p&q- Laplacian. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 4, 9–22 (2005)
Filippakis, M., Papageorgiou, N.S.: Resonant \((p, q)\)-equations with Robin boundary condition. Electr. J. Differ. Equ. 2018, 01 (2018)
Fragnelli, G., Mugnai, D., Papageorgiou, N.S.: The Brezis-Oswald result for quasilinear Robin problems. Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 16, 603–622 (2016)
Gasiński, L., Papageorgiou, N.S.: Dirichlet \((p, q)\)-equations at resonance. Dis. Cont. Dyn. Syst. A 34, 2037–2060 (2014)
Gasiński, L., Papageorgiou, N.S.: Multiple solutions for asymptotically \((p-1)\)-homogeneous \(p\)-Laplacian equations. J. Funct. Anal. 262, 2403–2435 (2012)
Gasiński, L., Papageorgiou, N.S.: Exercises in Analysis. Part 2: Nonlinear Analysis. Springer, Cham (2016)
Gasiński, L., Winkert, P.: Constant sign solutions for double phase problems with superlinear nonlinearity. Nonlin. Anal. 195, 111739 (2020)
Hu, S., Papageorgiou, N.S.: Handbook of Multivalued Analysis, vol. I. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1997)
Lieberman, G.: The natural generalization of the natural conditions of Ladyzhenskaya and Ural’tseva for elliptic equations. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 16, 311–361 (1991)
Li, F., Rong, T., Liang, Z.: Multiple positive solutions for a class of \((2, p)\)-Laplacian equation. J. Math. Phys. 59, 121506 (2018)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Rădulescu, V.D.: Coercive and noncoercive nonlinear Neumann problems with indefinite potential. Forum Math. 28, 545–571 (2016)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Rădulescu, V.D.: Nonlinear nonhomogeneous Robin problems with superlinear reaction term. Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 16, 737–764 (2016)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Rădulescu, V.D., Repovš, D.: Positive solutions for perturbations of the Robin eigenvalue problem plus and indefinite potential. Disc. Cont. Dyn. Syst. A 37, 2589–2618 (2017)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Rădulescu, V.D., Repovš, D.: Positive solutions for nonlinear nonhomogeneous parametric Robin problems. Forum Math. 30, 553–580 (2018)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Rădulescu, V.D., Repovš, D.: Nonlinear Analysis-Theory and Methods. Springer, Switzerland (2019)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Rădulescu, V.D., Repovš, D.: Double-phase problems and a discontinuity property of the spectrum. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 147(7), 2899–2910 (2019)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Rădulescu, V.D., Repovš, D.: Existence and multiplicity of solutions for double-phase Robin problems. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 52(3), 546–560 (2020)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Scapellato, A.: Concave-convex problems for the Robin \(p\)-Laplacian plus an indefinite potential. Mathematics 8, 421 (2020)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Scapellato, A.: Constant sign and nodal solutions for parametric \((p,2)\)-equations. Adv. Nonlin. Anal. 9, 448–476 (2020)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Vetro, C., Vetro, F.: Multiple solutions with sign information for a class of coercive \((p,2)\)-equations. Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. 43, 2343–2371 (2020)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Vetro, C., Vetro, F.: Parametric dependence for the positive solutions of nonlinear, nonhomogeneous Robin problems. Rev. Real Acad. Cienc. Exactas Fis. Nat. Ser. A Mat. 114, 45 (2020)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Zhang, C.: Noncoercive resonant \((p,2)\)-equations with concave terms. Adv. Nonlinear Anal. 9(1), 228–249 (2020)
Pei, R., Zhang, J.: Nontrivial solution for asymmetric \((p,2)\)-Laplacian Dirichlet problem. Bound. Value Probl. 2014, 241 (2014)
Pucci, P., Serrin, J.: The Maximum Principle. Birkhäuser, Basel (2007)
Sun, M.: Multiplicity of solutions for a class of quasilinear elliptic equations at resonance. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 386, 661–668 (2012)
Vetro, C.: Perturbed eigenvalue problems for the \(p\)-Laplacian plus an indefinite potential. Anal. Math. Phys. 10(69), 1–34 (2020)
Vetro, C.: Semilinear Robin problems driven by the Laplacian plus an indefinite potential. Complex Var. Elliptic Equ. 65, 573–587 (2020)
Zhikov, V.V.: On variational problems and nonlinear elliptic equations with nonstandard growth conditions. J. Math. Sci. 173, 463–570 (2011)
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their remarks and criticisms which helped them to improve the presentation.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Catania within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors have declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Papageorgiou, N.S., Scapellato, A. Multiple solutions for Robin (p, q)-equations plus an indefinite potential and a reaction concave near the origin. Anal.Math.Phys. 11, 78 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13324-021-00482-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13324-021-00482-8
Keywords
- (p, q)-Laplacian
- Indefinite potential
- Resonant and superlinear reaction
- Nonlinear regularity
- Nonlinear maximum principle
- Nodal solutions
- Locally concave term