Concentration Compactness

CONCENTRATION COMPACTNESS functional-analytic grounds and applications This page intentionally left blank CONCENTRA...

Author: Kyril Tintarev; Karl-heinz Fieseler

38 downloads 1424 Views 10MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

CONCENTRATION COMPACTNESS functional-analytic grounds and applications

This page intentionally left blank

CONCENTRATION COMPACTNESS functional-analytic grounds and applications KyriI Tintarev Karl-Heinz Fieseler Uppsala University, Sweden

Impe r ial College Pr ess

Published by Imperial College Press 57 Shelton Street Covent Garden London WC2H 9HE Distributed by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. 5 Toh Tuck Link, Singapore 596224 USA ofice: 27 Warren Street, Suite 401-402, Hackensack, NJ 07601 UK ofice: 57 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London WC2H 9HE

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

CONCENTRATION COMPACTNESS Functional-Analytic Grounds and Applications Copyright Q 2007 by Imperial College Press A11 rights reserved. This book, or parts thereox may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, includingphotocopying,recording or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission from the Publisher.

For photocopying of material in this volume, please pay a copying fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. In this case permission to photocopy is not required from the publisher.

ISBN-13 978-1-86094-666-0 ISBN-I 0 1-86094-666-6 ISBN-13 978-1-86094-667-7 (pbk) ISBN-I0 1-86094-667-4 (pbk)

Printed in Singapore by World Scientific Printers (S) Pte Ltd

Preface

The subject of this book, concentration compactness, is a method for establishing convergence, in functional spaces, of sequences that are not a priori located in a compact set. This situation occurs, in particular, in variational problems with functionals that are invariant under some noncompact group of operators, and therefore have non-compact level sets. The concentration compactness argument considers possible "dislocated" limits of the sequence, that is, limits under sequences of the "gauge" operators. The proof of convergence then can be based on elimination of the dislocated limits. Since a concentration compactness argument using blowup sequences appeared in the paper of J. Sacks and K. Uhlenbeck [lo31 on harmonic maps and in the paper of H. BrCzis and L. Nirenberg [24] on a semilinear elliptic equation with a critical nonlinearity, the term "concentration", rooted in the use of unbounded sequences of dilations, has become a common designation for all convergence arguments involving dislocated limits, whatever group of transformations is involved. This was the term adopted in the celebrated series of four papers 1861, 1871, [88] and 1891 of P.-L. Lions, which laid the broad foundations of the method and outlined a wide scope of its applications. The book presents a function-analytic formulation of the concentration compactness, inspired by the connection between weak convergence under sequences of Euclidean shifts and convergence in LP made in the paper [80] of E. Lieb, the celebrated improvement of the Fatou Lemma, known today as BrCzis-Lieb lemma, [22], the use of the BrCzis-Lieb lemma in P.-L. Lions' subadditivity reasoning, and the "multi-bump" expansions of M.Struwe [lll],H.BrCzis and J.-M. Coron [25], P.-L. Lions [go] and numerous later works. The function-analytic theory of concentration compactness follows the spirit of the work of P.L. Lions in one important respect: it gives attention to convergence of

v

Concentration Compactness

vi

arbitrary sequences before studying properties of sequences that originate in specific problems. The functional-analytic framework for concentration compactness is the dislocation space H, D , where H is a separable Hilbert space and D is a fixed group of unitary operators on H, satisfying certain compactness-related properties. The purpose of endowing a Hilbert space with a group D is to define an enhancement of the weak convergence: we say that a sequence uk converges t o zero D-weakly if for every sequence gk E D , gkuk 0. A refinement of the Banach-Alaoglou theorem (weak compactness of the unit balls) then can be stated in terms of such convergence: any bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence that, after subtraction of all dislocated weak limits (terms of the form gkw, gk E Dl w E H), converges to zero D-weakly. If D is the group of all unitary operators, the D-weak convergence becomes convergence in norm, but the group is too large for the above decomposition to hold. On the other hand, the convergence result of Lieb ([80]) states that weak convergence in H1(RN) enhanced by the group of Euclidean shifts yields convergence in measure (which implies, together with the Sobolev imbedding, convergence in the correspondent space Lp(RN)). We have selected the contents for the book in order to give an accessible, rather than technical, presentation of the concentration compactness. We have opted to present the topic in Hilbert space, rather than Banach space, and included three chapters with background material: Chapter 1 - a compilation of theorems from functional analysis, Chapter 2 - a compendium on Sobolev spaces with focus on H1(R) and unbounded sets, and Chapters 7-8 on differentiable manifolds and Lie groups. The reader is expected t o be familiar with basics of point-set topology, metric spaces and measure theory. The presentation of Sobolev spaces in Chapter 2 implicitly emphasizes the role of the conformal group of Euclidean space, an approach which is later generalized in the concentration compactness argument for a conformal group of a manifold in the treatment of subelliptic Sobolev spaces in Chapter 9. The functional-analytic grounds of the concentration compactness are presented in Chapter 3, followed by applications in Chapters 4, 5 and 6 to functions on Euclidean domains. Chapter 9 is an introduction of subelliptic Sobolev spaces on Lie groups, followed by some analogs of problems considered in the preceding chapters that involve subelliptic operators and "magnetic" Laplace-Beltrami operators on manifolds. Chapter 10 surveys several additional applications. The authors will use a follow-up web page www. math. uu.s e / ~ t i n t a r e v / c c .html to provide additional materials, problems, corrections etc.

-

Preface

vii

The authors acknowledge, with their unreserved gratitude, the role of Karen Uhlenbeck in initiating the theme of this book by her inspiring remarks on the role of transformation groups in analysis during her 1996 visit to Sweden. This led to discussions of the functional-analytic formalization of concentration compactness between one of the authors (K.T.) and Ian Schindler that yielded the core statement of this book, Theorem 3.1. The authors thank the head of CEREMATH (Univ.Toulouse I), Jacqueline Fleckinger, for financial support and the warm hospitality throughout the years. They acknowledge with appreciation the editorial involvement of Maria Esteban which brought forth the publication of the core theorem in [106]. The authors acknowledge with enthusiasm the crucial role of R.Schoen who encouraged writing a book on the subject. The first author would like to thank several mathematical departments for offering him visiting positions in 2003-2005 that allowed the work on the manuscript: University of California, Irvine; Technion - Haifa Institute of Technology; University of Queensland; University of Toulouse 1; University of Cyprus (with partial support from the University of Crete); Hebrew University at Jerusalem, and in particular the financial support of the Lady Davis Fellowship Trust and of the Ethel Raybould Fellowship; they also acknowledge a partial use of funds from the Swedish Research Council. The authors would like to extend their gratitude to their home department at Uppsala for allowing, for the final three months of writing, to reschedule part of their teaching to the following semester. The authors thank J. Chabrowski for careful reading and commenting on a main portion of the manuscript, and V. Benci, D.-M. Cao, G. Cerami, H. Brkzis, E. Hebey, E. Lieb, V. Maz'ya, Y. Pinchover, M. Schechter and I. Schindler for their comments and remarks during the work on the manuscript. Their special gratitude is to Hildegard Fieseler and Sonia Pratt - Tintarev for their warm support and patience.

Karl-Heinz Fieseler, Kyril Tintarev


Contents

Preface

v

1. Functional spaces and convergence

1

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8

Definitions and examples of functional spaces . . . . . . . . Holder inequality. Young inequality for convolutions . . . . ArzelbAscolitheorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hilbert space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weak convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linear operators in Hilbert space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differentiable functionals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Continuous and differentiable functionals in LP-spaces . . .

2 . Sobolev spaces

1 4 7 8 13 16 20 23 29

2.1 Weak derivatives. Definition of Sobolev spaces . . . . . . . 2.2 Chain rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Coordinate transformations . Trace domains and extension domains . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Friedrichs inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Compactness lemma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Poincarkinequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Space V ~ ~ ~. Sobolev, ( I W Hardy ~ ) and Nash inequalities . . . 2.8 Sobolev imbeddings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 Trace on the boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10 Differentiable functionals in Sobolev spaces . . . . . . . . . 2.11 Sobolev spaces of higher order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

29 32 34 37 39 41 43

47 51 56 57


x

3. Weak convergence decomposition 3.1 D-weak convergence and dislocation spaces . . . . . . . . . 3.2 D-weak convergence in l 2 with shifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Weak convergence decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Uniqueness in the weak convergence decomposition . . . . . 3.5 D-flask subspaces. D-weak compactness . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 D-weak convergence with shift operators in R N . . . . . . . 3.7 Constrained minimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 Compactness in the presence of symmetries . . . . . . . . . 3.9 The concentration compactness argument . . . . . . . . . . 3.10 Bibliographic remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Concentration compactness with Euclidean shifts

59 60 61 62 68 69 70 75 77 79 80 83

Flask sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Existence of Sobolev minimizers on flask domains . . . . . . 89 Rellich sets and compactness of Sobolev imbeddings . . . . 90 Concentration compactness with symmetry . . . . . . . . . 91 Concentration compactness and the Friedrichs inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 4.6 Solvability in non-flask domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 4.7 Convergence by penalty a t infinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 4.8 Minimizers with finite symmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 4.9 Positive non-extremal solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 4.10 Bibliographic remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

5. Concentration compactness with dilations 5.1 Semilinear elliptic equations with the critical exponent . . . 5.2 Oscillatory critical nonlinearity and the minimizer in the Sobolev inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 The Brkzis-Nirenberg problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Minimizer for the critical trace inequality . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 A singular subcritical problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Minimizer for the Hardy-Sobolev-Maz'ya inequality . . . . 5.7 Bibliographic remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Minimax problems

109 109 116 121 126 131 136 137 141

6.1 The mountain pass theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 6.2 Functionals for the semilinear elliptic problems . . . . . . . 145

Contents

6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6

xi

Critical points of the mountain pass type . . . . . . . . . . 149 Mountain pass problems with the critical exponent . . . . . 155 Critical problem with punitive asymptotic values . . . . . . 157 Bibliographic remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

7. Differentiable manifolds 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5

161

Differentiable manifolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Tangent vectors and vector fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Cotangent vectors and 1-forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Tensor fields of degree 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Differential forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

8 . Riemannian manifolds and Lie groups 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6

181

Riemannian manifolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lie groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The exponential map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lie group actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliographic remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

181 189 193 197 199 201

9. Sobolev spaces on manifolds and subelliptic problems

203

Sobolev inequality on periodic manifolds . . . . . . . . . . . “Magnetic” Sobolev space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Magnetic shifts and D-convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subelliptic mollifiers and Sobolev spaces on Carnotgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5 Compactness of subelliptic Sobolev imbeddings . . . . . . . 9.6 Subelliptic Friedrichs and Poincark inequalities . . . . . . . 9.7 Subelliptic Sobolev inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.8 Concentration compactness on Carnot groups due to shifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.9 Concentration compactness on Carnot groups due t o dilations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.10 Bibliographic remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4

10. Further applications

10.1 Dilations on the sphere and Yamabe problem . . . . . . 10.2 Global compactness in spaces H”(RN) and D”.2 ( R N )

203 205 206 210 217 218 221 222 224 227 23 1

.. ..

231 232


xii

10.3 Minimizer in the Nash inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 A minimization problem with nonlocal term . . . . . . . . . 10.5 Concentration compactness with topological charge . . . . . 10.6 Bibliographic remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

236 237 240 244

Appendix A

Covering lemma

247

Appendix B

Rearrangement inequalities

249

Appendix C Maximum principle

251

Bibliography

253

Index

26 1

Chapter 1

Functional spaces and convergence

In this chapter we include some background material concerning LP-spaces and the weak convergence in Hilbert space. The reader is expected to know basics of linear algebra, measure theory and metric spaces. The few statements that we give with only partial proofs can be found in many textbooks on functional analysis, in particular in [124]. 1.1

Definitions and examples of functional spaces

Definition 1.1 A norm on a real vector space V is a function [0,co) satisfying the following conditions:

11

:V

-+

( I ) [lull = 0 e=.v = 0 ( 2 ) Homogeneity: IIXvII = I X I . llvll 'v'X E IR,v E V . (3) Triangle inequality: Ilv wll \lull Ilwll VV,W E V

+

+

0 around a vector v E V as well as convergent sequences: A sequence of vectors v,, n E N , converges to a vector v E V , written as limn,, v, = v or simply v , + v if and only if for any E > 0 there are only finitely many v, lying outside the open ball B,(v), or, equivalently, if llv, - v11 -+ 0 i n R. Definition 1.2 Let V be a normed vector space. A sequence v,, n E N, is called a Cauchy sequence, if for any E > 0 there is a number no E N , such

a


2

that llun - un,II < E for all n 2 no. A normed vector space V is called complete or a Banach space if any Cauchy sequence in V is convergent. It is immediate from the definition that any convergent sequence is a Cauchy sequence. The converse is in general not true.

Example 1.1

+ +

(1) Take V := R N and for x := (xl, ...,XN) define 11x11 := Jxf ... x$, the Euclidean norm . We will follow the convention to denote the norm in RN as I . I rather than 11 . 11. Other possible, metrically equivalent choices are 1x1 := max{lxll, ..., IxNl), the maximum norm, or 1x1 := lxll ... lxNl, but, unless specified otherwise, the notation of the norm in EXN will always refer to the Euclidean norm. The space R N is complete. (2) Let X be a topological space (e.g. a set in R N ) . The normed space C ( X ) is the vector space of all real valued bounded continuous functions on X equipped with the norm

+ +

Ilf ll

:= SUP xEX

If (XI(.

The space C ( X ) is complete. (3) Let R C IRN be a Lebesgue measurable set, p E [ l , m ) and let w : R + (0, oo) be a measurable function. Then the set IP(R, w) consisting of all Lebesgue-measurable functions f : R + R such that 1 f(x)IPw(x)dx < oo constitutes a vector space, containing as a subspace the set N(R) of all measurable functions f : R -+ R with f (R \ 0) c R being of Lebesgue measure 0. We denote LP(R, w) the factor space IP(S1,w)/N(R), and, following the usual convention, shall not distinguish in our notation between a function f E IP(R, w) and its residue class f N(R) E LP(R, w). The space LP(R, w) is equipped with the following norm (the "p-norm")

+

if I

:=

Ilf

llP

:=

(lif

1

(x)l~w(x)dx)

If w = 1, one writes LP(R) instead of LP(R,w). The space I W ( R ) consists of all a.e. bounded Lebesgue-measurable functions with the norm

sf I1

:= Ilf

llW

:=

,~~ox,",pA If (')I

Chapter 1 Functional spaces

3

and the space Loo(R) is, as above, the factor space IP(R)/N(R). The spaces LP(R, w), as well as Lm(R), are complete, and therefore, Banach spaces. (4) Let R c IRN be an open set. The space Cm(R) consists of functions that are continuous and bounded in R, and whose derivatives up to the order m are continuous and bounded in 52, and it is equipped with the norm

Here the notation DOurefers to u, Dku, k E N, is the n-tuple, n = N k , of all partial derivatives of order k and 1 . I is any (fixed) norm on I t N k . In these notations C(R) may be also referred to as CO(R). The spaces Cm(R) are complete (an elementary proof is based on completeness of R and uniform convergence). The subspace of Cm(R), m = 0,1, . . . that consists of functions whose support supp u = {x E R, u(x)# 0) is compact in R will be denoted C r ( R ) . (5) When X and Y are two normed vector spaces contained in a vector space V, one considers their intersection X n Y as a normed vector space equipped with the norm 1) . JJx 1) J JItris immediate that if X and Y are complete, so is X n Y.

+

We will also consider some vector spaces of functions without an assigned norm. (1) Let X be a metric space. If u is continuous on X we shall write u E Cloc(X). If X is compact, then CI,,(X) = C(X). (2) When R c IRN is an open set we define the vector space Clot( R) asthe space of functions continuous in R that have derivatives up to order m < co that are all continuous in 52. In contrast to that notation, the vector space of functions that have continuous derivatives in R of any order is called simply Cw(R) . The subspace of Cm(R) of functions with compact support in R is denoted C p ( R ) . (3) When R c RN is an open set and p E [I,co), the vector space Lyoc(R) is the space of functions (or more precisely, classes of equivalent functions modulo a.e.) whose restriction to any set K whose closure is compact in R (we write K g 0 ) is in LP(K).


4

1.2

Holder inequality. Young inequality for convolutions

Proposition 1.1 Holder inequality. Let R c EXN be a measurable set, let p 2 1 and let q E (1, +m] satisfy $ + = 1. For every f E LP(R),g E Lq(R), their product is an integrable function, i.e. f g E L1(R), and

Proof. Assume without loss of generality that 11 flip > 0 and llgllq > 0. 1. Case p = 1. By the definition of the Lm-norm, for every E > 0 there is a set A, with lAE1 = 0 such that lg(x) 1 5 11g11 + E for a11 x E R \ A,. Then

which, since E is arbitrary, proves (1.1). 2. Case p > 1. Since the function t H $ value 0 at t = 1, the substitution t =

+

-t, t

> 0, attains its minimal

+ yields the inequality ew ext bp-

From here follows, since If lp, lglQ E L1( 0 ) that 1 f gl E L1( a ) . Moreover, and integrating over R, we have substituting a = and b =

which immediately implies (1.1). Iteration of (1.1) yields the following

>

Corollary 1.1 Let 52 c RN be a measurable set, let pi 1, i = 1,.. . ,m = 0). If fi E LPi(R), satisfy EL1 = 1 (allowing values pi = m with i = 1 , . . . , m, then their product is an integrable function, i.e. IIzlfi E L1(R), and

A

Let V, W be normed vector spaces. A linear map T : V -,W is continuous if and only if it is bounded on the closed unit ball Bl(0) c V, i.e. if and only if

llTll := SUP{IIT(V)II; v E Bl(0))
0. Take any function u E Co(R6). Let p E C r (B1(O), [O, 11) \ (0) be such that J p = 1 (if not, divide p by Jp), let pt(x) = t-Np(t-lx), 0 < t < 6 , and set

It is easy to see that ut E C r ( R ) . Moreover, Ilut

-

ullm = sup zEaa

/

Bl(0)

5

lu(x + ty) - u(x)Ip(y)dy

sup

lu(x+z)-u(x)I.

~Efid~Izl 0 there is R > 0 such that ( ( u- x ~ ~ ( ~ < ) uE . ( Thus ( ~ without loss of generality we may assume that R is bounded. From the integrability of (u(Pin R follows that Ja,n, (u(P+ 0 as b -+ 0. Then, from the density of C(R) in LP(R), using multiplication by a "cut-off' function from Cr(s2,) that equals 1 on Raa, the density of Co(R) in LP(R) is immediate.


6

Definition 1.3 The convolution is the following map -, (7,-(RN):

c,-(rwN)

cr(IRN) x

Due to Lemma 1.1 and the statement that follows the operation of convolution can be extended by continuity as a map from LQ x Lr to L3 with s = s(q,r ) defined below. Proposition 1.2 (Young inequality for convolutions) Let u E L Q ( I R ~v) ,E L " ( R ~ and ) 11 E L 3 ( P N ) where , q, r, s 2 1 and $ f $ = 2. Then

+ +

Proof. Assume without loss of generality that u , v and negative. Let

Noting that

11

are non-

$ + $ + 5 = 1, we have due to (1.2)

IIN

$ ( x ) ( u* v ) ( x ) d x l < Ilallrt

I

I

~

I

II I~ C/ I I ~ ~ ,

Let us estimate Ilallrt.

Similarly b 5 u and estimates into (1.5) gives (1.4).

C ~ I $2

Il$:IIvII;. Substitution of these

Corollary 1.2 Let u E L Q ( R N ) v, E L ' ( I R ~ ) , where q,r u * v € Lp(IRN),where ,1+ l = ; + f and

> 1.

Then


7

Proof. If p > 1, then (1.6)follows from (1.5). If p = 1, then with necessity q = r = 1 and (1.6)follows immediately from the identity

resp. (1.6) is generally less than The best constant in the inequality (1.4) one. For the proof with the best constant see [82], Section 4.2.

1.3

Arzeld-Ascoli theorem

Definition 1.4 Let K C RN be a compact subset. A subset M C C(K) is called equicontinuous if for every E > 0 there is a 6 > 0 such that for all f E M and x,y E K we have Ix - yI < S ==+ (x)- f (y)I < E. It is called pointwise bounded if for any x E M the set {f (x),f E M ) is bounded.

If

(Arzelh-Ascoli) Let K c RN be a compact set. A subset M c C(K)is relatively compact if and only if it is pointwise bounded and equicontinuous.

Theorem 1.1

Proof. We recall first that a subset M of a metric space is relatively compact if and only if every sequence of points in M has a convergent subsequence. (L-X Since a sequence f, E C(K)with -+ co does not have a convergent subsequence, any relatively compact set M is bounded and in particular pointwise bounded. Assume it is not equicontinuous. Then we can find an E > 0 and sequences f, E M , x,, y, c K such that IX,-y,J -+ 0 and I fn(xn)- fn(yn)l E for all n E N.We may replace the given sequences by convergent subsequences, i.e. assume that x, -+ xo E K ,y, -+ yo E K and fn -+ f E C(K).But then necessarily yo = xo and 0 = f(xo) f (yo)1 = limn,, fn(xn) - fn(yn) E, a contradiction. "+": First of all note that there is a dense countable subset D c K: For m E N choose a finite set Dm C K such that the open balls with radius Dm. Now it suffices to find a subsequence cover K, then take D := Uz==, gk = fn,, such that gk(x) converges for every x E D: Take E > 0. Choose m E N,such that )x- yl < f (x)- f (y)J < for all f E M and x,y E K ,furthermore an index Ice E N with Igk(x) - gk,(x)J< $ for all k 2 Ico and x E Dm. Then consider an arbitrary point y E K and choose

llfnll

>

I

1>

1

I


8

x E Dm with lx - yI

So lgk - gkoI < E for k kg. Altogether we have seen that gk E C ( K ) is a Cauchy sequence in the Banach space C ( K ) , hence convergent. It remains to construct the subsequence gk. By induction we define for every m E N subsequences g p , k E N, which converge on Dm. Take g: := f k . Assume g p has been found. That sequence admits a subsequence g z k )converging on all points of the finite set D,n+l\Dm, since the sequences g p ( x ) with x E Dm+1 \ Dm are bounded. Take gp+l:= g z k ) . Eventually we take the diagonal sequence (gk) with gk := gE.

1.4

Hilbert space

On RN the Euclidean norm plays a particular role due t o the fact that it is induced by an inner product. In the following, assuming familiarity with finite-dimensional inner product spaces, we outline the infinite-dimensional analog of Euclidean space.

Definition 1.5

An inner product on a vector space H is a symmetric

bilinear map

>

0 for all v E H with equality iff which is positive definite, i.e. (v,v) v = 0. A vector space H together with such an inner product is also called a pre-Hilbert space. It becomes a normed vector space together with the norm

Two vectors v, w E H are called orthogonal, written as v Iw if (v, w) A complete pre-Hilbert space is called Hilbert space. The proof of the triangle inequality for ity, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality :

= 0.

11 - 11 uses another important inequal-


9

the proof of which is the same as in the finite dimensional case. An important consequence is the fact that (., .) is a continuous function on H x H due to the fact that 11 . 11 is continuous on H and the estimate

holds.

Remark 1.2 norm:

The inner product can be reconstructed from the associated

Indeed a norm (1.11 o n a vector space H is induced by an inner product (., .) iff it satisfies the parallelogram law

for all v,w E H , i.e., the s u m of the squares of the lengths of the diagonals of a parallelogram equals the s u m of the squares of the lengths of its four sides.

Example 1.2 (1) The space L 2 ( R ) is a Hilbert space with the inner product

(2) The space

is a Hilbert space with the inner product

One of the most important geometric features of a Hilbert space is that given a closed convex set K c H , for every point v E H there is a unique point in K closest to v:


10

Proposition 1.3 Let K C H be a closed convex subset of the Hilbert space H , i.e. with any points u , w E K we have [u,W ] c K for the line segment [u,w ] := { t u ( 1 - t ) w ;0 5 t 5 1 ) with end points u, W . Then for any v E H there is a unique vector P ( v ) E K , such that

+

Ilv

-

P(v)II = dist(v, K ) := inf{llv - 2111 : u

I n fact, the map P : H p2 = P .

-+

E

K).

K is a projection onto K , i.e. PIK = idK resp.

Proof. T h e existence and uniqueness o f t h e vector P ( v ) follows from t h e fact that any sequence (u,) c K with llu, - vll tending t o d := dist(v, K ) is a Cauchy sequence and hence has a limit i n t h e Hilbert space H . For this we m a y assume v = 0. T h e n we have

for all n,m E N . T h e right hand side converges t o 4d2, while t h e second t e r m o f the left hand side satisfies

because o f 2-'(un + urn)E K . Hence t h e first t e r m is arbitrarily small for sufficiently big indices n, m. Proposition 1.4 Let U c H be a closed subspace of the Hilbert space H . Then for any v E H there is a unique vector P ( v ) E U , such that

IIv

- P(v)II = dist(v, U ) := inf{llv - ull : u E

U).

I n fact, P : H a H is a continuous linear projection onto U , i.e. P E L ( H , H ) and P satisfies P ( H ) = U and PIu = idu. Furthermore,

is the orthogonal complement of U . I n particular

Proof. W e may apply Proposition 1.3 with K = U . I t provides t h e projection map P : H --+ U . Indeed P-'(o)

= U'

:= { w E

+

H ; ( w , ~=) 0 V u E U ) .

(1.10)

I f v E U L , then Ilv - u1I2 = 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~ l l ~ 1 for 1 ~ u E U , SO u = 0 is t h e vector i n U closest t o v. O n t h e other hand, i f P ( v ) = 0 and u E U , then t h e


11

+

differentiable function (lv - tu1I2 = 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~ 2t(u, v) t211u112 with t E R attains a t t = 0 its minimum, hence (u, v) = 0. Since P ( u v) = u P(v) for u E U = P(H),we get

+

+

+

for any v E H resp. U U' = H . But (., .) being positive definite we have U n U L = {0}, such that H = U $ U L and any vector w E H has a unique decomposition w = u u'. From this we obtain readily that P is a continuous, (indeed contractive) linear operator with P2= P .

+

R e m a r k 1.3 The above fact that any closed subspace U C H admits a closed complementary subspace W characterizes Hilbert spaces: Any Banach space V with that property is isomorphic to a Hilbert space H , i.e. there is a linear isomorphism F : V -+ H such that both F and F-' are continuous. An important consequence of Proposition 1.4 is T h e o r e m 1.2

(Riesz R e p r e s e n t a t i o n T h e o r e m ) The map

with Tw : H -+ R given by Tw(v) := (v, w) is an isometric isomorphism, = (1~11. i. e. T is an isomorphism of vector spaces preserving lengths: l(Tw(l

Proof. The map T is obviously linear; the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives ITw(v) 1 5 ( ( v (.(((w((= ((w(( . llvll, whence (ITw(1 5 ( ( ~ ( 1 , while setting v := w yields (ITw11 ( ( w11. In particular, T is injective. Now let cp : H -+ R be a continuous linear functional. Denote P : H -t H the orthogonal projection onto U := ker(cp). Then there is a unique vector u E ker(P) = ker(cp)' satisfying p(u) = 1, and we have cp = T w , where w := l l ~ l l - ~ uSo . T is also surjective.

>

In order to do explicit calculations in a finite dimensional vector space one needs bases. For Hilbert spaces there is a corresponding notion: Definition 1.6 Let H be a pre-Hilbert space. A sequence of vectors en, n 2 1, is called orthonormal if (en, em) = dnm. It is called an orthonormal basis if the subspace generated by the vectors el, e2, ... is dense in H .

12


Proposition 1.5 Let (en)nENbe an orthonormal basis in the pre-Hilbert space H . Then, for any v E H we have

v = C ( v , e n ) e n := lim C ( v , e n ) e n m-oo n=1 n=l and the following equality (known as Parseval equality)

holds true. Proof. For v E Ho := span(e1, ez, ...) we write v = C r = l Akek and take the inner product of both sides with en in order to see An = ( v ,en). In the general case we have to approximate by vectors in Ho: An arbitrary vector v E H can be written

where m E N is arbitrary and vm Ie l , ..., em, as is easily seen. We have to show that vm -, 0. Let E > 0. Take any vector w E Ho with Ilv - w1I2 < E and choose mo E N with w = C ~ ~ l ( w , e n ) eThat n . equation holds also with any m 2 mo instead of mo, in particular

with other words lim,, vm = 0 resp. v = lim,, C T = l ( v ,en)en. Finally Parseval's equality follows from the fact that the norm is a continuous function. We conclude that any vector v E H has a unique representation

where the coefficients An := ( v ,en) satisfy C r = l A: < oo, and we can look at X = (A1,X 2 , . . . ) as a sort of coordinate sequence for the vector v E H . Conversely, whenever Cr==lA: < oo, the sequence of partial sums ( C y = l Xnen)mEN is a Cauchy sequence in H , and if H is a (complete)


13

Hilbert space, the sequence converges. Hence, if H is a Hilbert space admitting an orthonormal basis (en)nEN,then it can be identified with the vector space C2 by

in analogy to the isomorphism Rn E V, n = dim V, for a finite dimensional vector space V. Furthermore note that H has an orthonormal basis if and only if there is a countable dense subset. Indeed, denote Ho the span of that set. If dim Ho < oo, we have H = Ho, otherwise Ho is a dense subspace with a countable basis (V,),~N Using the (finite dimensional for every step) Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization procedure we can construct by induction from that basis of Ho an orthonormal basis (en)nGwfor H .

Definition 1.7 A normed vector space is called separable if it admits a countable dense subset. Example 1.3 (1) Both L2(R) and C2 are separable. For C2 that is immediate, while the rational linear combinations of characteristic functions of open boxes contained in R with rational vertices form a countable dense subset of L2(R). (2) Any closed subspace U c H of a separable Hilbert space is itself separable, in particular admits an orthonormal basis: The image P ( X ) of a dense countable subset X c H under the orthogonal projection P : H + H onto U is countable and dense in U . 1.5

Weak convergence

Definition 1.8 A sequence (V,),~WC V in a normed vector space V is = v or said to converge weakly to a vector v E V, written as w lim,,,~, simply v, v, if for all cp E V* we have limn,, cp(v,) = cp(v). --\

Note that if v,

-+

v in V then for every cp E V*,

which implies v, --\ v, while the converse in general is false. For example, if en is an orthonormal basis in an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, then, by Parseval's equality, for cp = T, (cf. Theorem 1.2) we obtain En lcp(en)I2 =


14

1 ~ m and thus cp(en) -+ 0 although llenll = 1. The C , ( W , ~ , ) ~= l l ~ 1 < relation cp E V* + cp(un)-+ 0 defines therefore a weaker convergence. Remark 1.4 The weak limit of a sequence i n a Hilbert space is unique, since any u E H , u # 0 , is separated from 0 by a linear functional ( . , u ) . The same is true for general normed vector spaces, where continuous linear functionals separate points as a consequence o j the Hahn-Banach theorem. In what follows we consider weak convergence only for Hilbert spaces.

Proposition 1.6

If un --\ u i n a Hilbert space H , then

and J J uI J Jliminf J J u n J J .

Proof.

(1.14)

From the linearity of the scalar product follows

Since the right hand side converges to zero by definition of weak convergence, (1.13) follows. Relation (1.14) is immediate.

Theorem 1.3 Uniform Boundedness Principle: A sequence u,, n E N, i n a Hilbert space H is bounded if and only if for any w E H the sequence ( w ,un) is bounded. Proof. "=+":This is an immediate consequence of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality I(w,un)I I llwll . IJunlJ. "t" : For an unbounded sequence un,n E N, we construct a vector w E H , such that the sequence ( w ,u,) is unbounded. We may assume limn,, llunll = m or even llunll = 4n resp. u, = 4,vn with vectors v, of length 1. Namely, for any n E N there is a kn such that lluknII 2 dn, then replace un with the sequence 6 , := 4 n l l ~ k n I l - 1 ~ k , We . define

where ak = f1 is inductively chosen: We take a1 := 1, and given a l , ...,u k - 1 we let

15


using the convention sign(0) = 1. Now --

( w ,u,) = 4,

C 0 i 3 - ~(vi,u,)

and thus

Corollary 1.3 bounded.

Every weakly convergent sequence i n a Hilbert space is

u in H . Then for every v E H , (u,, u ) = ( u , Proof. Let u , u , v ) + ( u ,v ) is bounded. Therefore the sequence u,, n E N,is bounded by Theorem 1.3. --\

Corollary 1.4 H . Then limn,,

Let u , (u,, v,)

-

u and v,

+v

be sequences i n the Hilbert space

= ( u ,u ).

Proof. By Corollary 1.3 the sequence u,, n € N is bounded, i.e. there is M > 0 such that IIun(l 5 M for all n E N. Thus

An orthonormal basis in an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space is a bounded sequence that has no convergent subsequence: the distance between any llen112 = two different terms in the sequence is Ile, - e,ll = Jlle,112 An analog of the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem for Hilbert spaces cannot therefore assert convergence in norm, but it holds true in the sense of weak convergence.

+

JZ.

Theorem 1.4 Banach-Alaoglu Theorem. Let v,, n E N, be a bounded sequence i n the separable Hilbert space H . Then there is a subsequence u,,, k € N,which converges weakly to some v E H .


16

For the proof of the theorem we need the following Lemma 1.2 Let X c H be a dense subset of the Hilbert space H and let v, E H , n E W, be a bounded sequence. If the limit limn,,(w,v,) exists v for some vector v E H . If (w, v,) -t 0 for all for all w E X , then vn w E X , then v = 0.

-

Proof.

We show first that the sequence (w, v,), n E N, converges for all w E H and then determine its weak limit. Choose M 2 1 with llvnll M for all n E N. Let E > 0. Choose wo E X with Ilw - wo((< & 5. Now take no E N,such that I (wo, v,) - (wo, v,,) 1 < for all n 2 no. Then

5

1

Proof.

By the definition of directional derivative,

The expression under the integral converges t o F'(u) and is bounded by ~ the~ dominated ~ ~ the constant ~ u P , ~ ~ l f~( x 1~ ~ S V~( X ) u) I BY convergence theorem the integral converges to the right hand side of (1.25).

+

Lemma 1.9 Let R C RN be a measurable set, let 1 5 p 5 q 5 oo, and let f E C ( R x R ) be a function such that for every E > 0 there is a C, < co and a p, such that p 5 p, 5 q and

Then for every r E [p, q], the mapping

restricted to any bounded set of LP(R)nLq(R)x Lp(R)nLQ(S1)is continuous in L' ( R ) x (Lp(R)n Lq(R)). Proof. Let uk -+ u in Lr(R) be a bounded sequence in LP(R) n Lq(R) and let vk + v in LP(R) n Lq(R). Consider the inequality

Let us estimate the first integral in (1.28). By (1.26) and the Holder in-

26


equality,

In particular, the last term converges to zero due t o the Holder interpolation IIwllr L I W I : I W I ; - ' , r E [p,q], with an appropriate 8 = O ( ~ , q , r ) . It remains now t o estimate the second integral in (1.28). Let M > 0 be such that

(Such M exists for the first integral due t o the Holder inequality I1wII:-lIIuIIT and the bounds on the respective norms for uk, u and v. The second integral is then bounded due to the Fatou lemma.) Let b > 0 and E > 0 be such that EM 5 614. By the argument in the proof of Lemma 1.7, uk -+ u in LPe(R), since p, E [p, q]. By Lemma 1.6, there is a 0 L w(x) E LPE such that on a renumbered subsequence Juk(x)J,Ju(x)J1 w(x) a.e. Then

J lullr-'lql 5

Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem implies that the integral in the last line converges to 0 since If(x,uk)llvl, If(x,u)IIvI 5 2CEw(x)Ps-'1~1 E L1 on the set of integration. Since S is arbitrary, we have, for a renumbered subsequence of uk, T ( u k ,vk) --+ T(u, v). If there is another renumbered subsequence where IT(uk,vk)- T(u,v)l 2 E with some E > 0, then, by


27

the argument above, it will still have a renumbered subsequence where T(uk, vk) -+ T ( u ,v), a contradiction. Problem 1.6 Prove that the functional G(u) = Ja F ( x ,u), where Cl c iRN is a measurable set and F E Cl,,(R x R) satisfies I F ( x , s) 1 C(lslP Islq), 1< p q I ca, is continuous in LP(R) n LQ(R).

0 such that for every p > 0 and u E

. p > 1 we have (2.26) Proof. Assume first that u E C F ( ( - 1 , I ) ~ ) For from the Friedrichs inequality and for p 1 it follows from (2.24). For a general u E there exists a R > 0 such that suppu c (-R, R ) ~ and (2.26) is immediate from (2.24) with v ( x ) = ~ ( R xand ) p' = p / R .

0 dependent on R, such that for every p 5 1 and u E H1(R),

2.7

Space V ~ ~ ~ ( I Sobolev, W ~ ) . Hardy and Nash inequalities

Definition 2.5 The space V'12(IRN), N > 2, is the completion of C r ( R N )with respect to the norm ( J R N ) V U ~ ~ ) ; . Remark 2.2 The restriction N > 2 is due to the fact that for N = 1 , 2 the completion space is no longer a space of measurable functions, that is, there is no continuous imbedding of V112(IRN) into L:,,. Indeed, for N = 1 set u k ( x ) = 1 for x E [-k,k],u k = 0 for x 6 [-2k,2k], u k ( x ) = 2 - k-'x for x E [k,2k] and u k ( x ) = 2 + k-'x for x E [-2k, -k]. For N = 2 set u k = ~ x l ' /for ~ 1x1 I 1 and u k = lxl-llk for 1x1 2 1. I n both cases it is easy to see that JRN lVukI2 0 , and therefore the sequence uk represents the zero element of the completion. However, uk converges, uniformly on bounded sets, to 1 # 0 . -)


44

When N > 2, the space D112(WN)is continuously imbedded into L2*. The exponent 2* is defined as

Theorem 2.4 (Sobolev inequality) For every N constant SN> 0 such that

> 2 there exists a

whenever u E C T (RN). Consequently, the space D1>2(WN)is continuou~ly imbedded into L2' (WN).

Proof.

Let us apply (2.26) to functions xj(lul), where xj(t) = 2 - j ~ ( 2 j t ) , x E CT((4,4), [O, 3]), such that ~ ( t =) t whenever t E [I,21 and 5 2. Then, observing that I x ~ I 5 2 and using Proposition 2.4, we have

j E Z and

lx'l

Taking into account the upper and lower bounds of lul on the respective sets of integration, we have

If we substitute pj = 2 - A p , take the sum over j E Z, and notice that each of the intervals [2jP1,2j+2], j E Z, overlaps with the others not more than four times, we get

Setting p

=

(Ju 2 * ) h and collecting similar terms we arrive at (2.29).

Chapter 2 Sobolev spaces

Remark 2.3

The best constant i n (2.29) is

is the area of the N-dimensional unit sphere. where w~ = 27rwl?(v) Calculation of the best constant is discussed i n Chapter 5.

~ )space of measurable functions Problem 2.5 Prove that D ' ~ ~ ( IisWthe u (defined up to sets of measure zero) that have weak derivatives Du E L~( I R N ) . The following analog of Proposition 2.1 will be needed in later calculations.

Proposition 2.4 Let 1C, E C:,,(IW) have a bounded derivative and satisfies $ ( O ) = 0. Then the map T : u I+ 1C, o u , u E C r ( I R N ) ,extends to a map D112(IWN)+ D112(IRN),D ( $ oJ u ) = $ ~ ~ ( u ) Dand u,

where M = supwI1C,'I. The proof is completely analogous to the proof of Proposition 2.1 and may be omitted.

Theorem 2.5

Proof.

(Hardy inequality) For every function u

E

G'r(IRN \ 0 )

The inequality (2.32) follows from the identity

To prove (2.33) one can evaluate its right hand side, starting with the chain rule and expansion of the square:

=

J 1v.1~+ ( F )/ 2

1x1-2u2

+ 2~ 2

j

vu.

IXI-~UX.


46

The last term can be evaluated, using the calculation V

. +=

and:

and then (2.33) is immediate. Consider now the space R N as a product space R m x Rn, n = 0 , 1 , . . . ,N - 1 , m = N - n with variables (x, y ) , x E Rn, y E Rm.

Corollary 2.3

For every function u E C r ( R N \ R n )

Proof. Fix x E Rn, write (2.34) in Rm and integrate over x.

Theorem 2.6

(Nash inequality) For every u E C r ( R N )

By density the inequality extends to u E H 1 (IRN)n L 1 ( R N ) .

Proof.

The inequality (2.35) is immediate from (2.26) with

(1 + The best value of the constant in (2.35) is CN = 2~-~+~/~ N / ~ ) ~ + N / ~ Kwhere ~ ' wW ~N ~- ~is ~ the , area of a unit N - 1-dimensional

sphere and K N is the smallest nonzero number such that the function d(rl-N/2 J(N-2)/2(~r))Ir= =10 (see [29]).A proof that the best constant dr is attained is given in Chapter 10.


IW?

Lemma 2.10 Let = R N P 1x (O,cm), N such that for every u E C r ( R N ) ,

Proof.

47

> 2 . There exists a C > 0

Let u E C r ( R N ) ,and set, similarly to (2.12), for

(Tu)(?,X N ) =

XN

2 0;

(2.38)

It is immediate that T u E C 1 ( R N )and

Then (2.37) follows immediately from the Sobolev inequality (2.29) applied to T u .

Remark 2.4 Inspection of the proof of Theorem 2.6 shows that Nash inequality (2.35) is nothing but an equivalent form of (2.26). Similarly, the Sobolev inequality (2.29) in Theorem 2.4 is derived from (2.26) using only general properties of IVuI2 as a Dirichlet form (see [59] for definition), and from inspection of the proof one can conclude that (2.29) implies (2.26). Thus, Nash and Sobolev inequalities are equivalent. We also note that the exponents in (2.35) and (2.29) are consequences of the coefficient p-N in (2.26), which in turn can be traced to the scaling coefficient in the weak Poincare' inequality (2.22). For details on equivalent forms of Sobolev inequalities we refer to 1921, [ l l ] and [43]. The general structure in the theory of Sobolev spaces has an axiomatic generalization - a Sobolev spaces theory on metric spaces (see expositions in Hajlasz and Koskela [63] and Ambrosio and Tilli [5]).

2.8

Sobolev imbeddings

In this section we discuss continuity of imbeddings of Sobolev space H1(S1) into Lp(S1). When N 3, the imbeddings can be derived from (2.29). For N = 1,2 we use the following statement.

>

Lemma 2.11

Let p > 2 and let N = 1,2. There exists a C > 0 such that


48

for every u E C r ( R N ) ,

Proof. The proof is an elementary modification of the proof of Theorem 2.4 when the exponent 2* is replaced by p, which leaves in the right hand side the integral of lu1q instead of a term similar t o the left hand side side. Theorem 2.7 Let R c RN be a n open set. Let p E [2,2*] i f N 2 3 and p > 2 i f N = 1 , 2 . There exists a C > 0 such that for every u E Hi(S2),

S,

IVu12

+ u2 2 C

(S,

.lP)

:

Proof. For p = 2 the inequality is trivial. 1. Case N 2 3. If p = 2*, the inequality is immediate from the Sobolev inequality (2.29). If 2 < p < 2*, then from Holder inequality (1.1) follows

2.

Applying t o the right hand side the Sobolev inequality with s = (2.29) and the elementary inequality atbl-t 5 Ct(a b), a , b > 0 , t = 2 2 ' 9 ( 0 , I ) , we arrive at (2.41). p 2'-2 2. Case N = 1,2. The inequality for p > 2 follows from Lemma 2.11 once we notice that 2 < q < p, estimate J l u l q by the Holder inequality

+

S,~1. (S, (Jn 5

with s

=

1~12)'

I ~ I P I-')

s,

and use the inequality

with E sufficiently small, so that the term with Ja l u l P could be carried over to the left hand side.

Corollary 2.4 Let R c RN be an extension domain. Then (2.41) holds for every u E H 1 ( R ) .


Proof. Let T : H1(R) (2.41) for T u on H,'(R).

-+

49

H;(Q1) be an extension operator and apply

Remark 2.5 If R is an open set offinite measure, then from the Holder inequality follows that relation (2.41) holds also for p E [I,2). Let 52 c IKN be an open bounded set and let p E [I, 2*). Theorem 2.8 Then the imbedding Ht(Q) in LP(R) is compact.

Proof. Assume first that p > 2 and let q E (p, 2*). From the Holder inequality follows

s.

with s = Let u j be a bounded subsequence in H; (R). Then, by Theorem 2.7, u j is bounded in Lq(R). Moreover, u j has a renumbered weakly convergent subsequence u j u E HA(R), and by Lemma 2.8, u j u E L2(R). Then from (2.44) follows S , luj - uIP 5 C (So luj - 2 ~ 1 ~ ) -+ ' 0. Let now p E [I, 21. Since R is bounded, from Holder inequality follows that Lp(R) is continuously imbedded into Lq(R) with any q > 2. Since a bounded set in H;(R) is relatively compact in LQ(R)for q E (2,2*), it is also relatively compact in LP(R).

-

Theorem 2.9 Let u, uk E V112(RN), N > 3, and assume that uk V1y2(RN). Then for any p E [I,2*) and any set of finite measure A uk 1 A -+ U ) A in Lp(A) .

-

u in c IRN,

Proof. By density we may assume that uk E C F ( R N ) . Let let X j E C r ( B j + l ( 0 ) ,[0, I]), j E N,be such that x I B ~ ( ~ ) = 1and supj IIVxj Ilm < m. Then, taking into account the Sobolev inequality (2.29) and Theorem 1.3, one has

50


This proves that u H xju is a bounded linear operator in D112, and thus, for every j . by Lemma 1.4, xjuk is a weakly convergent sequence in Moreover, for every cp E C r ( R N ) ,

once we note that w H J w(xjAcp) is a continuous linear functional on L ~ * and thus on D112. x j u in From here follows (with reference to Lemma 1.2) that xjuk D1v2 for every j . Due to the Friedrichs inequality, for every j the sequence xjuk is bounded in Hi(Bj+l(0)). Then from Theorem 2.8 follows that xjuk -+ x j u in LP(Bj+1(O)), 1 5 p < 2*. In particular, for every such p and every j E N

-

Then there exists a sequence jk -+ cc such that

By the Holder inequality,

The assertion of the theorem now follows from adding the inequalities (2.45) and (2.46).

Theorem 2.10 Let R C RN be a bounded extension domain. Let p E [1,2*). Then any bounded set J c H1(R) is relatively compact in LP(R). Proof. Let R1 c R N be a bounded domain such that 52 c R1. Let T : H1(R) -+ Hi(R1) be an extension operator and apply Theorem 2.8 to TJ. Corollary 2.5 Every sequence bounded in H ' ( I w ~ )has a subsequence that converges almost everywhere and weakly in H1(RN). Every sequence


51

bounded i n D ' > ~ ( I WN~ 2 ) , 3, has a subsequence that converges almost everywhere and weakly i n V 1 1 2 ( R N ) . Proof. In either case, Banach-Alaoglu theorem yields a weakly convergent renumbered subsequence u k . Moreover, this subsequence, in restriction t o any bounded set, is convergent in measure, due t o Theorem 2.10 and to Theorem 2.9 in the respective case. It remains t o note that a sequence that converges in measure on every bounded subset of R N has a subsequence convergent almost everywhere in R N . We conclude the section with a compactness lemma ([104],Theorem 9.5).

Let a E L N 1 2 ( R N ) ,N > 2. Then the functional @(u)= JRN a(x)u2is continuous with respect to the weak convergence in ~l>~(lR~).

Lemma 2.12

-

Proof. Assume without loss of generality that a ( x ) 2 0. Note that from u in the Holder inequality follows immediately that @ E C ( L 2 ' ) . Let u k V ~ ' ~ ( IApplying W ~ ) . an elementary identity and then the Cauchy inequality, we have

Thus it suffices to prove that @(uk-u)-, 0. Let E > 0 and let a, E C r ( R N ) be such that ((a,- a ( ( N / 25 E. Then, by the Holder inequality, @(uk - u )

5

] ae(u

-ukl2

+

2

- allN/211u - ~ k 1 1 2 *

Cellu - ukllg,suppac +C//ac- a / l ~ / 2 By compactness of the local Sobolev imbeddings, u k

Since E is arbitrary,

@ ( u k - u ) -, 0

and thus

Corollary 2.6 If a E L ~ / ' ( J R ~N) , > 2, a is compactly imbedded into L ~ ( I W ~a ), . 2.9

4

@ ( u k ) -+

u in Lfo,, and thus,

@(u).

17

> 0 , then the space D1t2(RN)

Trace on the boundary

In this section we will consider the domain R y = R N - l x (0,00), N denoting the respective variables as z = ( x ,s ) .

> 2,


52

Let R , R1 c I R N - I

Lemma 2.13 sets

be bounded domains, R

and J' := {

~

l

1

~ c?(ltN), ~ { ~ ~

:u E

+

IVUI~

nl x (o,m)

Jnl

G 511.

Then the

u(.,o12 5 1)

are relatively compact in L2(0).

Proof. Consider a unit ball BI (0) in IRN-l. Let p E C r (B1( O ) , [O, 11) satisfy J p = 1 and let, for t E (0,d(n,RN-I \ R l ) ) , Mtu(x,S ) = Define

and

Ji := {

N t ~ l : u~ E~G',OO(IRN), ~ ~ >

From this step the proof, for both sets J and J', is analogous to the proof of Lemma 2.8, once we establish the following analog of (2.21)

1

I ~ t u l ~ ( x , o )5d xG't

/ Ql

I~ul'dxds x(Ow)

that can be verified by means of the following relation:

(2.47)


On the last step we used (2.21) in I R N - I d,u in RN-I for the second integral.

53

for the first integral and (2.19) for

Let R , R 1 be as above, let II, E ~ ' ( 0 be) such that Then there exist a C > 0, such that for every u E Cr(IRN),

Lemma 2.14

II, # 0.

The proof is completely analogous to the proof of Theorem 2.3. One has the following analog of Proposition 2.9. Lemma 2.15

There exists a C > 0, such that for every p 5 1 and

u E G='(Q)l

The proof follows the proof of Lemma 2.9 with self-explanatory modifications, e.g., starting with partition of Q = (-1, l ) N - l into cubes Qi, i = 1 , . . . ,2m(N-1), replacing (2.22) with (2.48) and adjusting to homogeneity of the N-1-dimensional Lebesgue measure instead of the N-dimensional one.

Proof.

Corollary 2.7 u E C(y(RN),

There exists a C

>

0 such that for every p > 0 and

Proof. The proof follows the proof of (2.26) starting with the case suppu C (-1, l ) N - l x R . The only nontrivial modification is the use of following analog of the F'riedrichs inequality:

54

To prove this, let


x E C F ( R ,[0,I ] ) ,suppx = [ - I , 11, ~

( 0=) 1. Then

In the last step we have applied the usual Friedrichs inequality (2.13) for u(.,s ) on (-1, 1IN-l.

>

Theorem 2.11 Let N 3 and let 2 = that for every u E C F ( R N ) ,

w.

There exists a C

> 0 such

Consequently, the space D ~ ~ ~ has ( I aWcontinuous ~ ) trace on L~(IW~-~). Proof. The proof of (2.51) repeats the one for (2.29) using the same functions xj(lul) = 2-jX(2jlul), j E Z,as in Theorem 2.4, with the only modification that (2.50) is used instead of (2.26) and the scaling parameter 3 pj is chosen as pj = 2- N p. The best constant in (2.51) is given by

where S N is the best Sobolev constant in (2.29) given by (2.31). Existence of the minimizer for the inequality is discussed in Chapter 5. The minimizing function is a scalar multiple of

cf. [46]. Problem 2.6 State and prove the analog of Nash inequality that estimates the L2(RN-')-norm by a product of appropriate powers of 11 VulI z,ay -norm and the Ilull l,wtN-n~rm.

Theorem 2.12 Let N 2 2 and p E [2,2]. Then there exists a C that for every u E C F ( R N )

> 0 such


Proof.

Combine (2.51) and the Holder inequality.

Problem 2.7

>

(a) Show that (2.53) holds for N = 2, p 2. (b) Show that one can replace JWN-, u(., 0)= in (2.53) with

+ u2.

JwN

Theorem 2.13 Let N > 2, p E [I,$], and let R c EXN-' be CL bounded extension domain. Then there exists a C > 0 such that for every u E c,-(EXN),

Moreover, the imbedding defined by (2.54) is compact whenever p

< 2.

all be a bounded domain and let To : Proof. Let O1 c IRN-l, R H1( 0 ) + H i (a1) be a correspondent extension operator. We leave it to the reader to verify that if T : H1(R x (0, co)) -+ H1(R1 x (0, co)) is given by (Tu)(., s) := TOu(.,s), then T satisfies

Then applying (2.51) to T u we have

which proves (2.54) for p = 2. This, combined with the Holder inequality gives (2.54) for p < 2. To verify compactness of the imbedding, consider the set J =

+

{sax (o,m)(IVuI2 u2) 5 1). When u E J , the integral Jalx(O,m) IV(T4I2 ~~ lTu(.,0)12 are and, consequently the integrals Jal I T U ( . , O )and bounded. The set {uln : u E J}, is contained for some C > 0 in

Sol

56


which, by Lemma 2.13, is relatively compact.

2.10

Differentiable functionals in Sobolev spaces

Sobolev imbeddings (inequality (2.29) and Corollary 2.4) allow to view LPcontinuous functionals as functionals continuous in the Sobolev space. We start with examples considered at the end of Chapter 1.

Remark 2.6 Let R E J R N , be an open set. Let q > 2 when N = 1 1 2 and let q = 2* otherwise. Since HA(R) is continuously imbedded into LP(R), p E [2,q], and D1t2(R)is continuou~lyimbedded into ~ " ( 0 for) N > 2, the functional @(u)= JaF ( x , u ) with F E C ( R x JR) is continuous i n H J ( R ) whenever

and it is continuous i n D 1 > 2 ( R )N, > 2, whenever IF(xl s)l 5 C l ~ 1 ~ Sim'. ilarly, the mapping (1.27) is continuous o n H t (52) x HA ( R ) if (1.30) holds with p = 2 and q as above. Lemma 1.7 combined with Corollary 2.4 gives:

Proposition 2.5 Let R c R N be an open set and let @ be as in Lemma 1.7 with p = 2, q > 2 for N = 1 , 2 and q = 2* for N > 2. If uk E H i ( R ) is a bounded sequence and uk -, u i n L r ( R ) for some r E ( 2 ,q ) , then @ ( v k-), @ ( v ) . Theorem 2.14 Let R c IWN be a n open set. Let f be as i n Lemma 1.9 with p = 2 and q as above. Let

and let

Then @ has a continuous gradient V @: H t ( R ) 4 H ; ( R ) :

Moreover, i f uk is a bounded sequence i n H t ( R ) and r E ( 2 , q ) , then V @ ( u k4 ) V @ ( Ui n) H ~ ( R ) .

uk +

v in Lr(R),

chapter 2 Sobolev spaces

57

Proof.

By Lemma 1.8, the directional derivative of @ on L = C F ( R ) is given by the right hand side of (2.57) and by Lemma 1.9 it extends to ~ L4) x (L2 n L4) (with the same expression), a continuous map in ( L n which, by the Sobolev imbedding, is also continuous in H F ( R ) x H F ( R ) . The theorem follows then from Corollary 1.5. Continuity with respect to LT-convergence follows from Lemma 1.9. 2.11

Sobolev spaces of higher order

We give here some additional excerpts from the theory of Sobolev spaces, without proofs. 1. Let R c IRN be a domain and let D denote the weak derivative as defined by (2.1). We will say that a function u E L:,,(S2) admits locally integrable weak derivatives up to the order m if for each Ic = 0, 1,. . . , m there exists a collection of N k LL,(R)-functions u ( ~ )such , that u(O) = u and u("') = DU("). We will say then that u ( ~= ) D~U. Problem 2.8 Show that if a function u E L:,,(R) admits locally integrable weak derivatives up to the order m, then for every cp E C,"(R)

2. The Sobolev space Hm(R), m E N,is a linear space of functions u E L2(R) with L2(R)-integrable weak derivatives up t o the order m, which are usually denoted v k u , equipped with the norm

Here the notation I V ~ U I refers to any equivalent length of an Nk-tuple v k u . Since the term corresponding t o Ic = 0 is S u 2 , the space H m ( R ) is continuously imbedded into L2(R). It is known that the space H m ( R ) is complete. An equivalent norm on Hm(R) can be given by

For m = 2 there is an equivalent Sobolev norm


58

The space Hr(S2) is a closure of C,"(R) in Hm(S2). 3. When 2m > N , there is a C > 0 such that, whenever 0 5 k m - $ < k 1, for every u E H m ( R N ) ,

+

0 such that

+

By adding terms in (3.35) over y E ZN, and noticing that U y E Z ~ ( Qy) is RN up to a set of Lebesgue measure zero, we obtain

where yk E

zNis any sequence satisfying

(3.36)

It remains to note that by compactness of imbedding of H1(Q) into Lp(Q), one has gakUk -+ 0 in Lp(RN), SO that the assertion of the lemma follows from (3.36). As a consequence of Corollary 3.2, Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 3.3, we have

Corollary 3.3 Let uk E H ~ ( I W ~be) a bounded sequence and let G C RN be a group satisfying (3.34) (in particular 7ZN or IRN). There exists a set No c M, w ( ~ E) H , y r ) E G, y;) = 0, with k E M, n E No such that, on a renumbered subsequence, w(") = w limuk(.

+ y?)),

Iy r ) - yim)1 for n # m, l l ~ ( " ) ( ( & ~ 5 limsup llukll&l,

(3.37) (3.38) (3.39)

nENo

w(")(. - y?)) + 0 DG-weakly and in L P ( R ~ ) (3.40)

uk nENo

Chapter 3 Weak convergence decomposition

73

for any p E (2,2*), and the series in (3.40) converges in H1(IRN) uniformly ink. ) , G satisfy (3.34) and let ur, and w ( ~ ) Lemma 3.4 Let H = H ~ ( R ~ let be as in Corollary 3.3. If F E Cl,,(IRN x R) is as in Lemma 1.7 and F ( x + y, s) = f (x, s) for all x E R N , s E IR and y E G, then

Proof.

From Theorem 3.1 and (1.22) in Lemma 1.7 it follows that

Moreover, from (1.22) follows that @ is uniformly continuous on bounded sets in H1(RN), and since the series Enw ( ~ ) ( . y?)) is convergent uniformly in k,

+

Therefore it suffices to prove that

Since G'r(IRN) is dense in H1(IRN), due to Lemma 1.7 it suffices to show (3.43) for w(") E C r ( R N ) . Let R = sup{lyl, y E s ~ ~ ~ w = ( ~I , ). . ,. ,nM ) andletko ~ h ' b e s u c h t h a t(yLrn)-yf)(> R f o r a l l m # n , m , n = 1, ..., M and k > ko.Then for k > ko, since the integrand in the left hand side is supported in the union of balls B R ( ~ ~ n) )=, 1 , . . . , M ,

which proves the lemma.

-

Corollary 3.4 Let uk be a bounded sequence in H1(IRN) and let F : IR + R be as in Lemma 1.7. Then, on a renumbered subsequence, uk w


74

in H 1 ( R N )and

Proof. Consider H 1 ( R N ) equipped with the group D z ~ , apply Lemma 3.4 to uk and to ur, - w(') and take the difference between (3.41) for respective sequences. This statement, known as BrBzis-Lieb lemma, is proved in [22] under a somewhat different set of assumptions. In particular, for F ( u ) = 1u(q, q > 1, it suffices to assume that the sequence U I , is bounded in Lq.

-

Theorem 3.2 Let q E [ I ,oo) and let R c R N be a measurable set. Let uk w in Lq(R) and assume that ur, converges to w almost everywhere in R. Then

Proof. Let

so that vi

Ila

E

-+ 0

> 0 and almost everywhere in R. Using an elementary inequality

+ blq - lalQl5 ~ l a l q+ CElbIq,a, b E R , we have

Then by the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, implies

Ja v;

+

0. This

limsupJnl~u~lq-~~~-w~q-/~/q~/~lims~p Since E in the right hand side above can be arbitrarily small, (3.45) follows.

Remark 3.3 The statement in Theorem 3.2 remains true if Lq(R) is replaced by a weighted space L'J(R,w ) , where w : 52 -+ (0,oo) is a measurable function. Remark 3.4 One has the following elementary generalization of Lemma 3.4. Let uk be a bounded sequence in H ' ( R ~ )and let F E Cl,,(RN x R ) . Assume that s H up,,^^ IF(x,s)l satisfies (1.22) in Lemma 1.7 and that the limit


75

Fm(s) := lim F ( x , s) 1x1-+m exists. Let the group G lary 3.3. Then

3.7

c RN satisfy (3.34) and let w(")be as in Corol-

Constrained minimization

We give here an elementary application of Theorem 3.1 to existence of minimizers in variational problems. Let p E (2,2*), let V E Lm(RN) be a ~ ~ - ~ e r i ofunction dic and assume that inf V > 0. Consider cp =

inf

J

U E H ~ ( W ~ ) , ( ( U ( I , = WN I

(lvu(x)I2

+ V ( X ) ~ U ( Xdx. )~~)

(3.49)

+

Note that E(u) := JRN ( ~ V U ( X )~~ (~ 21u(x) ) 12) dx defines an equivalent Sobolev norm on H1(RN) and therefore cp > 0 by the Sobolev imbedding (2.41). If u is a minimizer in (3.49), then, due to Proposition 2.2, (u( E H1(R) is a minimizer, and then, by the strong maximum principle (Proposition C.2), lul > 0 and so u is sign definite and can be assumed to be positive. By the rule of Lagrange multipliers, u satisfies the equation

+

Vu = Xup-l in the sense of weak derivaties. which is equivalent to -Au The constant X can be made 1 if one multiplies u with a suitable scalar multiple.

Proposition 3.7 Every minimizing sequence uk for the problem (3.49) has a (renumbered) subsequence such that uk(. - yk), with some yk E ZN, converges to a minimizer of the problem. When V = 1,the minimizer of (3.49) is unique and satisfies 1x1~ e l x l u ( x4 ) const. For details see [61],[17],[79], [lo] and references therein.

Proof. Let uk be a minimizing sequence for (3.49), that is, Ilukllp = 1and JRN ( I V U ~ ~ (+XV) (~X~) I U ~ ( Xdx ) ~+ ~ )cp. Note that Corollary 3.3 remains true for the dislocation space H1(RN) with the norm \lull = and


76

with the the group of dislocations DZ.v. Let the renumbered subsequence of uk, w ( ~ and ) y?) be as given by Corollary 3.3. By Lemma 3.4,

If we set J I ~ ( ~ ) l p = d xtn, then, comparing the Hilbert norm of the nor1

malized w ( ~ with ) the infimum value q,, we get Ilt,b(n)

n)l12 2 cp, which

2

gives

I I w ( ~ ) ~ ( 2~ cpta. Substituting this into (3.52) we get

On the other hand, (3.51) can be written as C tn = 1 and since $ < 1, both relations can hold only if all tn but one, say trio, equal zero and tn0 = 1. This yields from (3.52) Ilw(no)112= q,,because the left hand side cannot be less than the infimum of 1) w)I2,SO ~ ( ~ is0 a) minimizer. We conclude from (3.40) that uk-w("~)(--yp)) -, 0 in LP, or equivalently, uk(.+y?)) -i ~ ( ~ in 0 LP. ) Moreover, u k ( . + y p ) ) ~ ( ~ 0 which 1 , together with the assumed convergence of Sobolev norms (11uk 112 + cp = llw("0) [I2) yields that uk(. y p ) ) converges to ~ ( " 0 ) in ~ ' ( 1 ~ ) .

-

+

We give now a second proof of the same statement, based on the Brkzis-Lieb lemma.

Proof. Let uk be a minimizing sequence and note that for any sequence yk E Z N , uk(. yk) is also a minimizing sequence. By Lemma 3.3 the D relation uk 0 is false, since otherwise ( ( u ~-(' 0, ( ~a contradiction. Thus, for certain yk, on a renumbered subsequence, uk(. yk) --+ w # 0. Let us rename the minimizing sequence uk(. yk) as uk. By Theorem 2.9 uk converges in measure on every bounded measurable set, and thus, a renumbered subsequence of uk converges almost everywhere. By Proposition 1.6, (3.54) cp = lim lluk112 = llw112 lim lluk - wII 2

-

+

+

+

and by Brkzis-Lieb Lemma (Theorem 3.2),

+


77

Let t = JwNI w I P From definition of cp and (3.54) follows then that

which implies with necessity t = 0 or t = 1. I f t = 0 then w = 0, a contradiction. Moreover, i f lim (Iuk- w(I2> 0, then ((w(I2 < cp, a contradiction. Consequently, uk -+ w in H . Consider (3.49) with V = 1. Let R = ElN-'

Remark 3.5 let

x (0,oo) and

Obviously, cp(R)2 c,. Let u be a minimizer for c, and let x E Cw((O,m)), ~ ( t=) 0 for t E (0, ~ ( t=) 1 for t 1. Let uk := X ( X N ) U ( . - (0,k ) ) . An elementary calculation with uk shows that % ( a ) 5 c,, and therefore cp(R)= cp and uk is a minimizing sequence. Assume that cp(R)is attained on some w E HJ ( R ) . Then w, extended by zero to I R N , is a minimizer for (3.49). As such it satisfies the equation (3.50), contradicting the strong maximum principle (Proposition C.2). Thus the minimizer does not exist. The minimizing sequence uk constructed above has a dislocated weak limit w limuk(. (0,k ) ) = u E H1( I R N ) .

i),

>

+

3.8

Compactness in the presence of symmetries

Theorem 3.3 Let ( H ,D) be a dislocation space and let D be a group of unitary operators. Let T be an infinite group of unitary operators on H and let

Assume that

-

(T) for every sequence gk E D such that gk 0 there exists an infinite set T { g k )c T such that for every T I , 7 2 E T { g k )such that r1 # 7 2 , g;7;72gk 0 on a renumbered subsequence.

-

Then HT is D-weakly sequentially compact in H , that is, any bounded sequence in HT has a D-weakly convergent convergence. Note that i f D = Dwlv and T is an infinite subgroup of DO(N):= { u w u o 7 , E ~O ( N ) } ,then the condition ( T )is satisfied.


78

Proof. Let uk E HT be a bounded sequence. Assume without loss of generality that uk is weakly convergent to some u E H, and note that, since for every I- E T, r-luk = uk u, by continuity of r , uk TU, and then r u = u. Consequently u E E T . Assume that there exists a sequence gk E D such that gk 0 and g;uk w # 0. By (T), for every M E N there exist 71,. . . ,TM E T such that, on a renumbered subsequence, whenever i # j , gk*7;rjgk 0. Then

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

which implies J J u ~>_) MJJw1I2 )~ o(1) for any M E N,which is a contradicD tion. We conclude that, on a renumbered subsequence, uk - u 0. Consider now an application. Lemma 3.5 Let HT = {u E H1(RN) : u o q = u, q E O(N)). The space HT is compactly imbedded into L P ( R ~for ) any p E (2,2*).

Let H = H1(RN) D = DRN := {u H u(. - y), y E RN), T = {u H u o q , q E O(N)). Due to Lemma 3.1, and since for every yk E RN, (yk1 + oo, and q # id, Iyk - qyk 1 -+ oo, conditions of Theorem 3.3 are satisfied. If uk E HT is a bounded sequence, then uk has a DRN-weakly convergent subsequence, which is also LP-convergent, p E (2,2*), due to Lemma 3.3.

Proof.

Corollary 3.5

Let p

E

(2,2*). The problem

cP =

inf U E H ~ ( R ~ ) : Jll~ll;l JUJ~~=~


79

has a radially symmetric minimizer, and any radially symmetric minimizing sequence uk, JRN luklP = 1, 1 1 2 ~ ~ 1-+1 ~C, has a subsequence convergent to a minimizer.

Proof. The space HT defined in Lemma 3.5 consists of all radially symmetric functions from HI. By (B.l), JwN Iu*IP = JwN lulP = 1, while from (B.3) and (B.l) follows I I u * ~ ~ $ ~ I IIUII&~, SO that c; = inf{u E HT : ]lullp= ~ ) I I U I I & ~ equals c,. Due to Lemma 3.5, @ : u H JRN lulP is a weakly continuous functional on HT. Let uz E HT be a minimizing sequence: @(u;) = 1 and ll~ill-+ cp and let, on a renumbered subsequence, u; --\ w. Then @(w) = lim@(u;) = 1 and, by weak lower semicontinuity of the Hilbert norm, llw112 5 limll~;11~ = c,. Since there is n o w with @(w) = 1 such that llw112 < c,, llw112 = c,, SO w is a minimizer.

3.9

The concentration compactness argument

One may state the basic objective of concentration compactness as proving, with a suitable operator set D , that a given sequence has a D-weakly convergent subsequence. Unlike the weak convergence, assured by the BanachAlaoglu theorem, D-weak convergence is generally assured only in the sense of Theorem 3.1. Characterization of D-weak convergence for a given dislocation space (H, D) in terms of a known space (such as L p ) , is an analytic problem in its own right. In the well understood case when H is a Sobolev space on a manifold M and D consists of actions of a transformation group G on M , the strength of the D-weak convergence is determined by how robust G is. A rule of thumb is that D-weak convergence implies LP-convergence in this case if the Sobolev imbedding over bounded subsets of M is compact and if M is co-compact relative to G (that is, if there is a compact set K c M such that UgEGgK = M). This is the case considered in Chapter 4 for M = EXN and in Chapter 9 for general manifolds. A dyadic partition of the range of a function, connected to dilation operators u(x) H 2aju(2jx), j E Z, provides, by means of reducing the functions to those with compact range, D-weak convergence that implies convergence in L ~ with * the critical Sobolev exponent. Reasons vary for the series in (3.11) to contain at most one term (thus providing D-weak convergence for a dislocated sequence ( g p ) * g ~ ) ) - l g p ) * u k ,or, if n = 1, for the sequence uk itself), depend-

80


ing on the applications. For instance, Proposition 3.7 uses a convexity reasoning that entails a variational penalty for the sequence splitting into separate bulks, while Lemma 3.5 exploits symmetry by proving that any dislocated weak limit w, escaping with translations yk, lykl -+ co,would be reproduced by rotation symmetry infinitely many times as w ( - ryk, T E O ( N ) ,adding up to the infinite Sobolev norm of the sequence. Many other mechanisms could force dislocated weak limits of sequences to become zero. Often the dislocated weak limit satisfies a different differential equation than the weak limit and reasons could be found in favor of the latter. This reasoning applies, in particular, when the original sequence is supported on a non-invariant domain 0: is may be treated as a sequence of functions on a larger invariant manifold, while its dislocated limits end up supported on a domain different from 0. If it is not possible to verify D-weak convergence, the concentration compactness argument still renders a simpler verification whether the sequence converge D-weakly to zero or not. If it does not, there is a non-zero dislocated weak limit, which for a D-invariant problem could be a solution.

3.10

Bibliographic remarks

Weak dislocated limits based on dilations appear already in the 1981 paper [103] of J . Sacks and K. Uhlenbeck. A crucial model problem employing concentration compactness for the critical exponent has been studied in the 1983 paper [24] of H. BrQzis and L. Nirenberg. The term concentration compactness is due t o P.-L. Lions, who presented a very broad array of variational non-compact problems that can be handled by concentration compactness approach in the celebrated series of papers [86], [87], 1881 and [89],preceded by several earlier publications and announcements, in particular ([85]). P.-L. Lions has presented concentration compactness in terms of behavior of sequences in LP (as vanishing, tight or dichotomic), which roughly corresponds, in the terms used here, to the expansion (3.11) with, respectively, none, one or several non-zero terms w ( ~ )M. . Struwe ( [ l l l ] ) can be credited with the first LLmulti-bump" representation of bounded critical sequences related to (3.11), while H. Br6zis and J.-M. Coron have proved in [25] a similar expansion where the separation of dislocation parameters correspondent to (3.9) was specified. Both papers were dealing with the concentration of the critical exponent type. The multi-bump expansion of P.-L. Lions (Appendix in 1901) dealt with the translation invariant case,


81

but most of the use of concentration compactness in the first years (e.g. [47],[119],in addition to the already cited papers) concerned the limit exponent case. The focus of "multi-bump" expansions has been usually on sequences with specific properties - in the typical case, critical sequences of functionals. The weak convergence decomposition (3.11) was published, in a slightly less general form than here, in [106]. This formulation of concentration compactness in functional-analytic terms, in addition to Struwe's global compactness and its Lions' counterpart is inspired by the results of H. Brkzis and E. Lieb: Lemma 3.3 is essentially [81], Lemma 6 (a similar statement is also found in [87]), Theorem 3.2 is the celebrated Brkzis-Lieb lemma [22] and [23] elaborates the use of concentration compactness in minimization problems based on the BrCzis-Lieb lemma. Existence of minimum in (3.49) was proved in [86]. We present here two shorter proofs of the statement, a proof based on the weak convergence reasoning in [23] and the proof based on Corollary 3.3 that was first published in [105]. Compactness of imbeddings for the subspace of radial functions is due to P.L. Lions ([84]),but a shorter proof based on the concentration compactness argument was a common knowledge by the end of 1980's. A summary of concentration compactness can be found in the books of J. Chabrowski [33], L.C. Evans [51], M. Flucher [56], M. Struwe [110] and M. Willem [122].


Chapter 4

Concentration compactness with Euclidean shifts

In this chapter we consider existence of minimizers in constrained minimization problems similar to (3.49), where convergence of minimizing sequences is studied in the Hilbert space H1(RN). We equip the space H1(RN) with a group of unitary operators DG = {gy : u H u(. - y), y E G), where G is an additive subgroup of EXN satisfying (3.34), for example, G = zNor G = RN. By Lemma 3.2, (H1(RN),DG) is a dislocation space. Particular attention is paid here to problems in Hi(R), R c R N , where existence of minimizers depends on R, and to similar problems where positive solutions are minimizers in some modified sense. Related problems of the mountain pass type are considered later, in Chapter 6. Throughout the chapter the notations of scalar product and norm, unless specified otherwise, refer to the space H1(RN) and its subspaces Hi(R) with open R c RN. 4.1

Flask sets

The class of flask domains is based on Definition 3.3. If Hi(R) is a DG-flask subspace of H ~ ( R ~it) is, natural to call R C RN a G- flask set. We will use, however, a slightly more general definition. Together with G we also consider a subgroup T of O(N) and define (G, T)-flask sets, or flask sets with rotations. Definition 4.1 Let G be an additive subgroup of RN and let T be a subgroup of O(N). An open set R c RN is called a (G, T)-flask set if for every sequence yk E G, lykl 4 oo,there exist z E G and r E T, such that whenever uk E H i ( n ) and uk (. yk) w in H' (RN), w E HA (7-Cl z). If T = {id), we will say that R is a G-flask set.

+

+

83


84

Note that RN is a (G, T)-flask set for any choice of G and T Theorem 4.1 Assume that the group G satisfies (3.34) and let O c RN be a (G,T)-Jtask set. If uk E Ht(O) is a bounded sequence, then there exist y r ) E G, dn)E T with yf) = 0 and = id, such that, on a renumbered subsequence,

(3.40) and (3.38) hold true, and

Moreover, if F E c(WN) is as in Lemma 1.7, then

and

Proof. Let uk be a renumbered subsequence given by Corollary 3.3 with corresponding y?) E G, w ( ~ )E H1(WN). Due t o Definition 4.1 there exist dn)E T and dn) E G, such that w ( ~ )E HA(T(~)R d n ) ) and uk(. y r ) L ( ~ ) ) ,(")(a I(")) E H; (TO). Let us rename y r ) An) as ) ( ~ )n, > 2. Note that (3.40) and (3.38) remain y r ) and w(") (. ~ ( ~ as1 w and that (3.37) holds with renamed true with the renamed y r ) and w ( ~ )E H;(T(~)R) which verifies (4.1). Relations (4.2), (4.3) and (4.4) follow then from (3.39), (3.41) and (3.44) respectively, once we take account of change of supports under transformation, invariance of the Lebesgue measure and of I V U with ~ ~ respect to translations and rotations.

+

+

+

+

+

+

Flask sets are characterized by their asymptotic behavior at infinity. Let X be any set and let X k C X, k E N. The lower and the upper limit sets of the sequence X k are

Problem 4.1 (a) Show that lim inf X k C lim sup X k .

Chapter

4 Euclidean shi,fts

85

(b) Show that if Xkj is a subsequence of Xk, then lirn inf Xkj > lirn inf Xk and lirn sup Xkj c lirn sup Xk. ( c ) Show that if XA : X ++ {0,1) is a characteristic function of a set A C X , then Xlim inf xk= lirn inf XX, and Xlim sup xk= lirn sup XX,. We shall say that two measurable sets Vl, V2 c lRN are equal up to a set of measure zero if Ifi \ VII IVl \ fiI = 0. This establishes an equivalence relation and we will denote the correspondent equivalence class as V = [Vl] = [Vz]. If IVl\V21 = 0 we say that Vl c V2 up to a set of measure zero. If f ,g : R c lRN + lR are two measurable functions equal almost everywhere, we will denote the correspondent equivalence class as u = [f] = [g]. Let f : R c RN -+ R be a measurable function and define, taking into account that the right hand side is independent of f E [f],

+

Note that V([f]) is generally not [suppf ] . Lemma 4.1 Let uk be a bounded sequence in Hi(R) and let yk E RN. If uk(. yk) -\ w in H1(RN), then there is a renumbered subsequence of yk such that, up to a set of measure zero, V(w) c liminf(R - yk).

+

+

Proof. By Corollary 2.5, a renumbered subsequence ur,(x yk) converges to w(x) for every x E RN \ Z with some set Z of zero measure. Without loss of generality we may assume that w(x) = 0 when x E Z. When x @ Z and x 4 liminf(S2 - yk), by the definition of the lower limit set one has x 4 nk>,(R - yk) for any n E N, which implies that x yk $! R for some subsequence ykj Thus w(x) = limuk(x ykj) = 0. Consequently, V(w) c liminf(S2 - yk) U Z.

+

+

The following is a sufficient geometric condition of a set to be a (G, T)-flask set. Theorem 4.2 An open trace set R c RN is a (G, T)-flask set if for any sequence yk E G there exist z E G, T E T, such that, up to a set of measure zero,

lim inf (R - yk) c TR

+

Z.

(4.6)

+

Proof. Let uk E H ~ ( R ) w , E H ' ( R ~ ) and yk E G be such that uk(. yk) -\ w. By Lemma 4.1, there is a renumbered sequence of yk such that V(w) C liminf(0 - yk) modulo a set of zero measure. Therefore, by (4.6), V(W) C TR z with some 7 E T, z E G. Since R is a trace set, one has w E H;(TR+z).

+


86

Let R, be an &-stripin R along its boundary:

R, = {X E R , ~ ( x , I\RR ~) < E ) .

(4.7)

When dR has a uniform regularity (namely, when the measure of R, vanishes as E + 0 uniformly within all balls of fixed radius), substitution of lim inf (R\R, -yk) instead of lirn inf (0-yk) in (4.6) turns the sufficient condition into a necessary and sufficient one.

Theorem 4.3 that

Let R

c IRN

be an open trace set, and, moreover, assume

m, := sup IBl(y)

no,! + 0.

yEWN

The set 52 is a (G,T)-flask set if and only if for every sequence yk E G there exist z E G, r E T , such that, up to a set of measure zero,

Proof. Let X, E C r ( R \ RE,[0, I]), ~ ( x=) 1 for x E R \ R2€. All the set inclusions below are understood modulo a set of measure zero. Necessity. Assume that R is a (G,T)-flask set. Let, on a renumbered subsequence (that depends on E )

+

in H1(lRN). Since, on a renumbered subsequence, x,( yk) + V, almost everywhere and X, = 1 on 52 \ R2,, from the definition of the lower limit follows that v, = 1 on lim inf(R \ R2, - yk). Consequently, V(v,) 2 lim inf (R \ R2, - yk). By the definition of the (G, T)-flask set there exist z E G, for every E > 0, v, E H ; ( T ~ z), and therefore

+

T

E T such that

Combining last two inclusions we get TR

+ z > lim inf (R \ 0 2 ,

- yk).

This inclusion remains true if one replaces the extraction yk with the original sequence (the liminf set of a sequence is a subset of liminf set of a subsequence).

Chapter 4 Euclidean shafis

87

Suficiency. Let uk E Hi(R), let w E H ' ( R ~ )and let yk E G be such that, on a renumbered subsequence given by (Corollary 2.5), uk(. yk) converges to w almost everywhere and weakly in H ' ( R ~ ) . For every E > 0 we define, for a further renumbered subsequence dependent on E,

+

By Lemma 4.1, V(w,) C lim inf (R \ 0, - yk). Let y E RN. We have, on a renumbered subsequence, using compactness of the Sobolev imbedding over Bl(y) and, at the last steps, the Cauchy inequality and (4.8):

L1(,)

lw (x) - w, (x)1 dx = lim

= lim

/

L1(,)

1(1- X & ) U ~+I (YX~ P X

l(l - xE)lluxl 5 limsup/Rz, n BI(Y - yx)ltlluxllz

BI(Y-~k)

n Bl(y)l;

5 C sup

-+

0

y€WN

as E + 0. Therefore w, thus

+

w in measure in any ball Bl(y), y E RN, and

+

and, since R is a trace set, w E H ~ ( T R z), which proves the theorem. Problem 4.2

Show that the following sets are (G, T)-flask sets.

(a) Any open bounded set R c RN (more generally, any Rellich set as defined in Section 4.3); (b) Any open periodic set $2 c R N , i.e. R = UyEG(U y), where U c EXN is an open set; (c) If N = Nl Nz and Ri c RNt,dRi E C1, i = 1,2, satisfy conditions of Theorem 4.3 with respective groups Gi,Ti then R1 x R2 is a (GIT)-flask set with G = GI x G2, TI x T2; (d) A finite union of (G, T)-flask sets whose pairwise intersections are bounded; (e) A set R = Ro U R1, where Ro is a (RN,O(N))-flask set, R1 c TOOwith some T E O(N) and a bounded 00n 01, is a (EN,O(N))-flask set.

+

+


88

The term flask set originates from the flask-shaped unbounded domains for which existence of Sobolev minimizers was verified first. Let w E RN-I be an open bounded set with dfl E C1 and assume that R 3 w x R and that for every E > 0 there is a R > 0 such that R \ BR(O) c (w x R) B,(O). Then lim inf(R - yk) is, up to a set of measure zero and up to a translation, either 0 or R, or w x R, all of which are contained, up to a translation and up to a set of measure zero in R.

+

Proposition 4.1

The following sets are not (RN,O(N))-flask sets:

(a) An open set R c RN, # RN, which for every R > 0 contains a ball of radius R, in particular, an open cone, is not a (RN,O(N))-flask set; (b) An open cylinder from which one has removed a closed bounded subset with non-empty interior; (c) A product w x (0, m), where w c RNP1 is an open set. Note that the condition in (a) cannot be weakened to R # RN, since it is easy to verify for N > 1 that C,"(RN \ (0)) is dense in H1(RN), and therefore H ~ ( I \W(0)) ~ = H ' ( R ~ ) ,which is a flask space.

Proof. (a). Let yk E RN be such that Bk(yk) E R. Let w E H1(RN), suppw = RN (e.g. w(z) = e-1x12), and let x k E C,"(Bk(O), [ O , l ] ) be equal to 1on Bk-1 (0) and satisfy IVxkI 2. It is easy to see that uk = xkw(.-yk) is a bounded sequence in Hi(R) (in particular, suppuk c suppx + yk c Bk(yk) c R), uniformly convergent on compact sets (and therefore, weakly in H1(RN)) to w. Since suppw = RN, w $ H i (TO Z) for any T E O(N) and z € R N . (b) Let R = w x R \ U , where w is an open set in RN-' and U is a proper bounded subset of w x R. Let w E Hi(w x R). Let M = sup{xN : x E U ) . uk = X(XN)W(. - k e ~ ) where , e~ = (0,. . . ,0,1) and x E Cm(R,[0, I]), ~ ( x=) 0 for x 5 M, ~ ( x = ) 1 for x 2 M 1, (x'( 5 2. Similarly to the argument above, uk(. k e ~ ) w. It is clear that

O

TEO(N),~EW~

which implies that there is a w E H i (w x R) that is not in H i (TR any T E O ( N ) , z E RN. (c) The proof is analogous to the one in case (b).

+ z) for

Chapter

4.2

4 Euclidean shifts

89

Existence of Sobolev minimizers on flask domains

Consider the following constrained minimization problem C(P,0 ) =

2

inf ( ( ~ l l ~ ;p(E~ (2,2*) ), u€H;(R),Il~llp=l

where R C !RN is an open, generally unbounded, set and p E (2,2*).

Theorem 4.4 Let R be a (G, T)-flask set and assume that T is a closed subgroup of O ( N ) and that G is a closed subgroup of !RN satisfying (3.34). Then every minimizing sequence uk for the problem (4.11) has a (renumbered) subsequence such that for some yk E D, uk(. - yk) converges in H1(!RN) to a function w E H A (TO), where w o T is a minimizer of the problem and T E T. Minimizers of (4.11) are positive (up to a scalar multiple) functions satu = Xu"-' in R with A isfying (3.50) with cp E H;(R), that is, -Au understood in the sense of weak derivatives: the argument of Section 3.7 applies in the case R # R N with only trivial modifications.

+

Proof. By the Sobolev inequality, c(p, R) > 0. Let uk be a minimizing sequence, i.e. / ( u ~ = ( /1,~ ( ( u ~ ( ( $ + ~ (c(p,R), ~) and apply Theorem 4.1. Let uk, win), dn)and

yp)be as provided by Theorem 4.1. By (4.3),

* t,, then, comparing the Sobolev norm of w(") o If we set Jn ~ w (o~T ()~ ) [ = 1

T(")

with the infimum value c(p, R), we get ((t,%(n)

(($A,,, > c(p, R),

2

which gives J/w(")o dn) //&A(n) 2 c(p, 0 ) t K Substituting this into (4.13) we get

On the other hand, (4.12) can be written as Ent, = 1 and since < 1, both relations can hold only if all tn but one, say trio, vanish and tno = 1.


90

This yields, due to (4.14),

= c(p, a ) , since smaller

//w("o) 0 T("o)

values contradict the definition of the infimum. Thus, ~ ( " 0 ) o ~ ( " 0 ) is a minimizer. We conclude from (3.40) that uk - d n O ) ( .- y p O ) )3 0 in H1(RN), or equivalently, uk(. y p ) ) 3 w("~). In particular, uk(. w("o), which together with the convergence of norms (llukll$l + ~ ( p0,) =

+

I ~ W ( " ~ ) )yields $ ~ ) that uk(.

4.3

+

+ y p ) ) converges to

~ ( " 0 )

-

in H1(RN).

Rellich sets and compactness of Sobolev imbeddings

Definition 4.2 An open set R C R N will be called a Rellich set if H A (0) is compactly imbedded into LP(R), p E (2,2*). It follows immediately from the imbedding of H;(R) into L ~(R) * and the Holder inequality that compactness of imbedding of HA(S2) into LP(R), p E (2,2*), is independent of p.

Proposition 4.2 Let p E (2,2*) and let G be an additive subgroup of RN satisfying (3.34). An open set R C R N is a Rellich set if and only if for every bounded sequence uk E HA(R) and every sequence yk E G, lykl -+ a, there is a renamed subsequence such that uk(. yk) 0.

+

-\

Proof. The assertion is immediate from Definition 4.2 due to Proposition 3.6, Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 3.3. Note that the condition in Proposition 4.2 is independent of G.

Proposition 4.3 Let G be an additive subgroup of R N satisfying (3.34). An open set R c RN is a Rellich set if for any sequence yk E G, lykl 4 GO, the set liminf(R - yk) has measure zero. Proof. Let uk be a bounded sequence and let uk(.+ yk) w in H ' ( I w ~ ) . By Lemma 4.1, w = 0 a.e. in R N , i.e. w is the zero element of H ' ( R ~ ) . -\

In particular, any open bounded set is a Rellich set (which was already stated in Theorem 2.8).

Theorem 4.5 Let G be an additive subgroup of R N satisfying (3.34). Assume that R c RN is an open set satisfying (4.8) with RE defined by (4.7). The set R is a Rellich set if and only if for every sequence yk E G and every E > 0

Chapter

4

Euclidean shzfts

91

Proof. Let X, be as in the proof of Theorem 4.3. All the set inclusions below will be modulo sets of measure zero. Necessity. If R is a Rellich set, then x,(.+yk) 0. Repeating the argument from proof of Theorem 4.3 with v, = 0, we arrive at

-

-

Sufcciency. Let uk E Hi(R), let w E H ~ ( I wand ~ ) let yk E G be such that, on a renumbered subsequence, uk(. yk) W. For every E > 0 we define (on a renumbered subsequence dependent on E),

+

By Lemma 4.1,

JV(w,)1 5 I lim inf (R \ 0, - yk)I = 0. From the proof of Theorem 4.3, that utilizes (4.8), we have that w, in measure within every ball Bl(y), y E JRN, and this yields w = 0. An "infinitely narrow" flask-shaped set (1 < *), (xl, . . . ,x ~ - ~ is) a, Rellich set by Proposition 4.3. 4.4

where

-+ w

=

Concentration compactness with symmetry

We prove the following generalization of Lemma 3.5. Proposition 4.4 Let T be a closed infinite subgroup of O ( N ) and let R c lRN be an open set such that TR = R for every T E T. Assume that for every sequence yk E lRN such that I liminf(S2 - yk)l > 0,

Then the space HT : { u E HHR), u into LP(R) whenever p E (2,2*).

0T

= u, T E T), is compactly imbedded

Proof. Let uk be a bounded sequence in HT. Consider its renumbered subsequence given by Theorem 4.1. If for some n 2, 1 lim inf(R - y$))l = 0, then w ( ~ = ) 0 by Lemma 4.1, so without loss of generality we may assume that y$) satisfies (4.16) for all n 2. Fix n 2 and assume that w ( ~ #) 0.

>

>

>


92

Note that by (3.37) and since u E HT,

and that

I71-l Yk(n)- rF1yp)1

--t

w whenever

TI

# 72,

due to (4.16). Consider the following inequality with M E N and distinct T I , . . .,TM E T:

Expanding the expression, passing t o the limit in k and taking into account (4.17) and (4.18) we obtain: liminf lluk112 2

MIIW(~)~~&L(,N),

which can hold for every M E N only if w ( ~ = ) 0 for all n 2 2. We conclude that uk D ~ Nw(l), and thus, by Lemma 3.3, uk the proposition.

+ w(l) in

LP, which proves

Example. Let T = S1,a group of plane rotations around the xs-axis in R~ and let 52 = {x E R3 : xz < x: xi c2), c E R. Then the subspace HT of H i (R) of axially symmetric functions is compactly imbedded into LP(R), 2 0 and S > 0, such that any ball B,(x), x E dR, contains a ball Ba(y) c IRN \ R with some y E IRN. In

+

Chapter 4 Euclidean shifls

93

other words, fiiedrichs inequality holds for typical flask sets and there are convergence results involving functionals of the form

Let

Then A1

> 0 if and only if (2.13) is true. Consider

+

' ( 0 )= sup A1 (a Bp(0)) 5 A1( R ) . P>O

+

(4.21)

The equality A(R) = A1(R) is assured when R B p ( 0 )-+ R in the sense of Mosco ([95]), which in turn is the case when is stable (Hh = HA ( R ) , [40],Proposition 7.4.), and in particular, whenever d R E C1. We extend the applications of Theorem 4.1 to problems where the quadratic form (4.19) with A < A(R) defines an equivalent norm. For the sake of simplicity we assume that T = {id).

a

(a)

Let R c IRN be a G-flask set with respect to a group Theorem 4.6 G c IRN satisfying (3.34). If R satisfies (2.15) and p E (2,2*), then the problem

has a minimizer, and for every minimizing sequence uk there is a sequence yk E D such that u k ( . yk) converges to a minimizer.

+

Proof. If the inequality (4.2) in Theorem 4.1 were established not for the standard H1-norm, but for the norm (4.19) on Ht(R), then the proof of this statement would be a literal repetition of the proof of Theorem 4.4. Thus, in order to prove the theorem, it suffices to show that the functions w(") given by Theorem 4.1 satisfy

Note that the expression (4.19) is not necessarily positive for every u E C? ( I R N ) , and therefore, while (4.2) is immediate from (3.39),this argument is not available for (4.23).

94

C o n c e n t r a t i o n Compactness

Let p > 0 be sufficiently small so that

X < X(R + B,(O))

=

inf

+

Let x E C r ( R B,(O)) be equal 1 on 0 . By Lemma 4.1, v ( w ( ~ ) )C liminf(R - y p ) ) . Then for almost every x E v(w(")), one has x E 0 for large k, which implies ~ ( x y p ) ) -+ 1. Therefore, by the Lebesgue convergence theorem,

yp)

+

A similar calculation with the gradient norms yields

as k

-+

0. Let

(I, v)* =

(VU. VV - XUV),

(4.25)

and note that the bilinear form (4.25) is continuous (but not necessarily positive) on H ~ ( I wand ~ ) that it is positive in restriction to Hd(R+ B,(O)). In particular, for any M E N,

for all k sufficiently large. Expanding (4.26) by bilinearity, we have

Let us estimate terms in (4.27). By (4.24)

Chapter 4 Euclidecan shifts

95

Furthermore,

-

by (4.24) and (4.1). Finally, since ~ y r ) yLrn)l -+ yLm) yf)) 0 and thus

+

CQ,

one has w(")(. -

). since the functionals involved in (4.30) are continuous in H ~ ( I w ~Using (4.24), we have

Collecting the evaluations (4.28, 4.29 and 4.31), we obtain from (4.27)

Since M is arbitrary, (4.23) follows. 4.6

Solvability in non-flask domains

The definition of the constrained minimum in (4.11) R extended arbitrary sets A c IRN by c(pl A) =

sup

n > A , fl open

c(pla ) .

H

c(p, R) can be

(4.32)

Proposition 4.5 Let R C RN be an open set and let p E (2,2*). If for every sequence yk E R, IykJ 4 oo,

C(P,lim inf ( a - yk))

> c(p, R),

(4.33)

then the problem (4.11) has a minimizer and every minimizing sequence converges in HA (R) .


96

Proof. Consider a subsequence uk of the minimizing sequence provided by Corollary 3.3 with correspondent w(,) and y?), n E N. Let t, = SwNIW(")~P. Then from (3.4) we have C t , = 1. Let R, be an open trace set such that liminf (R - y?)) c R, and c(p, R,) > c(p, R) (in particular, such R, exist with dR, E C1). Since v(w(,)) c liminf(R - y?)) by Lemma 4.1, and v(w(")) c R,, w(") E Hof(R,), and by (3.39) we have c(p, R) 2 c(p, ~ , ) t 6 .This implies with necessity, since c(p, 0,) > c(p, 0 ) and < 1, that t l = 1 and t, = 0, n 2 2. Thus, uk + w(') in LP, and so, 1 ~+ , w('). weakly in Hi(R). Since lluk112 + ~ ( p0, ) = l l ~ ( ~ ) 1uk

a

Lemma 4.2 Let R1 c Rz, Rz \ # 0, be two open sets in RN. If c(p, R1) is attained, then c(p, 02) < ~ ( p01). ,

Proof. Since Hd(R1) c H;(R2), ~ ( pR2) Assume that , I ~ ( p01). , c(p, Rz) = c(p, 01). Then the minimizer u E H; (a1) for c(p, 0 , ) will be a minimizer for c(p, Rz). In particular, -Au 0 in R2, which by the maximum principle (Proposition C.2) implies that u > 0 in R2, which contradicts u E H;(R1). Thus, with necessity, c(p, R2) < c(p,R1).

>

Proposition 4.6 Let R1, R2 c RN be open sets and assume that the set RlnR2 is bounded. Let R = R1UR2 and let p E (2,2*). If c(p, Ri) > c(p, R), i = 1,2, then c(p, R) is attained.

Proof. Let uk

E Hof(R) be a minimizing sequence for c(p,R), i.e.

11uk112 -t c(p,R) and llukJlp = 1. Let x E C F ( R N , [O,l]) be equal to 1 on a closed set B containing ill n R2. Let, on a renumbered subsew and uk + w a.e. Due to Lemma 1.4 and Lemma 2.2, quence, uk 0 and by compactness of Sobolev imbeddings on bounded xuk - xw domains, xuk -+ xw in Lp(suppx). Then

-

Let us show that

Chapter 4 Euclidean shzfts

97

Indeed

Note that the second integral in the last expression converges to zero by compactness of Sobolev imbeddings over bounded domains. By separation of non-compact and compact terms one arrives at

4)

By (4.34) and (4.35), vk := uk - x uk - W) is a minimizing sequence. Note that one can write (1 - x)uk = +up) where u r ) E H A ( R ~ \B) and u f ) E G ( f 1 2 \ B ) are restrictions of (1 - x)uk to disjoint sets R1 \ B and R2 \ B. Let, on a renumbered subsequence, w(') = wlimur) and w(') = w limur). Then (1 - x)w = w(') + w ( ~ and ) we have

At the last step of the calculation we used the weak convergence of vk to w. Due to Theorem 3.2,

Therefore,


98

I f we set, o n a renumbered subsequence, ti = lim Jni luf) - w ( ~ ) ) ~ Pi, = 1,2, and to = Jn Iwlp, then,

and from (4.36) and definitions o f c(p, R i ) follows:

Since 2 / p < 1 and c(p, R i ) > c(p, R ) , i = 1,2, t h e last inequality implies w i t h necessity tl = t 2 = 0 and to = 1. B y weak semicontinuity o f t h e norm 1 1 c~( p , R ) , and since llwllP = 1, w llw112 cannot be larger t h a n lim 1 1 ~ ~ = is necessarily a minimizer and lluk112 -+ l l ~ 1 1 ~ T. h e latter, together with uk W , implies uk -+ w in H i ( R ) . Remark 4.1 The argument i n Proposition 4.6 indicates that one can weaken the condition (4.35') in Proposition 4.5 as follows: whenever lim i n f (0-y k ) is contained i n a union of open sets Ujwith disjoint closures, it sufices to verify only

c(p,liminf ( R - yk) n U j ) > c(p,0). The proof is left to the reader. 4.7

Convergence by penalty at infinity

Proposition 4.7

Let V E L " ( W ~ ) , i n f wV~> 0 , and assume that V ( x ) < V, := lim V ( y ) , x E IRN, IYI+"

with a strict inequality on a set of positive measure. Let

and let, with p E (2,2*),

Then cp is attained and any minimizing sequence for cp has a subsequence that converges to a minimizer i n H 1 ( R N ) .

Chapter 4 Euclidean shifls

99

Proof. Note that assumptions 0 < inf V and V E Lm imply that a(., defines an equivalent norm on H1(RN). Let uk be a minimizing sequence and consider its renumbered subsequence given by Corollary 3.3 (with the standard Sobolev norm). From the identity a)+

follows, with w = w(') = w limuk, vk = uk - w , c,

= lima(uk,uk) = a(w,w) +lima(vk,vk)

1 cpIIwII~+lima(vk1vk). (4.39)

Once we show that lima(vk, vk)

> c p t 2 / ~where , t

= lim inf IlvkIIF,

(4.40)

the proof of the proposition can be concluded as follows: observe from (3.45) that t = 1 - IIwII;, so that from (4.39) follows that, unless t = 0, c, > c, (t2/p (1 - t)'/p), which is false for p > 2. Consequently, t = 0, S lwlP = 1 and since (4.39) implies that a(w, w) c, and c, is the infimum value, w is a minimizer. Moreover, t = 0 together with a(wk,wk) 4 C, = a(w, w) implies that uk + w in H1. Let us prove (4.40). Let E > 0 and let U, be an open ball such that whenever x $ U,, V(x) V, - E. Then by compactness of Sobolev imbeddings over bounded domains SUEV ( 2 ) 1 ~ -+ ~ 10~and

+

Since E is arbitrary, we have lima(vk,vk)

+

>

:C

limsup 11v,+IIi,

(4.41)

where c r = infll,llp,l S IVuI2 Vmu2. Let w E H'(RN), w > 0, be a minimizer for c? (see Proposition 3.7 and the preceding discussion of


100

positivity). Then (4.40).

J IVwI2 + v,w2

> Jl V ~+ 1 V~w 2 2 cp which

yields

Remark 4.2 Assume that, under the rest of assumptions of Proposition 4.7, V(x) > V,. Then the infimum (4.38) equals c r (the value of c, for V = V , ) and is not attained. To see this, consider the minimizer w for c p , given by Proposition 3.7. Let yk E RN, lykl -+ 00. Since c, 2 c p , it immediately follows that w ( . - yk) is a minimizing sequence for cp and cp = c p . If (4.38) were attained on some wo E H1(IRN), IIwOIJp= 1, we would arrive at a contradictory inequality c r < cp = c r .

4.8

Minimizers with finite symmetry

), b(x) = b , > 0 and assume Proposition 4.8 Let b E L ~ ( ! R ~liml,l,, that there is a subgroup T of O ( N ) with m elements and that for every T E T \ {id), T - id is non-singular and that for every T E T , b o T = b. Let HT = { u E H1(RN) : VT E T U O T = u ) . If

then the problem

has a minimizer.

Proof. Let

and let us show that

Indeed, due to the rearrangement inequalities (B.l) and (B.3) at the first step, and then using (4.42), we have

Chapter 4 Euclidean sh2ft.s

CP,m

=

inf

101

llul12

u E H o ( N ) : S ~ NbrnlulPd~21

2 u € H T : S ~ Nbinr nf ) u ( x ) ) P d x ~1 l1 ~ 1 1 2

Let uk be a bounded sequence in HT and consider renumbered subsequences provided by Corollary 3.3 with G = RN in application to uk = u k o ~T, E T. We have by T-invariance, for n > 1,

T'~P)I

Our assumption on T E T \ {I)implies that l ~ y p-) 4 co whenever # TI, SO we get in the expansion (3.40) m distinct terms of the form w ( ~ ) (-. T ~ P ) )T, E T, which allows us to write (3.40) in the form T

From (3.39) we have

At the same time, due to Remark 3.4,

Let t l = J b(x) lw(l)lp and follows that

en = J b,

From (4.47) we deduce that

lw(") lp, tn = me, n

> 1. From (4.47)


102

+

which, together with (4.45), yields tylp m2/pEn,, &IP 5 1, or in other words, 5 1. This and (4.48), given p > 2, hold simultaneously only if all but one oft,, say n = no, equal zero. However, if no > 1, since (4.42) is strict, the inequality in (4.48) is strict, so w("o) cannot be a minimizer. Therefore (4.46) implies with necessity that u k -, w ( l ) in Lp. Since the norm of w ( l ) cannot be less than cp,b, we conclude that u k -+ w ( l ) in H 1 and that w ( l ) is a minimizer.

ti'"

Remark 4.3 (a) Proposition 4.8 includes the case without a symmetry, that is T = {id), m = 1, with condition (4.42) reduced to b ( x ) > b,. (b) It is easy to show, repeating the argument of Section 3.7, that a minimizer for (4.43) satisfies the equation (3.50) with V = 1 and is positive

(or negative). (c) Condition (4.42) i n Proposition 4.8 can be relaxed to b ( x ) 2 ml-f b,

with strict inequality on a set of positive measure. The proof requires to observe that the inequality i n (4.48) remains strict when w(") # 0 , which i n turn requires a proof that w ( ~>) 0 . This can be verified by the following steps. (i) Replace the minimizing sequence u k with Iukl, which remains the minimizing sequence, so that w(") 2 0. (ii) Show that w(") is, up to a constant, a minimizer i n (4.44), for i f not, it could be replaced i n the expansion (4.46) with another function that will decrease the value of llukll below infimum. (iii) Conclude from the equation (3.50) and strong maximum principle that w(") > 0 SO that J b(x)(w(")lp> m l - f J b, lw(")(p. 4.9

Positive non-extremal solutions

We consider first the problem, analogous t o the one in Proposition 4.8 with T = {id), but replace the penalty condition b ( x ) < b, with an "averaged penalty" as follows.

Theorem 4.7 Assume that b E LW(IRN),b, := limlZl,, b ( x ) > 0, and that there exists a Bore1 measure p on R N , p ( ~ N =) 1 , such that

with a strict inequality o n a set of positive measure. Then for every p E

103

Chapter 4 Euclidean shifts

(2,2*) there exists a positive solution u E H ' ( R ~ to ) the equation

Proof.

1.Let

and

c, := sup

1

b,lu(x)lpdx.

ll1~11~=1 RN

A positive minimizer for (3.49) with V = 1 is, up t o a multiple, a positive maximizer w(,) for c, . 2. Let uk E H 1 ( R N )be amaximizing sequence, that is, Ilukll 5 1, S blulp -+ cb. Since lukl is also a maximizing sequence, we assume that uk L 0 and consider the renumbered sequence of uk, w(") 6 H 1 and E R N given by Corollary 3.3 with G = R N . Let

yp)

where t 2 := IIw(n)112and yk E RN is any sequence such that lykl -+ m. By (3.39) we have

I I w ( ~ ) ~ +~ t~ 2

((vk/I2 =

1lw(")11~ j limsup l l u k 2 = 1, n

while, due to Remark 3.4 and since p/2

> 1,

from which follows that vk is a maximizing sequence for cb and

3. Let us show that w ( l ) # 0. If t = 0, this follows from (4.51). Assume that t > 0. Considering u H S b(ulP on a translated sequence vk(. yk - y) =

+


104

+

w(')(* yk - y)

+ w(")(.

- y),

y E RN, we have from Remark 3.4

Comparing (4.51) and (4.52), we obtain

Integrating this inequality with respect to the measure p over y E RN and using the Fubini theorem, we have, due to (4.49),

which proves that w(l) # 0. 4. The theorem is proved once we show that w(l) is a (weak) solution of (4.50). Assume that w(l) is not a solution. Then there exists a v E H1(RN) , < 0 and 6 := (p - 1) J b ~ ( l ) ~ - l>v 0. By density, we such that ( ~ ( ' 1 v) may assume that v E C r ( R N ) . Let u i := vk sv, s > 0. Then for all s sufficiently small, E, := -(2s(v, w(')) ~ ~ 1 1 ~>1 01 ~and )

+

+

Thus for every s sufficiently small there is a k, E N such that llui112 5 1 whenever k 2 k,. Similarly, with f (A) := (p - 1)I Alp-2A,

provided that s is sufficiently small and k 2 k, with some (renamed) k, E N. In this calculation we have used the facts that vk tv A w(') tv in H1 and thus vk +tv + w(l) +tv in LP(suppv), that the map u H JsuPp, b f (u)v is continuous in Lp, that the sequence t H JSUPPV bf (vk tv)v is bounded on (0, s) and that the change of the order of integration, obvious for smooth functions, extends to H1 by density.

+

+

+

Chapter 4 Euclidean shzfts

105

We arrive at the conclusion that for all sufficiently small s the sequence has terms with 1Iu;II 1 and J bluilP > cb, a contradiction. Therefore w ( l ) > 0 is a solution to (4.50).

0 and p E ( 2 , 2 * ) . Then there exists a finite set Y c iZN and a solution

where by is a convex combination of functions b(. - y ) , y E Y . Note that (4.53) holds as well for the function by and that b: = b,.

Proof.

1.Let

Since p E (2,2*), by Theorem 2.14 we have g, E C 1 ( H 1 ( R N ) ) Let . cb :=

SUP

inf g y ( u ) .

II1~11~ 0. y€ZN\Y

Y€ZN

Let u k E H1(IRN) be a maximizing sequence for cb (that is, I(ukll 5 1 and maxy,~N g y ( u k ) 4 cb) and let yk E Y ( u k ) . Then

106


In what follows we assume that uk 0, since whenever uk is a maximizing sequence, so is 1 uk 1. Moreover, since uk (. -y k ) is also a maximizing sequence corresponding to yk = 0, we rename it as uk corresponding to yk = 0, that is, we may assume that 0 E Y ( u k ) . Consider the renumbered subsequence uk, w ( ~E) H 1 and y p ) E lRN, given by Corollary 3.3 with D = Z N . Note that w(") 2 0 since uk 2 0. 2. Passing to the limit in (4.56) with y = z, z E 2ZN, m E N , we obtain from Remark 3.4

yim)+

which yields

Note that w ( l ) # 0, for if it were zero, from (4.57) would follow that w ( ~=) 0 for every m, which yields cb = 0, a contradiction. Let Y := Y ( w ( ' ) ) . By (4.57) with m = 1, 0 E Y. 3. Assume that the vector w(') does not belong to the positive cone in H 1 ( R N ) generated by { v ~ , ( w ( ~ ) ) ) Then ~ ~ ~ .there exist a vector v E c r ( R N ) , llvll = 1, and a E > 0 such that ( w ( l ) , v ) < - 2 ~and ( g h ( w ( l ) )V, ) > 2 ~ .Consider now a sequence uk t v , t > 0. We can . see immediately that lluk tv1I2 1 - 4 ~ t t2 5 1 if t 5 4 ~ hrthermore, for all t sufficiently small and y E Y , using Remark 3.4, we have

+

_ b, - c ~ - E I " I , has been shown by A. Bahri and P.-L. Lions ([lo]),but instead of surveying this long paper we present here two other related results: Theorem 4.7 proves existence of positive solutions to (4.50) under an averaged penalty condition, and Theorem 4.8, [116],does so under the reversed penalty condition b(x) < b,. Another notable existence result not presented here, for a cylindrical domain with a hole (which is not a flask domain and where minimizer does not exist) is due to H. C. Wang, [120]. Although most of applications of concentration compactness based on shifts deal with nonlinear problems, some recent work concerns eigenvalues of elliptic operators on unbounded domains ([log], [91], [97]).

Chapter 5

Concentration compactness with dilations

5.1

Semilinear elliptic equations with the critical exponent

In this section we consider the Hilbert space z ) ~ ? ' ( I R ~ )N, tion 2.5), equipped with the group of operators

> 2 (cf.

Defini-

where Sw is the group of dilations

Note that hs+t = h,ht for all s, t E IR. We will also consider a subgroup 6~ = { h j E bw,j E Z) and the correspondent product group D N ,=~ DWNx 6 ~ . Each element of D N , (resp. ~ D N , ~can ) be written as u c-, (h,u)(. - y ) as well as u H h, (u(.- y ) ) ) with y E R N , s E R (resp. s E Z)and z = Y y . The integrals \VuI2 and \uI2*are invariant with respect to the dilation operators h, and the shift operators u I--+ u ( . - y), and therefore the elements of DN,Ware unitary operators in I D ~ , ' ( I W ~ as ) well as isometries (under the Sobolev imbedding) on L'* ( I R N ) .

SwN

SwN

Lemma 5.1 Let u E ; D ~ - ' ( R\ ~( )0 ) . The sequence ( h s k ) u (. yk), (yk,sk) E RN x IR, k E N , converges weakly to zero if and only if

+

( ~ k l l ~ k l

00.

cr(IRN) cr(IRN)

Proof. Since is a dense subspace of D 1 ~ ' ( R N )it, suffices to prove the lemma for u E \ (0). Necessity. Assume that the sequence ( s k ,y k ) has a bounded subsequence. Then it has a renumbered subsequence such that sk -+ so E R and yk + YO E R N . Let cp = ( h S , u ) ( . - ~ o )Then . ( ( h , , u ) ( . - ~ k )v) , ((h,,u)(-yo), v ) = llv1I2= 1 1 ~ 1 >1 ~ 0. -+

109

110


Suficiency. Let y, E C r (RN). Consider first a renumbered subsequence with SI, + +m. Then, changing the variables under the integral and integrating by parts, we have

Consider now a renumbered subsequence where sk ators in DN,Ware unitary,

-+

-m. Since the oper-

and the preceding argument applies with interchanged u and y,. Finally take a renumbered subsequence where sk + so E R and lykl -+ m. Then for Ic sufficiently large, the supports of u(2'O(. - yk)) and of y, become disjoint, thus turning the scalar product into zero. We conclude that every subsequence of (hs,u)( - yk) has a subsequence that weakly converges to zero, from which (h,,u)(. - yk) 0 is immediate. -\

Lemma 5.2 Let N > 2. The pairs (V112(RN),DNPz) and ( D ~ I ~ ( IDWN~, ~) are ,) dislocation spaces.

Proof. Due to Proposition 3.1, since DN,Wis a group of unitary operators, it suffices to prove that gk E DN,w,gk f\ 0

* gk has a strongly convergent subsequence

(5.3)

from which (3.4) is immediate. By Lemma 5.1, if gk f . 0, then the corresponding parameter sequence (sk,yk) is bounded and has convergent (renumbered) subsequences yk -+ yo E RN, sk -, so E R. Let gou = hs,u( - y o ) Then gku ---\ gou for u E Cp. However, since the = J J u J= J 11gouJJand therefore gk -+ gou. operators gk, go, are unitary, JJgkuJJ By density this extends to all u E V ' ~ ~ ( I W ~ ) . The analytic meaning of DN,z-weak convergence in V1,2(RN) is L ~ * convergence:

Lemma 5.3

If uk is a bounded sequence in V112(RN),N > 2, then

Chapter 5 Concentration compactness with dilations

111

Proof. Since C r ( I R N )is dense in V112(IRN) and the latter is continuously imbedded into L2(IRN), we may assume without loss of generality that uk E Cr(IRN). 1. The implication u k DsR 0 + uk D 3 , z 0 is trivial. 2. Assume IIukllLz* + 0. Then for every gk E D N , ~ , llgkukllLz* = IIukllLz* + 0. Then for every cp E C?(IRN)

and since I l g k ~ k l l v l = ~ U k D3R 0.

IIukllvl.~,by

Lemma 1.2 gkuk

-o

in

v1>2, i.e.

3. It remains to prove that u k Dfi.z 0 + u k + 0. Assume uk D3Z 0. Let x E C r ( ( i ,4 ) , [O, 3 ] ) ,such that ~ ( t=)t whenever t E [ I ,21 and Ix'I 5 2. By Sobolev inequality (Corollary 2.4), for every y E Z N , L2*

from which follows, if we take into account that X(t)2* 5 Ct2,

Adding the above inequalities over y E Z N and taking into account that

~ ( t< )cltI2*, ~ SO that by (2.29)

we obtain


112

Let yk E Z N be such that 1-2/2*

Since uk

D3z

0, uk(. - yk)

0 in 0 ' t 2 ( l R N )

1-2/2*

and due to Theorem 2.9,

Substituting this into (5.4), we obtain

Let

xj ( t )= 2jX(2-jt)), j E Z. Since for any sequence jk E Z, hjkuk D2z 0, we have also, with arbitrary E Z,

jk

Note now that, with j E Z,

which can be rewritten as

Adding the inequalities (5.6) over j E Z and taking into account that the sets 2j-I 5 lukl 5 2j+2 cover R with uniformly finite multiplicity, we obtain

Let jk be such that


113

and note that the right hand side converges to zero due to (5.5). Then from (5.7) follows that u k -, 0 in L 2 * , which proves the lemma.

Corollary 5.1

I f u k is a bounded sequence i n H1(EXN) and p E (2,2*],

then u k D3z 0+~

Proof.

~ L p u-+ k0 . ~

~

D3z

0 , then by Lemma 5.3, uk -+ 0 in L2*. Since the sequence u k is bounded in L 2 , the convergence in Lp, p E ( 2 , 2 * ) follows immediately from the Holder inequality. If

uk

We can now state the concretization of Theorem 3.1 for the dislocation space (Dl>'( E X N ) , D N , ~ ) .

Theorem 5.1 Let u k E v ~ ~ ~ ( E X N~ )>, 2, be a bounded sequence. There exist w(") E D112(RN),y p ) t E X N , j p f E iZ with k , n E N , and disjoint sets No U N+, U N-, = N,such that, for a renumbered subsequence of u k , N-2

.(n)

w(") = w l i m 2 - 7 j k l j p ) - jLm'l

1

.(n)

uk(2-jk

. fyp)),12 E N ,

+ 1 2 2 () y p ) - yLm))l

-+

m for n # m,

2

5 limsup 1 1 ~ k / 1 ~ 1 , 2 ~

11~(~)11&1.2

(5.8) (5-9) (5.10)

nEN N-2

uk

.(n)

27,k

-

w(")(2jF' (. - y p ) ) ) -+ 0 D N , Z - ~ e a k l y , (5.11)

nEN

(the latter is equivalent to L'* -convergence), and, moreover, the series above converges uniformly i n k . Moreover, 1 E No, y f ) = 0; j p ) = 0 whenever n E No; j p ) -+ -m (resp. j p f + + m ) whenever n E N-, (resp. n E N+,); and y p ) = 0 whenever 12jr)y p ) 1 is bounded.

Proof.

1. Relation (3.8) written with g p ) specified as

yields (5.8). Relation (5.9) is an equivalent form of 3.9) due to Lemma 5.1. Relations (5.10) and (5.11) and the identification g:'J with y f ) = 0 , j?) = 0 are specific cases, due to (5.12), of (3.10), (3.11) and 9;) = id respectively. 2. Note that every unbounded sequence j p ) may be replaced by its renumbered subsequence convergent either to +m or to -m and every bounded sequence may be replaced by a constant subsequence (since infinitely many sequences are possibly involved, the usual diagonalization is


114

jp)

also required). Moreover, when = j, E Z one may set j, = 0 and rename w lim uk(. y r ) ) = h-jn w(,) as dn).

+

3. Let 6 be the set of n E W such that 2jp' y?) has a bounded subsequence. For every n E 6 there is a renumbered subsequence (j;),( y?)) and a y, E RN such that 2j:^'yf) -+y,. Due to (5.8),

Let us rename w(,)(. - y,) as w(,), which corresponds to setting y p ) = 0. Since the set may be infinite, the extraction of subsequences is successive and has to be concluded by the standard diagonalization. It is easy to see that (5.9) remains true. Let v ~ ~ ~ =( {UR E~V )' ~ ~ ( I :W 'v'q ~E) O(N), ~(77.)= u).

(5.13)

Proposition 5.1 Every bounded sequence uk E V:,2(RN) has a subsequence satisfying the assertions of Theorem 5.1 with y p ) = 0 and - jLrn)1 -+ m whenever w(,) E V:12(RN) for all n E N. In particular, m # n and

ljp)

Proof. Consider the renumbered subsequence provided by Theorem 5.1. -+ m and fi is Note that if H' is the set of all n E H for which 2jc) the complement of N', then for every n t fi, y r ) = 0. Then, for n t fi and

lyp)/

77 E O(N),

and therefore w(,) E D ~ ~ ~ (n RE fi. ~ )TO , conclude the proof it suffices to show that w(") = 0 whenever n t N'. Indeed, from (5.8) follows


115

lvyp)

Since 2jP' 1y p ) ] + oo, for every 7) E O(N) \ {id), one has 23pr yP)l --t oo, which, by Proposition 3.4 and (5.10) implies that for any collection of distinct qi E O(N), i = 1,.. . ,M, M E W,

>

limsup 1Iukllbl.2

\lw(") O l l l b l . 2 i

=

C llw(")ll&,., =

~ll~(~'ll$l.z.

i

Since M is arbitrary and the left hand side is finite, we have with necessity w(") = 0, n E N'. Note that a similar statement for bounded sequences in H1(RN) of radial functions, Lemma 3.5, is a statement of compactness, and that the terms in (5.14) corresponding to n > 1, when w ( ~are ) bounded in H ' ( R ~ ) , become in (3.40) a part of the LP-remainder, p E (2,2*). This follows immediately from applying to the sequence from Proposition 5.1 the following lemma identifying the No-terms in (5.11) as the terms in (3.40).

Lemma 5.4 Let uk be the sequence given by Theorem 5.1. If, in addition, (Iuk112 is bounded, then w(") = 0 for all n E N-, . Moreover, for p E (2,2*),

the series in (5.16) converges absolutely in lI1(lRN) uni;formly in k, and w(") are the weak limits of uk(. + Y p ) ) in H ' ( R ~ ) .

Proof. then

jP)

The last assertion is immediate from Lemma 1.2. If n E and from the Fatou lemma we have

-, -00

which implies that N-, = 0. Note now that if n E N+,, then a similar calculation gives

N-,,


116

Let cp E c ? ( R N ) and let y k E R N , k E and since N-, = 0, follows

N. Then from (5.11) and (5.17),

By Lemma 1.2 and since w ( ~E )H 1 ( R N ) ,we have then that

Convergence in LP is due to Lemma 3.3. Problem 5.1 State and prove the generalization of Lemma 5.4, comparing decompositions (3.11) for two dislocation spaces, ( H ID ) and ( H I ,D l ) when H I is dense and continuously imbedded into HI D is a group of unitary operators in H I Dl is a group of unitary operators in H I and Dl is a subgroup of D.

Corollary 5.2 Let F : R --t IR be a continuous function satisfying conditions of Lemma 1.7 and let uk be as i n Lemma 5.4. Then

Proof.

5.2

Lemma 5.4 and Lemma 3.4.

Oscillatory critical nonlinearity and the minimizer in the Sobolev inequality

Consider the class of functions F E Cl,,(R) satisfying

This class is characterized by continuous functions on the intervals [1,2?] and [-2?, -11, satisfying F ( 2 y ) = 2 N ~ ( 1and ) F(-2?) = 2 N F ( - 1 ) , and extended to (0, m) and to (-CQ, 0 ) by (5.19). It is immediate then that


117

and thus F extends by continuity as zero at zero. It also follows from (5.19) that

1

1

~ ( h ~ =u ) F(U) for all j E Z, u E L 2' (R N ).

(5.21)

The functional J F ( u ) is continuous in L2* (and, thus, in V112) due to Lemma 1.6, (5.20), and the Lebesgue convergence theorem. Problem 5.2 Assume that F is a locally Lipschitz function that satisfies (5.19) and let M E W. Show that there exists a C(M) such that for every a l , . . . ,aM > 0 ,

Hint: Prove the statement for M = 2 (for al/a2 very large or very small) and then use induction.

Lemma 5.5 Let uk be a bounded sequence in D112(RN) and let w ( ~ ) , y r ) , and j p ) be as provided by Theorem 5.1. If F is a locally Lipschitt function on R satisfying (5.19), then, on a renumbered subsequence,

Proof. Since uk and En2 T Jw(") *(2jP) (. - y r ) ) ) are bounded in V1y2 by Theorem 5.1, and u H J F ( u ) is continuous in D112, it follows that N-2 .(n)

En

N - a .(n)

Moreover, since the series 2 7 ' * w(")(2jP) - y r ) ) ) is convergent in 'D'v2, uniformly in k, without loss of generality it suffices to prove that for any M E N, (a

118


Due to (5.21) and (5.22),it suffices to show that for all m

# n,

This relation can be rewritten, by an elementary change of variable x' = .(n) 2jk ( X - Y p ) ) as

It is easy to see that the expression in (5.24) involves a continuous functional v H JRN ( w ( " ) ~ ~ * -By ~ vTheorem . 3.1, gz*gr 0 in V112and so in L ~ which verifies (5.24) and therefore the lemma. --\

*

Corollary 5.3 Let uk + w be a bounded sequence in V1y2(IWN). If F is as in Lemma 5.5, then, on a renumbered subsequence,

Proof. Apply Lemma 5.5 to uk and to uk - w , noting that respective limits w(") coincide for n > 1 and w(') takes respective values w and 0. Subtraction of respective series (5.23) for uk and for uk - w yields (5.25). Lemma 5.6 limits exist:

Let F E Cl,,(IW), let N

> 2, and assume that the following

lim ~ ( s ) l s l - ~ * ; b+, = s++,

b-,

= lim ~ ( s ) ) s ) - ~ ' ; 3+-00

lim ~ ( s ) l s l - ~ * ; b+o = s++O

b-0

=

lirn ~ ( s ) l s l - ~ ' .

s+-0

Let F,(s) = b+,lsI2* for s 2 0, F,(s) = b-,l~)~*for s < 0. and let Fo(s) = b+o)sI2*for s 2 0 , Fo(s)= b-ols)2* for s < 0. Let uk E V1s2(IWN), w("), y p ) E IWN and let jp) E Z, No, N+,, N-, c N be as provided by Theorem 5.1. Then


119

Problem 5.3 This lemma is a straightforward generalization of Lemma 5.5, and the proof is left to the reader.

Theorem 5.2 Let N > 2. Assume that F : W -t R is a locally Lips( Rthat ~ ) chitz function satisfying (5.19). If there exists a uo € D ~ ~ ~such JRN F ( u O )= 1, then the problem

has a point of minimum w E D112(WN).Moreover, there exists a sequence jk E Z and yk E WN such that, on a renumbered subsequence,

Note that existence of minimizer implies existence of solution to - A u = F 1 ( u ) :a Lagrange multiplier in the equation satisfied by a minimizer w can be removed by setting u(x)= w ( t x ) with suitable t > 0.

P ~ o o f . Let uk be a minimizing sequence, that is, lRN ( v u kl2 -$ S N , ~ and JRN F ( u k ) = 1. Due to Lemma 5.3 and the continuity of J F ( . ) , the latter condition cannot hold when uk D*z 0. Therefore there exists a w E D ' ~ ~ ( Wand ~ ) a sequence gk E D N , such ~ that, on a renumbered subsequence, g;uk w # 0. Let vk := giuk - w. It follows from Corollary 5.3 that, on a renumbered subsequence,

-

Let t = J F ( w ) and set 6 = w(t 1 N .). Then from the change of variable in the integrals follows that J F ( 6 ) = t-' J F ( w ) = 1 and

Similarly, if Sk

= v k ( ( l- t ) h . ) , then

On the other hand,

F(Sk)

1 and


120

Comparing this with (5.30) and (5.31), we have

-

which is false unless t = 0 , l . Since w # 0 , with necessity t = 1 , which corresponds to J F ( w ) = 1. Since g;u w and I I w ~ ~ ; ~ , ~ = S N , = ~ lim 11g;~k11$~,~ imply g;uk --t w in D l r 2 ,w is a minimizer and the theorem is proved.

Corollary 5.4

Let N > 2. The problem

has a point of minimum w E D112(RN). Moreover, there exists a sequence jk E 2% and yk E R N such that, on a renumbered subsequence,

From the rearrangement relations (B.l), (B.3) follows that the minimal value S N in (5.33) is attained even if minimization is restricted to radially symmetric functions, so that the correspondent Euler-Lagrange equation is an ordinary differential equation. Explicit calculations yield the radial solution

unique up to dilations h,, s E (2.31).

Theorem 5.3 Then

Let R

R,which corresponds to the value S N from

c R N , N > 2, be an open set

S N ( R ) :=

inf U E V ' . ~ ( R ) : J 1~~ 1 2 ' = I

such that RN \1#0.

]Ivu(~=S~, 0

and the infimum is not attained.

Proof. Without loss of generality assume that 0 E 0. Let x E C r ( R : [O, 11) and assume that ~ ( x=) 1 for 1x1 < 6, for some 6 < d(O,RN \;a). Let w be as in (5.35) and set

121


From the Lebesgue convergence theorem follows that, as t

-, m,

Similarly,

=

Sn Jn

IVwt12 =

Sn

x21vwt12

+

S~W:IVXI~ + 2

V w t . V X (5.38)

+

X ( ~ - ' . ) ~ ~ V W 0(1) /~ 4

0. Then w n is also a minimizer for (5.33), and therefore satisfies the Lagrange multiplier equation in R N - A w n = Awn2'-1 in the week sense; substitution of p = w n into the weak form of the equation,

\a,

by the strong maxyields X = S N . Since w = 0 on an open set R N imum principle, Proposition C.2, w n = 0 , a contradiction. Therefore, the minimum is not attained.

5.3

The BrBzis-Nirenberg problem

Let R c R N be an open bounded set and let X l ( R ) be given by (4.20). We recall that Xl(R) > 0 if R is bounded.

Theorem 5.4 Let R C R N , N > 3, be an open bounded set. If X E ( 0 ,X1(Q)), then the minimum in problem

is attained and every minimizing sequence has a subsequence convergent in H,1 ( a ) .


122

Lemma 5.7 and let

Then, for N as t -+ 0,

Let cp E C r ( R N : [O, I]), cp(x) = 1 in a neighborhood of 0

> 4,

> 0 dependent only on N, such that,

there exist C1, C2

and

+0(1), C2I logtl

for N

> 4;

+ 0 ( 1 ) , for N = 4.

Proof. Let b > 0 besuch that cp(x) = 1 whenever 1x1 5 6 . 1. Proof of (5.40). Expanding the gradient of w t we have

Then

since

the estimate for the mixed term is

and

Therefore,

Chapter 5 Concentmtion compactness with dilations

123

Thus we have (5.40) with

2. In order to verify (5.41) consider

The second integral can be estimated as follows, if we recall that cp - 1 vanishes for 1x1 5 S with some S > 0:

I (max cp2* + 1)6-2Nlsuppcpl

It remains to evaluate

where w := (1+1xI2)-

,-, is, up to a real multiple, a minimizer for (5.33). By

(5.43) we have (0wI2= SN( I W ( ; * J,. and (5.41) follows. 3. Proof of (5.42). Consider first the case N

= SNCI,

> 4:

(5.45)

124


Using estimates analogous to the previous step of the proof, one can easily see that the second term above is bounded. Thus,

LN

1 Thus we have (5.42) for N > 4 with C2 = (1+1z12)N-a. Let now N = 4 and let R > 0 be such that suppcp c BR(O).Then

It remains to take into account that

where wg is the area of S3.

Lemma 5.8

Under assumptions of Theorem 5.4,

< SN.

Proof. Without loss of generality assume that 0 E R and let wt be as in Lemma 5.7 with suppcp C R. From Lemma 5.7 we have

and

In both cases, the right hand side is less than SN when t is sufficiently small.

Proof of Theorem 5.4. Let

1 ~ ~ 1=~ 1 ' Let uk E C r ( R ) be a minimizing sequence for (5.39), that is, and Q x ( u k )-t K X By the assumption on A, the expression Q x defines an equivalent Sobolev norm on H: (0). Since uk is bounded in H i ( R ) , it has a renumbered subsequence u k u E HA(R), which, by compactness of the imbedding into L 2 ( R ) , uk -t

-

125


u in L 2 ( R ) . Without loss of generality we assume that u k everywhere. Then by the Brbzis-Lieb lemma (Theorem 3.2),

+ lim

IIUII$

I I U - ukll;:

+

u almost

2'

(5.46)

= lim I I ~ k l l g *= 1.

Applying Proposition 1.6 to the sequence uk E V ' ~ ~ ( I R ~and ) ) taking into account that U: 4 u2,we obtain

So

fix

So

= l i m Q x ( u k ) = limQx(uk - U )

Then from definitions of KA

fix

+

A

IVu12.

and SN we have

L fix lim lluk

- ullg.

+ SNIIull;. .

(5.47)

Let t := Ilull$. Then, substituting (5.46) into (5.47), we have

&

Since K A < S N by Lemma 5.8 and < 1, we have with necessity t = 1, that is, IIu112* = 1. This and the weak lower semicontinuity of Qx ( f i x Q ( u ) l i m Q ( u k ) = f i x ) implies that u is a minimizer. Since u k u and Q ( u k ) + Q ( u ) , u k converges to u E HA(R). The following statement is a counterpart of Theorem 5.39 in I R N .

0 on

is attained and any minimizing sequence has a subsequence convergent i n Proof. By Lemma 2.12, the functional S a ( x ) u 2 is continuous in L ~ ' and continuous with respect to the weak convergence in v1v2(IRN). Since X E ( 0 ,X o ) , the integral JRN (IVuI2- Xa(x)u2) defines an equivalent norm in V112(IRN). Let u k be a minimizing sequence for (5.48) and consider a renumbered subsequence of u k given by Theorem 5.1. By Lemma 5.5,


126

From Proposition 1.6 and Lemma 2.12 follows

Let w be as in (5.35) and assume, without loss of generality that 0 is a (weighted) Lebesgue point in the set (x E R N : a(x) > 0) in the sense that

Then there exists a s > 0 such that Sa(x)w2(sc1x)dx N-2 h-,w = s - z ~ ~ ( s - ~ Then . ) . S a w 2 > 0 and ca 5

LN

> 0. Let w,

:=

(jvwSl2- ~ ( x ) w ? )

= SN- h

lN

a(x)w?

< SN.

Therefore, from (5.50), (5.49) follows with necessity that IIw(")112* = 0, Ilw(l)l12*= 1 and I I W ( ' ) ~ ~ & ~ , ~ 5 ca. Consequently, uk -+ w(l) in D112 and w(') is a minimizer. 5.4

Minimizer for the critical trace inequality

In this section we consider the Hilbert space H ( R ~ ) the , space of the restrictions of functions from D1'2(RN) to IW: = R"-' x (0, oo), equipped with the norm

and with the group D N - ~ (or, , ~ in some instances, D N - ~ , ~generated ), by dilations (5.1) and the group of N - 1-dimensional shifts gy : u H u(. - y), y E ElN-'. We keep the notation RN-I for IRN-l x (0). The space H ( R ~ ) is continuously imbedded into L2*(IWy) by Lemma 2.10 and has a continuous trace on L2(RN-l) by Theorem 2.11. The elements of the group D N - l , ~are unitary operators in H ( R ~ )and they are also isometries in L ~ (EX?) * and in LZ(RN-').


Lemma 5.9 dislocations.

127

The groups Djv-1,~ and DN-I,W on H(WT) are groups of

Proof. It suffices to prove the lemma for the larger group D N - 1 , ~ .Since the group consists of unitary operators, by Proposition 3.1 it suffices to , g0,k then verify (3.7) for which it suffices to show that if gk E D ~ - ~ , ~ f\ gk has a strongly convergent subsequence. Note that Lemma 5.1 applies also in the present case with only trivial modifications. Therefore, if gk f . 0, then the corresponding parameter sequences yk E KtNp1, s k E W, have convergent (renumbered) subsequences yk -+ yo E W N - I , s k -+ SO E W. Let gou = h t o u ( - yo). Then gku gou for u E C c However, since the operators gk, go, are unitary, ((gku(( = ( ( ~ ( 1= ((gou(( and therefore gk 4 gou. By density this extends to all u E H(R:).

-

Theorem 3.1 applied in this case (with the group D N , replaced ~ by the subgroup D N - i , ~ )is repetitive of Theorem 5.1, and in particular employs the same index sets No, N+, and N+,. It should be noted only that in the present case the analogue of (5.11) should not claim L2*(a:)convergence: the group D N - l , ~does not remedy the lack of compactness resulting from shifts in the N-th variable. Instead, the DN-1,~-weakconvergence in H(W:) implies ~'-conver~ence on IRN-'. Lemma 5.10 If uk is a bounded sequence in H(JRy), then uk 40. 0 + IIuk(., O)IILZ(~N-~)

DN~I,Z

Proof. 1. Assume without loss of generality that uk E C p (IRN). Let x E C p ( ( $ , 4), [0,3]), such that ~ ( t =) t whenever t E [I, 21 and Ix'I 5 2 and define

Observe that if vk

-

0 in H(R:),

then

Indeed, if .J, E Cp((-2,2)N), . J , I ~ O , l )= ~ -1,~ then, by Lemma 2.2, $vk is bounded in Hd((-2, 2)N). By Lemma 2.13, $vk -, 0 in L2((0, I ) ~ - ' ) and thus vk(.,O) 40 in L2((0,I ) ~ - ' ) . 2. Assume now that uk

DN~I,Z

0. From (2.51) applied to .J,x(uk)) follows,


128

for every y E ZN-l,

Taking into account that ~ ( s5) 2s2, we then have

Adding the above inequalities over y E ZN-l, we obtain

Note that, due to the definition of

x and (2.37),

which implies

J

1-2/2 x(uk(', o ) ) ~ 5

(O,l)N-l+~

Let yk E ZN-' be such that

c

SUP y~zN-1

(5.52)


Since uk

D%l'Z

129

0, uk(. - (yk, 0)) -\ 0 in H ( W y ) and, due to (5.51), uk(' - Y k , ~ 4 ) 2 0.

io71)N-1+yk Substituting this into (5.52), we obtain

Moreover, since for any sequence jk E Z,

we also have, with arbitrary jk E Z, k E

N,



. (5.55) Adding the inequalities (5.55) over j E Z and taking into account that the sets 2j-I 5 Iukl 5 2i+2 cover R with a uniformly finite multiplicity, we obtain

Let jk be such that

and note that the right hand side converges to zero due to (5.54). Then from (5.56) follows that uk(.,0) 4 0 in L'(Iw~-').


130

Theorem 5.6

Let N

> 2. The problem

has a point of minimum w E H ( R y ) . Moreover, there exists a sequence jk E Z, yk E RNP1, such that, on a renumbered subsequence,

Proof.

Let uk be a minimizing sequence, i.e.

JRN-1

Iu(., O)lZ = 1,

D ~ ~ 1 . z

JRN J V U-+ ~ n. ~ Note that the relation uk 0 is false, since otherwise, Iu(., O)lZ3 0, a contradiction. Thus, for certainjk E by Lemma 5.10, N-2 Z, yk E RN-I, on a renumbered subsequence, 2-jkuk(2jk .+(yk, 0)) w, , is also a minimizing sequence, w(., 01 # 0, and, since 2 y ' h U k ( 2 ' h ' + ( ~ k01) we assume without loss of generality that --\

Note also that uk(.,0) converges in measure on RN-l. Indeed, for every ) ~xuk , is bounded in H1((-2, 2)N-1 x (0,2)) and converges weakly to xw in H1((-2, 2)N-1 x (0,2)). By Lemma 2.13 this implies that, on a convergent subsequence, uk(.,O) -+ w(.,O) almost everywhere in (-1, I ) ~ - ' , and thus, due to translation invariance, uk --+ W , on a renamed subsequence, almost everywhere in EXN-'. By Proposition 1.6 and the BrBzis-Lieb lemma (Theorem 3.2) we have, respectively,

x E C,00((-2, 2)N), x = 1 on (-1, I

n = lim lluk112= llw1I2

+ lim lluk - wII

2

(5.59)

and

Let t

=

I I W IF'rorn I ~ . (5.59) and the definition of

K,

follows that

which implies with necessity t = 0 or t = 1. If t = 0 then w(., 0) = 0, which contradicts (5.58). Furthermore, if lim J J u k- w)J2> 0, then J J w J J 2, n E {O,l,. . . ,N - 11, and m = N - n. In this section we will denote the variables z E RN as pairs (x, y) with x E Rn, y E Rm. The Hilbert space considered in this section is V112(RN\ Rn), that is, the closure of C F ( R N \ Rn) with respect to the norm

In order to keep the notations uniform for all n, we ignore the fact that for n = N - 1 the set RN \ Rn is a disconnected union of two half-spaces and that for n < N - 1 the space V1v2(RN\ Rn) coincides with V1v2(RN) (the latter can be easily shown by inspecting approximating truncations). As a subspace of V1~2(RN), the space V112(RN\ Rn) is continuously imbedded into L " ( R ~ ) . If we interpolate, using the Hijlder inequality, between the Hardy inequality (2.34) and the Sobolev inequality (2.29) by taking a B E (0,l) and p = 28 2*(1 - B), we obtain

+

Setting

we conclude that C,

:=

We equip the space linear operators: u(x, y)

N-2.

H

1

inf 1vul2 > 0. U E Z ) ' ~ ~ ( R ~lyl-aPIuIP=l \ R ~ ) : ~ ~RN~

\ Rn) with

(5.61)

the group DnYz(resp. Dn,w)of

2 ~ ~ u ( 2 j-( a, x 2jy), a E Rn, j E Z (resp. j E R).


132

The argument repeatedly presented in previous sections, when subjected to trivial modifications, yields that these operators are unitary on v112(RN\ Rn) and preserve Swnr Iyl-aplulPdxdy for any p E [2,2*]. Furthermore, by Lemma 5.1, a sequence (ak, jk) E Rn x R has a bounded subsequence if and only if for the corresponding operator sequence,

A literal repetition of Lemma 5.2 yields that the pair ( D ' > ~ ( R \Rn), ~ Dntz) (resp. ( v ' > ~ ( R\ ~ Rn), D n , ~ )is) a dislocation space. Lemma 5.11 Let p E (2,2*), and let uk E V1'2(RN\ Rn) be a bounded sequence. Then

Proof. 1. The implication uk D ~ 0Rj uk DAZ 0 is immediate. 2. If uk 4 0 in Lp(RN \ Rn, (y(-ap), then for every sequence gk E Dn,w, gkuk -\ 0 in Lp(RN \ Rn, I yl-"P). Since uk is bounded in the D1t2-norm, 0 in D112 and therefore, uk D ~ 0.R we have gkuk 3. It remains now to show that if uk DlfiR 0, then uk 4 0 in L P ( R \~ Rn, lyl-ap). Let Qj = {y E Rm : 2j < lyl < 2j+l), j E Z, B = (0, l)nx QO, and let

-

Note that U,EZ,,jEz Baa = WN up to a set of measure zero. From the standard Sobolev inequality on B, since the weights used in the integrals are bounded on B from above and from below, we have


133

By replacing the variable x with x + a , a E Zn, and rescaling both variables (x, y) by the factor 2j, j E Z, we have:

Adding the inequalities (5.63) over a E Zn and j E Z, we arrive at

Using the Hardy inequality (2.34) and choosing an appropriate "nearsupremum" sequence ( a k , j k )E (Zn x Z), we get from the last inequality the following estimate:

Since gkuk 0 in D112(RN\ Rn) for every sequence of dislocations gk E Dn,z, from Theorem 2.9 follows that gkuk --+ 0 in LP(B) and thus ). in Lp(B, l ~ l - ~ p Therefore -\

so that the assertion of the lemma follows from (5.64). Theorem 5.7 Let N > 2, n E (0,. . . ,N- 1) and p E (2,2*). The infimum in (5.61) is attained.

Proof. The proof follows the second proof of Proposition 3.7 for the Euclidean case. Let uk be a minimizing sequence, that is, IVukI2 -+ c, and JwN I~~lPlyl-~pdxdy = 1. The latter, due to Lemma 5.11, implies that uk D ~ 0z false. Thus there is a w E D ' . ~ ( R\~Rn) \ (0) and gk E D,,z, W. Since gkuk is also such that on a renumbered subsequence, gkuk a minimizing sequence, renaming it as uk, we have uk w # 0. By

-


134

Proposition 1.6, IlVuk - Vwllg (in this case, Remark 3.3),

+ llVwll; + cp, and by Brkzis-Lieb lemma

+

From this and the definition of c, in (5.61) we have cp 2 % t t c,(l - t): where t = JwN IwIPlyl-"pdxdy. Since p > 2, we have with necessity t = 1 or t = 0. Since w = 0, we have t = 1. By the weak lower semicontinuity of norms, I ~ V W 11; 5 cp, which implies that w is a minimizer. Theorem 5.7 does not include the values p = 2,2*. When p = 2* and n < N - 1, cp = SN and the minimizer is (5.35). In the case p = 2*, n = N - 1 the problem (5.61) reduces to the problem (5.36) in the halfspace that does not have a minimum. When p = 2, the minimum is not attained: a minimizer has with necessity to satisfy -Au = cz = ( F ) ~ . This equation is known to have a unique (up to a constant) positive solution u = lyl9 , which is not in V1t2(RN \ Rn) \ (0). We have the following analog of Lemma 3.4.

gc)

Lemma 5.12 Assume that uk E H, E Dn,z and w(") E H are as provided by Theorem 3.1 for v ~ > ~ \ (Rn), R ~Dn,Z. For every p E (2,2*),

Proof. Due to Lemma 5.11 the proof can be reduced to sequences of the form uk = Engf)w(n). The subsequent argument is entirely analogous to that of Lemma 5.5, with the only difference being that translations in the y-variable are not involved. We consider now the analog of (5.61) on Dn,z-flask sets. We say, similarly to Definition 4.1, that an open set R is a D,J-flask (or simply flask) set, if V112(R) is a flask subspace of D112(RN \ Rn) according to Definition 3.3, or in other words, if for every sequence gk E Dn,z and uk E V ~ > ~ such that gkuk converges weakly in D112(RN),there exists a g E Dn,z such that g w limgkuk E V112(R).

Theorem 5.8 Let R set. Then the infimum

C

RN\Rn, N > 2, n

= 0,

. . . ,N -

1, be a Dn,z-flask


135

where p E (2,2*) and a, = N ( l - p/2*) E [O, 21, is attained. Proof. The proof is repetitious of the proof of Theorem 4.4 (with T = {id)) and is left to the reader. Lemma 5.12 is to be quoted where the proof of Theorem 4.4 uses Lemma 3.4. The geometric characterization of flask sets in this case can also draw on the Euclidean case.

Lemma 5.13

Let R be a V112-trace set i n the sense that

If for every ( a k , j k )E Rn X Z , there exist ( a ,j ) E Rn x Z such that, up to a set of measure zero,

+ ( a k , 0 ) ) C 2j (0+ ( a k ) ,

lim inf 2jk (0

(5.67)

then the set R is a Dn,Z-fEask set. N - 2 .

Proof. Let ( a k , j k ) E W n x Z and assume that 2 - 2 ' k ~ k ( 2 - j k . + ( a k 0, ) ) w . Without loss of generality we may assume that the convergence to w is almost everywhere. Then, repeating with only trivial modifications the argument of Lemma 4.1 we conclude that, up to a set of measure zero, --\

V ( w ) c lim inf 2jk

(a + ( a k 0, ) ) .

(5.68)

Then, by (5.67), there exist ( a ,j ) E Rn x Z such that V ( w ) C lim inf 2 j ( R + (a,O)). Since R is a trace set, w E V 1 > ' ( 2 j ( R (a,O)))and thus 2 F w ( 2 j ( . ( Q , 0 ) ) ) E v112(fl).

+

+

Examples of DnYzflask sets:

(a) R = { ( x ,y) : Iyl < $ J ( x ) )where $J is a continuous function on [0,m], $J 2 limlzl+m ; (b) R = ( ( 2 , ~: )1x1 < ~ I Y I I , > 0 ; ( c ) R = { ( x , y ) : 0 < a < J y )< b < m ) ; (d) any bounded open set whose closure is contained in RN \ Rn. Proposition 5.2 Let R C RN \ W n be an open set such that for every sequence ( a k , j k ) E (Rn x Z ) , l a k l + ljkl 00, -+


136

Then for every p E (2,2*), the space V1>2(R)is compactly imbedded into LP(R, l ~ l - ~ p ) . Proof.

Let

be a renamed subsequence with correspondent w ( ~ and ) For n > 1 the relation (3.9) yields I jp)l 00 and from (5.69) and (5.68) follows that v(w(")) has measure zero. Thus w ( ~ = ) 0 as an element of uk

-

gp)(defined by (a?), j p ) ) E Rn x Z)as in Theorem 3.1.

)ar)l+

Z V ' ~ ~ ( I\RRn). ~ Consequently, on a renumbered subsequence, u k D ~ w('), which implies, by Lemma 5.11, u k + w(') in LP(R, lyl-ap), which proves the proposition.

The condition (5.69) is satisfied, for example, by a set R = {(x, y) : lyl < $(x)) where $ is a continuous function on [0,00) and $(x) -+ 0 when 1x1 ia and by a set R = {(x, y) : 1x1 < $(y)) with 0 when lyl 0 or 1y1 --, 00.

-

5.6

-

-

Minimizer for the Hardy-Sobolev-Maz'ya inequality

We continue with the notations of the previous section, where z E RN, N > 2, was denoted as (x, y) E Rn x Rm. We consider the Hardy-Sobolev inequality of V.Maz'ya that refines the Hardy inequality (2.34) for n = 1, . . . N - 1 as follows:

with some Cm,, > 0. Obviously the case n = N-2, i.e. m = 2, is the usual Sobolev inequality. Due to the inequality (5.70), the Hilbert space Hm,, defined as completion of C r ( R N \ Rn) with respect to the norm Q&,, is a space of measurable functions. There is no immediate reason why the integrals in the left hand side will remain defined on the elements of H,,,, but the question of finding a minimizer in (5.70) is still meaningful.

Theorem 5.9 Rn),

Let N

> 3 and let n = 1 , . . .N- 3. For all u E C r ( R N \


137

The Hilbert space H,,, defined by completion of C r ( R N\ R n ) with respect 1 to the norm Q&,, consists of measurable functions with measurable weak derivatives such that the integral (5.71) is finite. The minimum in

is attained. Proof. The identity (5.71) follows from the definition of Q,,, and integration by parts and is left to the reader. We also leave to the reader to verify the second assertion, assuming that (5.70 holds): similarly to the argument in Section 2.1, if uk is a Cauchy sequence in H,,,, ~ ( l ~ l q u k (Y)) x, is a Cauchy sequence in Lfocand thus has a Lfoc-limit, which allows to pass to the limit in (2.4) (with lyl v u k instead of uk). By the rearrangement inequalities (B.l) and (B.3) applied in the xvariable only, the infimum in (5.72) does not change if we consider it over functions in HkC(RN\ Rn) with compact support, radially symmetric in y E RN, SO we may restate the problem, regarding lyl as a radial variable in R2, in the form

c,,,

/

= inf WN-l uEr

2~

, Rn+Z\Rn I V U ( Xy)~2dxdy

where

r := {U E v 1 ' 2 ( ~ n + 2 \ ~: n)

2~

Iu(x, Y)I= 191-

2(m-2) N-2

dxdy = 1).

+

We note that, since n 2 < N, the value of the critical Sobolev exponent for Rn+'. Therefore N-2 in RN, is below the critical value 2* = &k4 n the assertion cm,, > 0, and thus (5.70), follow from c, > 0 in (5.61) for E (2,2*). Existence of the minimizer follows then Rn+' \ R n , with p = from Theorem 5.7. 5.7


The term concentration compactness owes its name to the dilations case studied in this chapter. Convergence reasoning using unbounded dilation sequences has been used by J. Sacks and K. Uhlenbeck [lo31 and by H. Brbzis and L. Nirenberg, whose result from [24] we consider in Section 5.3. A generalization of Theorem 5.4 in the case of DR~-flask asymptotically cylindric domains was proved by M. Ramos, Z.-Q. Wang

138


and M. Willem [102]). The method and the applications of concentration compactness involving dilations were extensively elaborated by P.-L. Lions ([88],[89]).J. Chabrowski in [32] provided a generalization of Lions' version of concentration compactness that combined both cases, of the unbounded domain and of the critical exponent. A multi-term expansion of sequences, similar to Theorem 5.1, but associated with particular equation, was proved by M. Struwe [ l l l ] . H. Br6zis and J.-M. Coron ([25]) have produced the first multi-bump expansion, also for a particular class of sequences, where the separation of the dislocation parameters correspondent to (3.9) in the abstract case and to (5.9) in this chapter. Multi-bump expansions for critical sequences accounting to both translations and dilations in RN can be found in many publications, to mention just two, in [14] and [26]. Section 5.1, following ([106]),identifies the functional-analytic grounds of concentration compactness based on dilations as a realization of Theorem 3.1 in the Hilbert space D ~ ~ ~ (equipped I W ~ )with the group of dislocations D N , ~It. is transparent from the proof of Lemma 5.3 that the identification of DN,z-weak convergence as L~*-convergenceoriginates in partition both of the domain and of the range of functions into compact cells. Such partition allows to benefit from compactness of correspondingly restricted and truncated functions. For comparison, in problems with a subcritical exponent p < 2* compactness of Sobolev imbeddings on bounded domains allows to partition only the domain of functions without any truncations in the range. The existence result in Corollary 5.33 (which, due to radial symmetry, can be proved also without the concentration compactness argument) is due to G. Talenti([ll2])with the explicit solution (not yet shown to be a minimizer) calculated earlier by G. Bliss ([21]). Uniqueness of the BlissTalenti solution is due to G. Gidas, W.-M. Ni and L. Nirenberg, [61] and references therein. Theorem 5.5 is a simple partial case of Theorem 1 from [32]. Existence of positive solutions in semilinear problems with critical nonlinearity is generally more volatile than in the subcritical case, as testified, in particular by the elementary Theorem 5.3 or by the celebrated non-existence result of S. Pohozhaev [loo]. Most of the known positive solutions to semilinear elliptic problems involving the critical nonlinearity are not obtained by constraint minimization (see the further discussion in the next chapter). An instance of "well-balanced" nonlinearity where the constrained minimum is attained is Theorem 5.2. Theorem 5.6 in Section 5.4 is due to J. Escobar [46], where it is also


139

proved that the minimizer in this problem is connected to the Talenti minimizer. Section 5.5: Questions of existence of minimizers and of exact constant in the minimization problem (5.61), with focus on the case n = 0, were studied by E. Lieb [81], P.-L. Lions [89] (existence Theorem 2.4), Z.-Q. Wang and M. Willem [121], F. Catrina and Z.-Q. Wang [31], P. Caldiroli and A. Malchiodi [27],to mention just few. The case n = N - 1 was studied in [114] and n = 1,. . . ,N - 2 was considered by M. Badiale and G. Tarantello, [12]. The proof in this section, adapted to the general case, follows [114]. The Hardy-Sobolev inequality (5.70), (first appeared in the book [93] of V. Maz'ya), which we consider in Section 5.6 for n 5 N - 2 holds true also for n = N - 1 and, on a punctured ball, for n = 0. The proof of the inequality and of the existence in Section 5.6 follows a remark in the paper [113]. A version of this problem for the case n = 0 and with the exact constant replaced by X E (0, (which also can be handled by the argument of Section 5.6) was considered by P.-L. Lions (Theorem 1.3 in [88])and a sketch of a proof was given. A full follow-up of this sketch has been carried out in [113],dealing with the existence in the case n = N - 1, N 2 4, where reduction to locally subcritical problem cannot be applied. Existence of minimizers in the Hardy-Sobolev inequality when n = 2 and N = 3 is still unknown. The constrained minimization argument can be used in D'j2 and in H1 also with nonhomogeneous nonlinearities, in which case the minimizers satisfy an Euler-Lagrange equation with a Lagrange multiplier whose value is not easy to determine. An analog of Theorem 5.5 with a nonhomogeneus nonlinearity is Theorem 1.5 of P.-L.Lions in [88]. Minimizers of the counterpart of (5.33) for N = 2 (Moser-Trudinger inequality) were studied in [30] by L. Carleson and A. Chang.

(Y)~

(Y)~)


Chapter 6

Minimax problems

Solutions of semilinear elliptic equations that were obtained in the previous two chapters by constrained minimization are also critical points of functionals of the form a ( u ) = IVuI2 - F(u). In this chapter we consider critical points in unconstrained variational problems without compactness. Minimization problems for the functional a when R is bounded and F is a continuous function with subcritical growth l ~ ( s ) l l s l - ~4 * 0 as Is1 + co;or when -F is convex, can be solved by the standard weak lower semicontinuity argument (in the first case, invoking compactness of Sobolev imbedding). If we consider typical cases when the functional is continuous in H ' ( R ~ )but not weakly lower semicontinuous, we find that @ is unlikely to be bounded from below. In particular, if the function F has a critical growth, that is, lim suplsl,, ~ ( s ) l s l - ~>*0, then it is easy to see that the is unbounded from above and from below. This is also the case when F is subcritical, R = RN and l i m s ~ p , , ~F ( s ) s -> ~ 0. If we reverse the latter condition, i.e. assume l i m s ~ p , , ~F(s)s-2 5 0, the point u = 0 becomes, by the Friedrichs inequality, a local minimum of @ considered on every finite-dimensional subspace of C r (RN). Consequently, the natural unconstrained problems without compactness for the functional @ concern the case of saddle points for a functional that is unbounded from above and from below. In this case, however, there matters are complicated by an intrinsic mechanism that assures existence of divergent bounded critical sequences. For example, in a subcritical problem M on RN a sequence uk = w(,)(.- y r ) ) , where w(,) are (not necessarily ) ) 0 and @(w("))= c,) and distinct) nonzero critical points of cP ( v @ ( w ( ~ = l y ~ ) - y ~ m ) l + co for m # n, is divergent whenever M 2 2, but V@(uk)-+ 0 and @(uk)+ @ ( w ( ~= ) ) C c n . The role of concentration compactness

SO

z

141

SO


142

argument is therefore to identify critical sequences whose expansion (3.11) consists only of one term, or at least to assure that when w(l) = w limuk is a critical point (not necessarily at the level lim @(uk)),it is not zero. 6.1

The mountain pass theorem

Let H be a separable Hilbert space.

Let @ E C1(H), A C H , and assume that for all u E A V@(u) # 0. Then there is a locally Lzpschitz vector field X : A + H satisfying for every u E A,

Lemma 6.1

and (X(.)l V@('ZL)) 2 l l V @ ( ~112.>

(6.2)

Proof. Consider the following covering of A, equipped with the norm of H, by the open sets 0, := {u E H : (V@(u),V@(V))> ;IIV@(U)~)~). Since A is a metric space, it is paracompact, and thus there exists a subset V of H and an open covering {Nv)vE~ of A, such that Nu C O,,v E V. It is easy t o see now that the required vector field

satisfies the required properties. For a set S c H and a 6 > 0 we will use the following notation:

Let H be a Hilbert space, @ E C 1 ( H ) let , S set, c E R, E , 6 > 0 and assume that

Lemma 6.2

Then there exists a r] E C([O,11 x H, H ) such that

+

(a) r]t(u) = u if t = 1 or if u $ @-l[c - 2 ~c , 2 ~n] SZa, (b) r]l(@-l((-00, c El) n S C @-'((-00, c - El), (c) r]t(.) is a homeomorphism of H , t E [0, 11,

+

C

X be a closed

Chapter 6 Minimax problems

143

(dl Ilvt(u) - 41 I 6, '1L E HJ t E [O, 11, (e) t H @(vtu) is non-increasing, u E H , ( f ) @(vt(u))< c, u E @ - l ( ( - ~ , c ] )n t E [(),I].

ss,

Proof. Let

Observe that the function x is locally Lipschitz on H , suppx c A and x = 1 on B. Let X : A -+H be the locally Lipschitz vector field provided by Lemma 6.1. We define

for u E A and Z(u) = 0 otherwise. Note that by assumption (6.4), 11Z(u)11 I for all u E H. As a bounded, locally Lipschitz, vector field, Z generates a continuous flow u H ut(u) E C(R x H , H ) , defined as the unique solution of the evolution equation

&

Then, by (6.4) and Lemma 6.1,

and

Verification of (a) and (c-f) is elementary and is left to the reader. Let us show (b). Consider u E @-'((-w, c E ) ) fl S. If there is a t E [O, 8.4 such that @(at(u))< c - E, then @(asc(u))< c - E and (b) is satisfied. If, for

+


144

every t E [O,~E], @(ut(u)) E [c - E , c

+ E], then from (6.5) and (6.6) follows

and (b) is also satisfied.

Definition 6.1 Let @ E C1(H). A sequence uk E H is called a critical sequence for @ at the level c E R if

One says that @ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition at the level c E IR (the (PS),-condition for short), if any critical sequence at the level c has a convergent subsequence. It follows that if a functional @ satisfies the (PSc)-condition and has a critical sequence on the level c, then a subsequence of uk converges to a critical point u, satisfying V@(u)= 0 and @(u)= c.

Theorem 6.1 Let @ E C1(H) and let c := infUGH@(u) > -00. has a critical sequence at the level c.

Then @

Proof. If no sequence satisfies (6.7), then there exists an E > 0 and a 6 > 0, such that whenever @(u) < c 2&, IIV@(u)II > Then by Lemma 6.2 with S = H, @(qlu) 5 c - E , which contradicts the definition of c.

+

F.

Note that the critical sequence in Theorem 6.1 may be divergent: consider H = R and @(x) = ex.

Theorem 6.2 (Mountain Pass Theorem) Let @ E C1(H). Let eo, el E H , Q : {v E C([O,11, H ) : v(0) = eo,v(1) = e l ) and let c := inf max @(v(t)). v€Q t€[O,l]

If c > @(eo) and c > @(el), then @ possesses a critical sequence at the level C. Proof. Let EO = c - max{@(eo),@(el)). If @ has no critical sequence at the level c, then there exist E E (0,;) and b > 0 such that whenever 1Q(u) cl 5 2 ~ IlVG(u) , 11 > Then, together with S = H, the conditions of Lemma 6.2 are satisfied. If q E C([O, 11x H , H ) is as provided by Lemma 6.2,

9.


145

then for every v E Q and t E [O, 11, qlv(t) E Q (in particular, q1ei = ei, since at the points eo, el is less than c - 2 ~ ) Let . us fix a v E Q such that @(v(t))5 C + E for all t E [0, 11. Then by Lemma 6.2, (b), @(r]lv(t)) c- E which contradicts the definition of c.

0

If c > @(O), then @ possesses a critical sequence at the level c.

Proof. The proof is repetitive of that of Theorem 6.2 with eo = 0 and with e l in the neighborhood of infinity. The only modifications are: the choice of €0 = c - a(0) and the observation that qlv(s) E Qo for every v E Qo and s 2 0: in particular qv(s) = V(S) for all s large enough since lim,,, @(v(s))= -00 implies @(v(s))< c - 2~ for all sufficiently large s. I3 6.2

Functionals for the semilinear elliptic problems

In this section we give general sufficient conditions for the functionals associated with the semilinear elliptic problems to be continuous, to have mountain pass geometry, to have bounded critical sequences and to have critical sequences that converge if they are bounded. Let R c RN be an open set. Let q > 2 if N = 1 , 2 and q = 2* for N > 2. Let f E ClOc(Rx R) and let F ( x , s) = J: f (x, t)dt. If for every E > 0 there exist C, > 0 and p, E (2, q) such that

If

+

(x, s)I L &(Is1 IsIq-')

+ c~IsIP~-',

s E R, x E 0 ,

(6.11)

, then by Theorem 2.14, @ E C 1 ( ~ l ( I R N ) )where

Let (Pa, for an open set R, denote the restriction of the functional (6.12) to HA(R). From the definition of directional derivative it follows that every


146

critical point u of

an satisfies the relation

which corresponds (in the sense of weak derivatives) to the equation -nu(%)

+ ~ ( x =) f (x, ~ ( x ) )x, E fl

(6.14)

with the boundary condition ulan = 0 in the sense of the trace on the boundary. We give a general sufficient condition to the functional (6.12) to have bounded critical sequences.

Lemma 6.3

Assume that there is a p

> 2 such that

f (x, s)s 2 pF(x, s), x E R, s E R.

(6.15)

Then for every c E R there exists a Mc > 0 such that for every critical sequence uk of an at the level c, limsup I ) U ~ I ) ~ ; ( ~ ) 5 Mc.

Proof. Let c E R. Since uk is a critical sequence, then on a renumbered tail of the sequence

and

from which we derive 2

~ - ' \ l u k \ / ~ ;f( ~P-')

f (xl uk)"k

< P-I ll"kll~;(n)-

Adding (6.16) with (6.17) and using (6.15) we have:

5 c + 1 +p-'II~kllH;(n), from which follows the lemma.

(6.17)


147

Lemma 6.4 Let R C RN be an open set, and assume (6.1 I ) , (6.15) with some p > 2, for all x E 52, s E R. Then the class \ko given by (6.10) for an in H = Hh(R), is nonempty and the correspondent constant c is positive. (Consequently, by Lemma 6.3 and Theorem 6 . 9 the functional an has a bounded critical sequence at the level c.)

Proof. lows

By (6.11) and Theorem 2.14

an E C1(HA (0)).

From (6.11) fol-

For all u such that 11u11& = t with a sufficiently small t E (0,l) we have

Let t be now fixed. Since (6.15) for s > 0 is equivalent to $F(x, s)s-P > 0, taking v E C r ( R ) , v >, 0, s 2 1, we have immediately J F ( x , sv) 2 J F(x, v)sP and thus an(sv) -+ -oo as s 4 +oo. Therefore the class Qo in (6.10) is nonempty and, since any curve v E \ko crosses the sphere I/ull& = t, the correspondent constant c satides c 2 > t > 0. In what follows we will consider the following conditions for an open set R c RN, relative to an additive group G c RN: E G such that for every x E R there exist E(X)> 0 and N(x) E N satisfying

(A) For every sequence yr, E G there is a z B,(,)(x) - yk C R

+ z whenever k 2 N ( z ) ;

(B) For every sequence yk E G, lykl -+ 00,there exist a z set U c RN and a set Z C RN such that

E

G, an open

Lemma 6.5 If R is a trace set satisfying condition (A), then it is a Gflask set (that is, if uk E Hi(S2) is a bounded sequence, yk E G and w E H1(RN) a, such that uk(.+yk) w in H1(llUN), then w(.+z) E H i (R) for some z E G). Moreover, if (6.11) holds true, V@n(uk)-+ 0 in H;(R) and uk(. yk) w in H1(RN), then w(- z) E Hi(R) and VcPn(w( z ) ) = 0.

+

-

-

+

+

Proof. 1. By Theorem 4.2 and the definition of the trace set it suffices to show, in order to prove the first assertion, that lim inf(R - yk) c R + z. It remains to observe that liminf(R - yk) c UxEn,n>N(r.(BE(x)(x) - yk).

148


2. Let p(u) = JRN F ( x ,u). By (6.11) and the compactness of local Sobolev imbedding V q is weakly continuous in H1(RN), namely

Let v E C r ( R ) . Consider a (finite, by compactness) covering of suppv by the balls BE(,,)(xi). Then it follows from (A) that suppv( - yk - z) E R for all k sufficiently large. Due to the invariance of V p with respect to G-shifts and (6.18) we have, using the scalar product of H ~ ( I w ~ ) ,

+

+ +

(V@(w(. z), v) = (V@(wlimuk (. yk z)), v) = lim(V@(uk),v(. - yk - z)) = lim(V@n(uk),v(. - yk - z ) ) ~ ; ( = ~ )0. In the last step both the arguments in the inner product of H1(RN), for k sufficiently large, are elements of Hd(R). Thus the ~ l ( R ~ ) - i n nproduct er can be identified as a directional derivative of an in H,'(R), and so as the Hi (0)-inner product involving the gradient of an in that space, which converges to zero. Since v is arbitrary, we conclude that w(.+z) is a critical point of a n .

Remark 6.1 While conditions ( A ) and ( B ) are stronger than the flask property, it is easy to show that bounded trace domains satisfy (A) and (B) and that G-periodic sets (cf. Problem 4.2) satisfy (A). Another example of < a trace domain satisfying ( A ) and ( B ) is R = {x E RN : xq . . . $(xN)) where $ E C1(loc) satisfies $(s) > limsupltl,, $ ( t ) > 0.

+ +X K - ~

Let G C RN be an additive group satisfying (3.34), let f E Cloc(RN x R) satisfy (6.11) and assume that f (x y, s) = f (x, s) for all x E RN, s E R and y E G. Let R c EXN, N > 2, be an open trace set, let be the functional (6.12) o n H ' ( R ~ ) , and let an be its restriction to H A (R). Assume that uk E HA(R) is a bounded sequence satisfying

Proposition 6.1

+

If R satisfies condition (A), then uk converges to a non-zero critical point of an weakly i n HA(O). If, additionally, R satisfies condition (B), and f (x, uk(x)) 2 0 i n R, then uk converges to a critical point of @n i n Hd(s2). Proof. By the first assertion of Lemma 6.5, R is a G-flask set. Consider the renumbered subsequence of uk and E G , w(") t H,'(R), given by Theorem 4.1. By the second assertion of Lemma 6.5, w ( ~ for ) a11 n are critical points of V a n (the shifts z = z ( n ) are absorbed into renamed w(") by the argument of Theorem 4.1). If w(") = 0 for all n, then by (3.40) and

yp)


149

Lemma 3.3, uk -+ 0 in LT(RN)for any r E (2,2*). Then, by Theorem 2.14 V9(uk) + 0 in H1(JRN), and consequently, since V@(uk) 4 0, we have uk -+ o in H ~ ( I Wand ~ ) so in HA@). Since a n is continuous, @n(uk) + 0 # c, a contradiction. We conclude that a n has a non-zero critical point w ( ~ #) 0 with some n E W. Assume now that f (x,uk) 0. Then f (x, w ( ~ ) ) 0 and, since w ( ~ ) satisfies (6.13), from the weak maximum principle (Proposition C.l) follows w ( ~ ) 0. If condition (B) is satisfied, then by Lemma 4.1, for each n > 1, w(") = 0 on some open set in 0. Then the strong maximum principle (Proposition C.2) yields w ( ~ )= 0 for all n > 1 and we conclude that w(l) in LT(R) for all r E (2,2*). Then by Theorem 2.14 V9(uk) 4 uk V ~ ( W ( ' ) )in H1(RN), and consequently, uk converges to w(') in H ' ( R ~ ) and so in Hd (R). Since an E C1(HA (R)), we have a n ( ~ ( ' 1 )= c. I3

>

>

>

-$

6.3

Critical points of the mountain pass type

In this section we prove convergence of critical sequences for the functional by elimination of the dislocated weak limits for problems with periodic nonlinearity on the strict flask sets and for problems where the function F imposes a variational penalty at infinity. Theorem 6.4 Let G c RN, be an additive group satisfying (3.34), let f E Cloc(RNx R) satisfy (6.11) and (6.15) with some p > 2, and assume that f ( x + y , s ) = f ( x , s ) f o r a l l x ~ s~E~R, a n d y G. ~ LetR c R N be a trace set, let be the functional (6.12) on H1(RN), and let a n be its restriction to Hi (R). Let

c = inf sup an( ~ ( s ) ) , v@o

(6.20)

820

and

v(0) = 0, 8-00 lim IIv(s)IIH~

CX),

lim @(v(s))

-)

-

8-00

If R satisfies the condition ( A ) relative to G, then an has a nonzero critical point. If, furthermore R satisfies condition (B) and f (x, s) 0 for all x E R and s E R, then an has a critical point w E Hi(R) satisfying an(w) = c.

>

Proof. an(uk)

The functional an has a bounded critical sequence uk (6.20) with by Lemma 6.4, Lemma 6.3 and Theorem 6.3. Conclusions of

+c


150

the theorem follow therefore from Proposition 6.1.

Theorem 6.5 Let f E C ~ , , ( R x~ R ) satisfy (6.11), (6.15) and suppose that f,(s) := limlxl,, f ( x ,s ) exists (which implies that limlxl+03 F ( x , s ) = F,(s) := J: f,(t)dt). Assume that

s

- is an increasing function on R,

--i f03(S),

Is1

and that for every x E I R N , s

(6.21)

#0

~ ) , @ E C 1 ( H 1( R N ) )and has a If @ is the functional (6.12) on H ~ ( I w then critical point w E H 1 ( R N )satisfying @ ( w )= c where c = inf sup @ ( v ( s ) ) v a ' o 320 and

q o = { v E CI,,([O,m ) ,

:

v(0) = 0, lim 11~(s)11~1 --t 00, lim @ ( v ( s )--, ) -00). 8-03

3-03

Conditions of the theorem are satisfied, for example, by a function f ( x ,s ) = b ( x ) l s l ~ - ~bs E , Lm(IRN)with b(x) > 0, 2 < p < 2* and 0 5 b(x) < b, < 00.

Proof. Step 1. By Lemma 6.4, @ has a bounded critical sequence at the level c. In order to verify its convergence in H 1 , consider a subsequence of uk, w ( ~E) H and E Z N provided by Corollary 3.3 with the group G = Z N . Since @ ( u k )-+ C , one can estimate c from below by means of (3.39) and Remark 3.4:

yp)))

From V @ ( u k -+ ) 0 follows ( v @ ( u ~ cp(.), 0 for every cp E C r ( R N ) , n E N . Passing to the dislocated weak limits we obtain -+

and


151

In the calculation of (6.25) we use compactness in Sobolev imbeddings for bounded domains and the continuity of u w JB f (x, u)cp on balls B > suppcp, which follows from Lemma 1.9. A similar argument leads to (6.26), once one takes into account, with the help of Lemma 1.6, that j" If (x, uk) fa ( u k 1)lp(. y r ) )1 -t 0. Relations (6.25) and (6.26) extend by continuity to all cp E H1(IRN). In particular we have

+

1151 =

llw(l)

J

f (x, w ( ~ ) ) w ( ~ ) ,

Substituting (6.27) into (6.24) we get

Note that 1 2

1 2

-f (x, S)S- F(x, S) > 0 and - f,(s)s

if

- F,(s)

> 0, s # 0.

(6.29)

(5

Indeed, (x, s ) s - F(x, s) 2 - l ) F ( x , s) by (6.15) and the right hand side is positive by (6.22), whenever s # 0. The inequality at infinity is similar. Step 2. Assume that

# 0 for some n > 2.

w ( ~ )

(6.30)

) Let us estimate c from above by observing that for every w E H ~ ( R\ ~{0), the path s H sw is of the class XUo, and thus c

0, and

Due to (6.21), the function s H s-'$@,(sw(~)) is monotone decreasing on (0, oo), and thus the function s H @,(sw(~)) has a unique critical point so on (0, co), which is necessarily so = 1 by (6.27). Therefore c 5 max @,(sw(~)) = @,(w(~)) s€(o,~)

Comparing this with (6.28), we see, due to (6.29), that for m with necessity, and therefore

# n, w

( ~= )0

On the other hand, by (6.22), sup @ ( S W ( ~ 0 follows from the estimate p F ( x , s ) = S : y p t p d t 5 mS Ps r - ' = f ( x ,s ) s . The computation for s < 0 is similar.

Remark 6.3 Let R C RN satisfy condition (A) relative to some group G c R N satisfying (3.34). Then the assertion of Theorem 6.5 extends to the restriction @n of @ ( u ) to H i ( R ) . The same proof applies, with only trivial modifications borrowed from the proof of Proposition 6.1. A similar argument is used also i n the proof of the next statement. Theorem 6.6 Let R C IKN be an open set satisfying condition (A) with an additive group G C R N satisfying (3.34). Suppose that f ( x + y, s ) = f ( x ,s ) for all x E R N , y E G , s E R , and that F ( x , s ) > 0 for all s # 0. If (6.11) (6.15) hold and for all x E R N , S H -

(x' Is1

, is an increasing function on 8,

(6.35)

then there is a u E H i ( R ) such that V @ ~ (= U0) and @ n ( u )= c, where c can be evaluated as infVEuo maxSEro,ll@ ( v ( s ) ) .

Proof. The proof of the theorem is repetitive of the proof of Theorem 6.5 combined with Proposition 6.1, and we give here only a sketch. Step 1. Consider the renumbered subsequence of uk and E G , w ( ~E) HA ( R ) , given by Theorem 4.1. Due to ( A ) ,by Lemma 6.5 (with the shifts z = z ( n ) set to zero by the argument of Theorem 4.1), v @ ~ ( w ( = ~ )0)for every n. Application of Lemma 3.4 together with (3.39) give the following counterpart of (6.24)

yp)

Instead of (6.25), (6.26), one has

J, V w c n )- V p +

w(.)p =

f ( x ,~ ( ~ ) n) Ep PI, , p E H ~ ( R ) , (6.31)

154


and consequently,

Substitution of (6.38) into (6.36) gives

f (x, w ( ~ ) ) w ( ~F) ( ~w("))) ,

.

nEN

By the positivity assumption for F and (6.15), l ) F ( x , s) > 0 whenever s # 0, which implies

if(x, s ) s - F ( x , s) 2 ($ -

@ ~ ( w ( ~ ) (> x )0)whenever w(")(x) # 0.

(6.40)

Step 2. If we assume that w(") = 0 for all n E N,then by Theorem 4.1, uk --+ 0 in LP, p E (2,2*), and consequently, by (6.11) and Theorem 2.14, and since V@n(uk)-t 0, uk 4 0 in HA(R). Then a n ( u k ) --+ 0, which implies c > 0, a contradiction. We may assume then without loss of generality that w(') # 0. Repeating the analogous argument of in Theorem 6.5 on the estimate of c from above gives c

5 sup @(SW(')),

(6.41)

~€(0,cQ)

and as before, (6.35), yields that s -+ @(sw(')) has one and only one critical point on (0, I ) , which, due to (6.38) is so = 1. ) 0, Step 3. Comparing (6.39), (6.41) and (6.40), we conclude that w ( ~ = w(') in LT(R) for n # 1. Consequently, that uk 3 w('), and thus uk every r E (2,2*). Then, as in the proof of Theorem 6.5, uk -+ w(') in H t (R), and thus Q ~ ( W ( ' )=) c. --+

Assume additionally in Theorem 6.6 that F ( x , s ) > F ( x , -s) for s > 0. Let w(') be the critical point of an provided by the proof of the theorem. Then, unless w(') 0,

Remark 6.4

>

sup @(slw(')l)< sup @(sw(')) = c , s€[O,cQ)

(6.42)

s€[O,@J)

which contradicts the definition of c. By the strong maximum principle we have then w(') > 0.

Chapter 6 Minimax problem

6.4

Mountain pass problems with the critical exponent

We return to the problems with critical oscillatory nonlinearity considered, in the framework of constrained infima, in Chapter 5. Let F E Cf,,(IW) satisfy (5.19) and let f (s) = F1(s). Obviously, there is a C > 0 such that

Let

By Theorem 2.14, @ E C1(V1l2(IWN)). The critical points of @ satisfy the equation -Au = f (u), in the sense of weak differentiation, over IWN.

Theorem 6.7 Assume, in addition to (5.19), that with some p s E [I,2?] u [ - 2 7 , 1 ]

> 2, for

and that is increasing,

SH-

Is1 Then there is a u E V'y2(IWN) such that V@(u) = 0 and @(u) = c with c > 0 given by (6.10).

Proof. Notations of the norm and of the inner product in this proof refer, unless specified otherwise, to the space D ~ > ~ ( I w ~ ) . Step 1. From (6.45) and (5.20) follows that (6.45) extends to all s # 0 * , some X > 0 and thus for every w # 0, and thus that F ( s ) > ~ l s 1 ~with @(sw) < 0 for all s sufficiently large. Thus the set 9 0 given by (6.9) is nonempty. By (5.20) and the Sobolev inequality (2.29), there exists a T- > 0 such that whenever = r,

Then the constant c in (6.10) is positive and by Theorem 6.3, there is a sequence uk E D1?'(IWN) satisfying V@(uk) + 0, @(uk) -+ 0. Repeating literally the proof of Lemma 6.3, with the only difference that the notation of the norm refers now to the space V112, and that instead of (6.15) we

156


quote (6.45) extended to s E R, we conclude that uk is a bounded sequence E RN, in 'D112(RN). Consider now a renumbered subsequence of uk, j(n)E Z and w(") E 'D1v2, given by Theorem 5.1. Then, by (5.10) and Lemma 5.5, we have

yc)

By compactness of local Sobolev imbeddings and Lemma 1.9 with p = q = 2* - 1, for every v E c r ( R N ) the map u w JwN f (x,u)v is continuous with respect to weak convergence in 'D1y2(lRN). Thus v @ ( w ( ~ )= ) 0, and consequently,

and, due to (6.45),

(6.48) unless w ( ~ = ) 0. Step 2. Without loss of generality we may assume that w(') # 0: if =0 for all n, then by Theorem 5.1 uk -+ 0 in L ~ * ( I w and ~ ) , therefore, since (V@(uk),uk) + 0, uk -+ 0 in V ' , ~ ( I Wleading ~) to c = lim@(uk) = 0, a contradiction. In this argument we used the continuity of p(u) and of J f (U)Uin L ~ *following , from (5.20), (6.43) and Lemma 1.7. Let us now estimate c from above, starting with the path (s H SW('))E QO:

Similarly to the argument in Theorem 6.5,

From (6.7) (which extends by (5.19) to all s E R) follows that s w s - ' $ @ ( s ~ ( ~is) )a decreasing function and thus has a t most one zero. This unique zero is provided by s = 1 due to (6.47). Since @(sw(l))is zero at s = 0, negative for large s and has positive values, it means that its only critical point on (0, co)is a maximum attained a t s = 1. Then


157

Comparing this with (6.46) and taking into account (6.48), we come to D conclusion that w(") = 0 for n # 1. Then uk --\ w('). Consequently, w(') in L ~ and * then from V @ ( u k )4 0 follows that uk -, w(') in uk D112. Consequently, v@(w('))= 0 and @(w('))= c.

Remark 6.5 Let w(') be as in the proof of Theorem 6.7. If F(-s) < F ( s ) for s > 0 then, unless w(') 2 0, @(s1w(')1)< @(sw('))< C , which contradicts the definition of c. Consequently, w(') 2 0 and by the strong maximum principle w ( l ) > 0. 6.5

Critical problem with punitive asymptotic values

Theorem 6.8 and satisfy

Let f E Cl,,(R) and assume that the following limits exist

f < rn 0 < b:= 2* lim -f -(3). - 2 ~= 2* lim s+O Is1 Isl+, lsI2* Moreover, assume, for some p > 2,

and

Then the functional (6.44) is in c ' ( v ' ~ ~ and ( Rthere ~ ) is) a u E V112(RN) such that V @ ( u )= 0 and @ ( u )= c with c > 0 given by (6.10).

Proof. We sketch the proof, referring the reader to the proofs of Theorem 6.7 and Theorem 6.6 for similar details of the argument. 1. By (6.50)

< CIS(^*-'

(f(s)l

and ( F ( s ) (I C ( S ( ~ *s, E R ,

(6.53)

which easily yields @ E C'(V112(RN)).By the L1H6pital rule,

F ( s ) - l i m yF ( s ) = b < r n , s ~ R . lim )sl2* s-o 1st

s-00

The proof of the existence of a bounded critical sequence U I , a t the level c given by (6.10) is identical to the proof in Theorem 6.7 and can be omitted. Consider'a renumbered subsequence of uk and the index sets No,N+, and N-, given by Theorem 5.1.


158

2. From (5.10) and Remark 5.6 follows

where

It is easy to see that v@(w(")) = 0 for rn E No, v@,(w(")) and consequently,

= 0 for n

$ No,

,r f ( ~ ( ~ ) ) w ( ~E) NO; , r nl l ~ ( ~ ) l l % l=

(6.56) Due to (6.51), @(w(m) )

-

/ (A

(w(m))w(m)- ~ ( w ( m ) )

2

> O,m t 0' (6.57)

and @ ( w ( ~= ) ) (2*/2 - 1)b

~w(~2 ) )0~, n*$ No.

(6.58)

3. Assume that w ( ~ #) 0 for some n @ No. Repeating the argument similar to the one in Theorem 6.6, we have C

I sup ( ~ , ( s w ( ~ ) ) , s>o

and tlle maximum is attained a t s = 1 due to (6.56). Then

Comparing this with (6.55) and taking into account (6.57) ,(6.58) we come to conclusion that w("') = 0 for n' # n and, with necessity, c = @ , ( w ( ~ ) ) . This is, however, impossible, since by (6.52)

D

Thus w ( ~ = ) 0 for n > 1 and uk w('). Consequently, uk 4 w(') in L ~ * v@(w(')) = 0 and then from V@(uk)+ 0 follows that u k 4 w(') in and @(w(')) = c. --\


6.6

159


In the early 1960's R. Palais and N. Smale developed the theory of the critical points of functionals in Hilbert space (see the book [96] and references therein), providing the general framework for proving existence of critical sequences, associated with minimax values, by employing the deformation argument. The latter we produce here in the version due to M. Willem ([122], Lemma 2.3) as Lemma 6.2, and use it to prove the elementary mountain pass theorems. Theorem 6.2 was first applied to semilinear elliptic problems by A. Ambrosetti and P. Rabinowitz in [4] and Theorem 6.3 is an elementary modification. Weak convergence of a bounded critical sequence t o a critical point is trivial, and in many cases one can show that this critical point is nontrivial, by proving that a critical sequence uk does not converge D-weakly to zero, since otherwise from Lemma 3.3 (or its analog) and V@(uk)-+ 0 follows uk -' 0 in the Sobolev norm. The first assertion of Theorem 6.4 for R = ElN is immediate from that argument, which was employed originally by P. Rabinowitz, [loll and repeated many times throughout the literature in solutions for a variety of non-compact variational problems. The second assertion of Theorem 6.4 is a generalization of Theorem 1.2 from [98]. Convergence of bounded critical sequences presents, on the other hand, a major technical difficulty, which in literature is often bypassed by considering constrained minimization that gives the same Euler-Lagrange equation. In addition t o the case of homogeneous nonlinearity, constraint minimization is also used with the Nehari constraint inf(o~(,),,)=o) @(u),when a convexity condition yields that the Lagrange multiple of V(VG(u), u) is zero. For applications of concentration compactness in the context of Nehari constraint we refer the reader t o the books of M. Willem ([122]), M. Flucher ([56]) and J. Chabrowski ([33]) and references therein. While the convexity condition for use of Nehari constraint is restrictive, condition (6.21) in Theorem 6.5, which in practice allows t o use the Nehari constraint argument for , @ , does not put such restriction on the functional @ itself. We could trace the observation in the beginning of this chapter, that the Palais-Smale contdition in non-compact problems can hold only for a subset of the functional's range, to the 1983 paper of H. Br6zis and L. Nirenberg ([24], p.463). Existence of critical points can be proved by matching a quantitative estimate of a validity interval for the Palais-Smale condition with a quantitative estimate of the minimax level. On the other hand, when the mountain pass problem is concerned, Palais-Smale condition can


160

be verified in many cases by making only an implicit use of the critical value as a mountain pass value. Theorem 6.5 here is a model existence statement for the subcritical case, related to main result (Theorem 3.4) in the paper [45] of W.-Y. Ding and W.-M. Nil with the difference that [45] requires (6.35) (which, in particular, allows to use the Nehari constraint), while Theorem 6.5 replaces (6.35) with its asymptotic counterpart (6.21). The critical case statements, Theorem 6.7 and Theorem 6.8 partly overlap with Chabrowski's Theorem 1, [32]. M. del Pino and P. Felmer, [99] have proved an existence result based on a local, rather than global, penalty condition, by exploiting the exponential decay of positive solutions. It provides technical tools to the study of multi-peak solutions to semilinear elliptic problems, a topic that that was studied intensely in the recent years and deserves a more focused survey than this book. We would like to point to two related results that lie out of the scope of this chapter. A paper of V. Coti Zelati and P. Rabinowitz, [39] proves existence of critical points of (6.12) on the mountain pass level c, provided that there are finitely many distinct critical points with CP 5 c + a and that the nonlinearity F is ~ ~ - ~ e r i owith d i c a positive minimal period. A remarkable existence result by V. Benci and G. Cerami, [14],on a positive solution a(x)u = u ( ~ ~ ~ )with ( ~a -> ~0, )is emphatically to the equation -Au apart from Theorem 6.7 and Theorem 5.5 (which provides solvability when inf a < 0) due the sign of the coefficient a. This is the problem where the straightforward mountain pass gives a minimax value where every critical sequence is bounded and divergent, and the authors develop a different variational construction in order to obtain a critical point. The opposite case, a < 0, allows a straightforward mountain pass statement in the spirit of Theorem 6.7 (the problem is formally not covered by the conditions of the theorem), but instead it is handled by a simpler constraint minimization argument of Theorem 5.5.

+

Chapter 7

Differentiable manifolds

In this chapter we give a concise introduction to differentiable manifolds. Statements given without proof can be either regarded as elementary exercises or we indicate in the bibliographic references at the end of the chapter where in the literature they are to be found. Our presentation is essentially based on the books [76] and [70] as main references; only for the F'robenius Theorem 7.1 we refer to [36], p. 94.

7.1

DifferentiabIe manifolds

A topological n-manifold is a metric (more generally, a Hausdorff topological) space M , where every point has an open neighborhood homeomorphic to an open subset of Rn. Such a homeomorphism is also called a chart. In order to do analysis on manifolds we have to consider systems of compatible charts:

Definition 7.1 (1) An n-chart on a metric space M is a pair (U, cp) with an open subset U c M and a homeomorphism cp : U -+ V C Rn onto an open subset V c Rn. Two n-charts (Ul, cpl) and (U2, 9 2 ) are called compatible, if the transition map

is a diffeomorphism between the open sets VI2 c Vl and Vzl c V2 , i.e. Cm in both directions. (2) A differentiable (n-)atlas on a metric space M is a system A := {(Ui,cpi)iEI) of mutually compatible charts, such that the open sets (Ui)iEI cover M.

161


162

(3) A differentiable n-manifold is a pair (M, A) with a metric space M and a maximal (with respect t o inclusion) differentiable n-atlas. R e m a r k 7.1 Given a differentiable n-atlas A on M there is exactly one maximal atlas containing A: it consists of all charts on M , which are compatible with all charts in A. Thus, in order to define a differentiable nmanifold, it is suficient to give one (not necessarily maximal) differentiable atlas. E x a m p l e 7.1 (1) Any open subset U c Rn is a differentiable n-manifold with the onechart atlas A = {(U, id)}. (2) Embedded manifolds: Let W C Rm be an open subset and F : W 4 a m - n (with n 5 m) be a differentiable map. Let M := F - ~ ( o ) . Then, if the Jacobi matrix D F ( x ) has maximal rank m - n for all points x E M , we can endow M in a natural way with the structure of a differentiable manifold: for every point a € M we choose a chart (U,, (a) # 0. Consider now as follows. We may assume that

:::::PI,:

Its Jacobi matrix DG(a) is non-singular at a and thus there is a neighborhood U c Rm of a, such that

is a diffeomorphism onto the open set V c Rm. Now set Ua := M n U, cpa :=p r o j p oGIU, Then A := {(U,, cp,); a E M } is a differentiable atlas on M. (3) The n-sphere Sn c Rnfl is the most important example of an embedded manifold:

Take W = Rn+' and F ( x ) = 1xI2 - 1. (4) The above example can be generalized to any differentiable manifold M . Call a closed subset N Q M a submanifold of M , if N can be covered by open sets U c M , such that there is a chart cp : U -+ V C Rn, such that cp(N n U ) -, V is an embedded manifold as in item (2) above. We leave it t o the reader to check that N ~1M inherits in a natural way the structure of a differentiable manifold.

Chapter 7 Differentiable manifolds

163

(5) Any open subset W c M of a differentiable manifold M is itself a on M , then differentiable manifold: given an atlas A := {(Ui, l3 := {(Ui n W, (cpilu,nw)iEl) is an atlas for W C M. (6) The cartesian product MI x M2 of differentiable manifolds Mi, i = 1 , 2 , of dimension ni, is again a differentiable manifold, of dimension n l +n2: the charts (Ul x Uz, (cpl, cp2)),where (Ui, cpi) is a chart for Mi constitute an (nl n2)-atlas for MI x Mz.

+

Definition 7.2

Let M be a differentiable manifold.

(1) A continuous function f : M -+R is called differentiable, if for all charts (U, cp) E A in a (not necessarily maximal) atlas A on M , the function f o cp-l : V := cp(U) 4 R is differentiable. We shall denote C w ( M ) the set of all differentiable functions on M. In fact CW(M) is an Ralgebra: it is closed with respect to addition of functions, multiplication by scalars X E R and multiplication of functions. (2) A continuous map F : M -t N between differentiable manifolds (not necessarily of the same dimension) is called differentiable, if for all differentiable functions f on N the pullback F*( f ) := f o F again is differentiable, i.e. f E Coo(N) =. F * ( f ) E Cw(M).

Remark 7.2 The above definition of a differentiable map F : M -+ N is the most satisfactorg one from a systematic point of view, but for practical purposes note that a continuous map F : M -+ N is differentiable if given atlasses A on M and t? on N, for all charts (U,cp) E A and (W, $) E I3 the map

is a differentiable map between open sets i n Rn and Rm, where n := dim M, m := dim N . For explicit calculations on a manifold one often has to refer to charts (U, cp), but usually one does not mention explicitly the data U and cp, but instead, if e.g. f E Coo(M), writes simply f (xl, ..., x,) in order to denote f (cp-l(xl, ...,2,)) and calls it the representation of, or expression for f with respect to the local coordinates 21, ..., x,, where the choice of cp is understood. In fact often XI,..., x, are identified with the component functions cpl , ..., cp, E C w (U).


164

7.2 Tangent vectors and vector fields On a differentiable manifold there is no natural notion of derivatives, independent from the choice of a chart. But we can define homogeneous differentiable operators of degree one - usually called vector fields. We start with the notion of a tangent vector at a point a E M :

Definition 7.3 Let a E M be a point in the differentiable manifold M . A tangent vector X , of M at the point a E M is a linear map

satisfying the Leibniz rule

The set of all tangent vectors of M at a E M forms a vector space T,M, called the tangent space of M at a E M .

R e m a r k 7.3 ( 1 ) We have X,(R) = 0 for every tangent vector X , E T a M , since X a ( l ) = Xa(12)= Xa(1) X a ( l ) . (2) Take a chart cp : U -+ V c Rn with a E U and cp(a) = 0. Then the maps

+

a?,

are tangent vectors at a. In fact the tangent vectors ..., form a basis of the tangent space T a M . To see this we remark first that X a ( f ) = 0, if f vanishes near a: take a function g E C o o ( M ) with g = 1 near a and f g = 0. Then 0 = g ( a ) X a ( f ) f ( a ) X a ( g )= X a ( f ) . In particular X a ( f ) is determined only by the values o f f near a, that is, for any neighborhood U of a, the map X , : C o o ( M )-+ R uniquely factorizes through the restriction C w ( M ) -+ C w ( U ) and a tangent vector C m ( U ) -t R of the differentiable manifold U : use the fact that every function in C w ( U ) coincides near a with some Coo-function on M . If now (U,cp) is a chart near a as above, then X , = Cy=lXa(xi)dr. Indeed, take any f E C m ( M ) . After, may be, a shrinking of U we may assume f = f ( a ) + Cy'l xifi with f i E C m ( U ) and then obtain 2= 1 X a ( x i )f i ( a ) = X,(xi)aT(f). Another, may be X a ( f ) = En more geometric, construction that avoids the choice of charts is the

+

EL,


165

following: to any curve, i.e. diflerentiable map, y : Z + M defined on an open interval Z c R with y(to) = a for some to E Z we can associate the tangent vector ?(to) E TaM defined by

The vector ?(to) is called the tangent vector of the curve y : Z -, M at to E Z. I n particular the tangent space TaRn is naturally isomorphic to Rn itself: associate to x E Rn the tangent vector qx(0) with the curve yx(t) := a+tx. The adjective "natural" means here that it only depends on Rn as vector space, not on the choice of a particular base (e.g. the standard base) of Rn. Definition 7.4 Given a differentiable map F : M 4 N between the differentiable manifolds M and N, there is an induced homomorphism of tangent spaces:

defined by

It is called the tangent map of F at a E M. Obviously we have for a curve y : ( - E ,

E)

-t

M with y(0) = a that

F,(j(O)) = 8(0), where 6 := F o y

.

For explicit computations we note that, if F = (Fl, ..., Fm) : U + W is a differentiable map between the open sets U c Rn and W c Rm, and b = F ( a ) for a E U, then with respect to the bases d r , ...,d: of Tau and d t , ..., d z of Ti, W the linear map TaF has the matrix:

the Jacobi matrix of F at a E U. Furthermore it is immediate from the definition, that the tangent map behaves functorially, i.e. if F : MI + M2 and G : M2 -+ M3 are differentiable maps, then G o F : M1 -+ M3 is again differentiable and the chain rule

166


holds. All the tangent vectors at points in a differentiable n-manifold M form a differentiable n2-manifold:

Definition 7.5 Let M be a differentiable n-manifold. The tangent bundle T M is, as a set, the disjoint union

of all tangent spaces a t points a E M . Denote n : T M + M the map, which associates to a tangent vector Xa E TaM its "base point" a E M . Now given a chart cp : U 2 V C Rn on M , we consider the bijective map (t7-ivialization)

where we use the natural isomorphism TbRn N Rn as explained above and 9*ITaM = Tap We endow T M with a topology: a set W c T M is open if Tcp(W n pP1(U)) c Rn x Rn is open for all charts (U, cp) in an atlas A for M . Finally, the charts (nP1(U),T p ) with (U, cp) E A define an atlas on TM. Now we can generalize Definition 7.4: given a differentiable map F : M 4 N the pointwise tangent maps TaF : TaM -+ TF(,)N combine t o a differentiable map TF : T M + T N , i.e.

Indeed, the map T F fits into a commutative diagram

TM

TF' TN

1 ,

1 F

M - N i.e. n p ~o T F = F o n~ holds with the projections n~ : T N 4 N of the respective tangent bundles.

TM :

TM

-

M and

A vector field X on a differentiable manifold M is a Definition 7.6 differentiable section of the projection n : T M + M , i.e., a differentiable map

Chapter 7 Daflerentiable manzjolds

167

satisfying .rr o X = idM, with other words, X ( a ) E TaM for all a E M . In that case we also write X a := X ( a ) . We denote O ( M ) the set of all vector fields on M .

R e m a r k 7.4 ( 1 ) The set O ( M ) carries, with the argument-wise algebraic operations, in

a natural way the structure of a real vector space. In fact the scalar multiplication

can be extended to a multiplication by functions:

where

(2) Vectorfields can be identified with derivations D : C w ( , M )--, C m ( M ) , i.e. linear maps satisfying the Leibniz rule D ( f g ) = D ( f ) g f D ( g ) for all f , g E C w ( M ) . Given a vector field X E O ( M ) the corresponding derivation X : C m ( M ) 4 C w ( M ) ,f ++ X ( f ) is defined by ( X ( f ) ) ( a := ) X a ( f ) . In fact, e v e y derivation D : C w ( M ) -+ C w ( M ) is obtained from a vector field: Take X E O ( M ) with

+

(3) For an open subset U C M the tangent bundle T U is identified, in a natural way, with the open subset .rr-'(U) c T M . In particular there is a natural restriction map O ( M ) -+ O ( U ) for any open subset U c M . ( 4 ) Let F : M -+ N be a differentiable map. Given a vector field X E O ( M ) , we can consider T F o X : M 4 T N , but that map does not in general factor through N , e.g. if F is not injective. But it does if F : M -, N is a diffeomorphism: then we may define a map

E x a m p l e 7.2 If ( x l ,..,x,) are local coordinates on U vector fields dl, ...,8, E O ( U ) with

c M , we call the

168


the coordinate vector fields of the local coordinates X I , ..., x , (Note here that di does not depend just on xi E C w ( U ) , since one has to differentiate with respect to x i , while the remaining xj,j # i are kept constant!). Every vector field X E O ( U ) then has a unique representation

with differentiable functions fi E C w ( U ) .

R e m a r k 7.5 In general it is not possible to find o n an n-manifold n vectorfields X I , ...,X , E O ( M ) , such that ( X I ) , , ..., ( X n ) , is a frame at a , i.e., a basis of T a M , for all a E M . If such vector fields exist, the manifold M is called parallelizable. A s we have seen i n Example 7.2, coordinate neighborhoods are always parallelizable. D e f i n i t i o n 7.7 Let X E O ( M ) be a vector field. A smooth curve y : Z -+ M defined on an open interval Z C JK is called an integral curve of the vector field X , if j ( t ) = X,(,) for all t E Z.

Remark 7.6 The basic theorem i n the theory of ordinary differential equations says that, given a vector field X E 0 ( M ) o n a differentiable manifold M and a point a E M , there is an integral curve y : Z -+ M defined on an open interval Z 3 0 such that y ( 0 ) = a , and if -?. : % -t M is a second such curve, then y and ;j. coincide o n the intersection Z n 2. If M is compact, we can always assume Z = R . Moreover, there is a differentiable map p : U 4 M defined o n an open neighborhood U c M x JK of M x ( 0 ) ~ - Mf x R , such that U n ( { x ) x R ) is an interval for all x E M and t -, p ( x , t ) an integral curve of X satisfying p ( x , 0 ) = x . If, moreover, M is compact, this map is defined on all of M x R . The flow of the vector field X then is the family ( p t ) t E Wof the differentiable maps

I n fact, we have Po = id^, P,+t = P,

0

Pt,

since integral curves are uniquely determined by their initial values and t H y ( s + t ) is an integral curve with the value y ( s ) at t = 0. Since PO = id^, it follows that each map pt : M -+ M is a difleomorphism with inverse p-t.


169

The vector space O(M) carries a further algebraic structure: though the compositions X Y and Y X of two derivations X , Y : C w ( M ) 4 C w ( M ) are no longer derivations, their commutator is: ( X U - Y X ) f g = X Y ( f g ) - YX(fg)

+ g Y f ) - Y ( f Xg + g X f ) = fx y g + (Xf + gXYf + (Xg)Yf = X ( f Yg

-

f y x g - (Yf )(Xg) - gYXf

- (Yg)( X f

= f X Y g - f Y X g + g X Y f -gYXf = f ( X U - YX)g

+ g(XY - Y X )f .

Definition 7.8 The Lie bracket [X,Y] E O(M) of two vector fields X , Y E O(M) is the commutator of the derivations X , Y : C w ( M ) -+ Coo( M ) , i.e.

[X,Y] := X Y - YX, or, in other words, the vector field [X, Y] satisfying

for all differentiable functions f E C w ( M ) at every point a E M . Note that the tangent vector [X,Y], is not a function of the values Xa, Y, E T,M only, since the local behavior of the vector fields X , Y near a E M also enters in the computation rule. If XI,...,xn are local coordinates on U c M , and X , Y E O(U) have representations

then

So, in particular, [di,dj] = 0 for coordinate vector fields. On the other hand we mention: Theorem 7.1 (Frobenius Theorem) Let X I , ..., Xn E O(M) be pairwise commuting vector fields, i.e. [Xi,Xj] = 0 for 1 i,j n. Then every point a E M , such that (XI),, ..., (X,), is a frame at a (i.e. a basis of the

2, p 2 2 for N = 1,2.

Magnetic shifts and D-convergence

Let X be a complete Riemannian manifold and let G be a subgroup of Iso(X), closed in the compact-open topology. Using the pullback action of Iso(X), R2(X) -+ R2(X), one calls the magnetic field /3 E R2(X) G-periodic if q/3 = ,B for all q E G or, in terms of the magnetic potential a E R1, d(qa - a ) = 0. We require a somewhat stronger condition, noting that if X is simply connected then the form q a - a is a differential of a function. That is, we assume that there exists a CM-function $,(.) : X -+ C, uniformly continuous in q with respect to the compact-open topology, such that

Chapter 9 Sobolev spaces o n manifolds

207

From (9.10) follows that the magnetic field P = d a is Iso(X)-periodic. In particular, we have dqid = 0, so that, since X is connected, qidis constant. Since $id is defined by (9.10) up to a constant, we assume that

+,

The function magnetic shifts:

defines the following set of transformations, known as

In particular, if X = IRN with the standard scalar product and G = IRN, with the actions QX := x 77, every periodic (here, constant) magnetic field P: dp = 0, 77P = ,B, corresponds to the magnetic potential of the form a = (Ax, dx), where A is a constant alternating matrix, and the magnetic shifts corresponding to the field a use +, = Av. x.

+

Lemma 9.2 The set D G , ~up , to the extension by continuity, is a group of unitary operators on HA (X).

Proof.

It suffices to prove that gv-1 = g,l

(9.13)

and 9v-1

= 9;

(9.14)

for every 77 E Iso(X). To prove (9.13), note that from (9.10) and (9.11) it follows immediately that

Then solving the equation gvu = v, one has v = e-iqqOv-luoq-l = ei*q-l uo 77-l. In order to prove (9.14), consider the following calculations, taking into account that 77 E G, (9.15) and (9.13):

208


Lemma 9.3 Let X be a complete Riemannian manifold and let a E n1( X ) . The space (HA(X),D G , ~is) a dislocation space.

Proof. By Lemma 9.2 the elements of DG are unitary operators. Thus it suffices by Proposition 3.1 to show that if qk E G, gqk f' 0, then g,, has a strongly convergent subsequence. Moreover, it suffices to verify the elementwise convergence on a dense subset C r (X). Assume that g,, f\ 0. Then there exist u, v E C r ( X ) and a renumbered subsequence of qk, such that (g,,u, v) ft 0, so that qk(suppu) n suppv # 0. Let xk E suppu be such that qkxk E suppv. Since suppu is compact, a renumbered subsequence of xk converges to some x E suppu. Since suppv is compact and qk are isometries, a renumbered subsequence of qkx converges, and therefore, by Theorem 8.1, qk converges to some E I uniformly on compact sets. Then g,,v converges for any v E C r ( X ) . Lemma 9.4 Let G be a closed subgroup of Iso(X) and assume that X is a complete G-periodic Riemannian N-manifold, that is, for some open bounded set V G X ,

Let r E (2,2*) and let ub E HA(X) be a bounded sequence. Then

Proof. The proof of necessity is repetitive of that in Lemma 3.3. To prove sufficiency, assume that uk D%" 0. Let fi = V and let V2, fi and the countable set J c G be as in Lemma A.1. From (9.4) we have

By adding terms in (9.17) over q E J, we obtain

Chapter 9 Sobolev spaces on manzfolds

209

for an appropriately chosen "near-supremum" sequence qk E J . It remains t o note that b y compactness o f imbedding i n t h e local Sobolev inequality (9.4), gVkuk + 0 i n L T ( X ,p ) , so that t h e assertion o f t h e lemma follows from (9.18).

Remark 9.1 ( a ) Theorem 3.1 for the dislocation space ( H k ( X ) ,DG,a) holds with (3.9) implying that whenever m # n, the sequence of isometries qk := ) Vk OVk'^' is discrete, that is, for every x E X q k ( x ) has no bounded subsequence. Indeed, if some point x E X the sequence q k ( x ) had a bounded subsequence, by Theorem 8.1 qk would have a subsequence convergent to some 77 E G i n compact-open topology. O n this renumbered subsequence, with u E C r ( X ) \ { 0 ) , we have g ),( *g )(, u gVu # 0 , Vk 'lk which contradicts (3.9). Furthermore, i f X is Iso(X)-periodic, then (3.11) yields to interpretation of Lemma 9.4. (b) If X is Iso(X)-periodic, the natural counterparts of Lemma 3.4 and Remark 3.4 hold true for the integral J F ( u ) d p , resp. J F ( x , u ) d p when a = 0 and for J F(Iul)dp, resp. J F ( x , 1ul)dp for a # 0 . ( c ) If X is Iso(X)-periodic, the minimum in

-

is attained. ( d ) If X is G-periodic with respect to a subgroup G of I s o ( X ) , then the minimum i n (9.19) is attained even i f the condition u E H ~ ( x )is replaced by u E H i ( R ) , provided that R c X is a G-flask set. If Sl is a locally trace set (in particular, a R E Ck,) such that for every sequence qk E G, there exists a q E G such that, up to a set of measure zero, liminfq k R c R ,

(9.20)

then R is a G-flask set. ( e ) Assume that I s o ( X ) has an infinite compact subgroup T such that whenever T # id and qk E G is discrete, the sequence q k l o T oqk is discrete. Let H & ( x ) be a subspace of H 1 ( X ) consisting of functions u such that u 0 T = u for all T E T . Then H $ ( x ) is compactly imbedded into L P ( X , p ) , 2 < p < 2*. ( f ) There are natural counterparts of Theorem 6.5 and Theorem 6.6.


210

The group DIs,(x),, generalizes the group DRN of Euclidean shifts, and similarly one can regard the conformal group of X as a generalization of the group of translations and dilations DN,R. This issue will be addressed below for the case of subelliptic operators on Carnot group.

9.4

Subelliptic mollifiers and Sobolev spaces on Carnot groups

SwN

The energy functional I V U can ~ ~ be considered as a particular case of ELl IXiuI2 where Xi are vector fields on R N , but if the sum is sparse, the quadratic form no longer defines a space that admits local compact imbeddings into LP-spaces: consider for example a sequence of the form where ) '$ E C r ( R N - l ) , '$k E C r ( R ) , c~k(x):= ' $ ( X I , . . , x N - ~ ) ' $ ~ ( x N '$I, --\ 0 and ll'$k\\2 = 1, in relation t o laiu12. Nonetheless, there exist collections of less than N vector fields on IRN that are not sparse in the sense above. In particular, this is the case when the set of subsequent commutators of a given collection of vector fields spans a t every point the whole tangent space. Energy forms and correspondent differential operators defined by such collections are called subelliptic. In this chapter we consider subelliptic energies with rich homogeneity properties, namely invariant energy functionals on RN endowed with a Carnot group structure. Let G be a connected and simply connected Lie group associated with a nilpotent Lie algebra 0, generated, as a Lie algebra, by a subspace Vl C g, and endowed with a stratification g = Vl $ ....@V, such that [V,,V,] c V,+j. We set the convention Vk := (0) for k > p, and let Yl, . . . ,Y, be a basis for Vl. We may choose the basis { K k )of g by setting Y,1 = K, m l = m , and selecting the basis Y,k, i = 1,. . . ,mk, for every Vk, k = 1, . . . ,p from [. . . , [K,-, , Kk]]]. the vectors Y,,,..., i, := [Y,,, [Y,,, Let us fix on G exponential coordinates, which allows to use the same notations for an element Y of g, the left invariant vector field on G defined by Y and the first order differential operator Yu = u H du(Y) associated with this vector field. In these notations an element of 77 E G is represented by a point y E R N , y = {y.. 23 1 i = 1 , . . . , m j , j = 1,.. . , p ) , Heisenberg group Wn in exponenCy m j = N: 77 = e x p ( C y i j x j ) . tial coordinates (xl, . . . ,x,, yl, . . . , y,, z) has a stratified basis consisting of = axi 2yidz, i = 1 , . . . ,n,Y,+n,l = ayi - 2xidz, i = 1 , . . . , n, and Y12 = 8,. Using exponential coordinates we define anisotropic dilations St : G -+

SRN

SRN

+

Chapter 9 Sobolev spaces on manijolds

211

G, t > 0, as the mapping y i j I+ t j y i j . Note that the Jacobian of bt in the exponential coordinates is tQ, where Q := CT=l j m j is called the homogeneous dimension. For example, the homogeneous dimension of IRN is N, the homogeneous dimension of the N = 2n 1-dimensional Heisenberg group IHI, is Q = 1 2n 2 . 1 = 2n 2 = N 1. We recall (Example 8.7) that the left and the right shift invariant Haar measure on Carnot groups coinsides with the Lebesgue measure. We endow the group G with a leftinvariant metric tensor by fixing its value at the origin as an inner product on g where the basis {Xj)is orthonormal, and extending it to all points of G by the pullback action of the left shifts on Q'I~(G) (see Section 7.9).

+

+

+ +

Definition 9.1 Hilbert spaces V112(G) and H1(G) are completions of C r ( G ) in the following respective norms:

and

In particular, when G = W,,

H1(G) is trivially imbedded into L2(G) and the subsequent argument shows ) Q > 2 (when Q = 1,2, that V1y2(G) is imbedded into L ~ ( G whenever then, with necessity, G E RQ with vector additions as the group law). Note that V112(G)-norm and LP(G)-norms are invariant with respect to left group shifts

For Q > 2 we define also the group of dilation actions

212


and its subgroup b2 = { h j E bR, j E Z), and observe that it preserves the Vly2(G)-normas well as the L2*o-norm with 2*Q = Repeating the argument of Chapter 2, we can see that any function u E V112(G)has weak derivatives Y,u E L2(G) .

a.

Definition 9.2 A convolution of u E Cw(G) and cp E C,"(G) is the following function:

Lemma 9.5 Let u,v E C,"(G), let 52 c G and let 01 > {qC-',q E R, C E suppv). Then

Proof. The estimate follows from the following chain of inequalities that employ, in particular, the Cauchy inequality and the invariance of the Haar measure. 2

Problem 9.2

Show that for u E Cw(G), v E C,"(G),

and

Consider now the following transformation

213

Chapter 9 Sobolev spaces on manifolds

and note that

SG Itu = SG U.

Let

Problem 9.3 (a) Show that if the vector field Y is left invariant with respect to the group shifts, then the vector field yRis right invariant. (b) Show that E Y ( u * v ) = u * Y v and (YU)* v = - U * Y ~ V , Uc"(G),v

E c~(G).

(9.30) Lemma 9.6 (D. Jerison [72], Lemma 9.1) Let G be a Carnot group with the left invariant vector fields, identified via the exponential map with the stratification basis Y,., i = 1,.. . ,mj, j = 1,.. . ,p, defined above. For every i, j , there exist differential operators Dijk, k = 1,.. . ,m, such that for every E CO='(G), cp E C,"(G)J

and there exist differential operators ~ ( ~ k1 =, 1 , . . . ,m, such that for any u E CO0(G), cp E C,"(G)J

Proof.

1. Due to (9.30) it suffices to prove the following identities:

and

Since the vectors Kj are identified, via the exponential map, with the leftinvariant vector fields on G that coincide at the origin with aij = a,,, , they


214

admit the coordinate representation

with Pij,kl(0) = 0. Since G is nilpotent, by the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula, P i j , k l are polynomials. By the definitions of dilations bt and of the exponential map, the vector fields Xj are dilation-homogeneous of degree j in the sense that Y,j (uobt) = tj(Y,ju) oSt, and thus, Pij,kl are homogeneous polynomials of degree 1 - j when 1 > j and, with necessity, Pij,kl = 0 when 1 I j . For the similar homogeneity reason, PijZkl are independent of ykt,l, whenever 1' > 1. Thus,

In particular, we have

and, from JGY,j(vw) = 0, v,w E C r ( Q ) ,

where Y,; denotes the adjoint operator for Yij with respect to the inner product of L2(G). Since, i11 the exponential coordinates on G, inversion of the element corresponds to inversion of the flow and thus to y w -y, the vector fields allow the following representation:

xr

2. Let prove (9.33). It is easy to show by induction, starting with k = p and decreasing k to 1, that

with some polynomials qjkil. Indeed, when k = p, (9.39) holds trivially due to (9.37), and, assuming that (9.39) holds for k 2 ko, it will follow for k = ko - 1 from (9.38). From here follows, due to (9.36) that

215


with some polynomials Qjkil. Moreover, since Yij,j > 1, are subsequent commutators of Y,, for each i, 1 there exist differential operators A:) such that

Substituting (9.41) into (9.40), we get (9.33). 3. The relation (9.34) follows from

Indeed, when k = p + 1, no terms are left in the second sum. Let us prove (9.42) by induction. For k = 1 we have, noting that Ci,jj = Q , a t I t p = -Qt

-

1

6 - - j - Q - l a zJ. .2

St-'

3 0~

if

=

C tj-'&jIt(-jyijp). ij

This verifies (9.42), k = 1, with D f ) = 0 and Dijl : p I-+ jyiip. For the induction step for (9.42) from k to k 1, it suffices to express the terms of the form t k - l d i k ~ t ( ~ i k k (in P )the form of the right hand side of (9.42), step k 1. Due to (9.38) and since the polynomials Pik,lj are homogeneous of degree j - k and vanish at zero, we have

+

+

Since Y,. are iterated commutators of Yk and [xR,yR] = [ R X R ,RYR] = R [ X , Y ] R= [ X ,YIR,the vector fields are linear combinations of operators of the form Y,:. . .qy. Thus, and since tj-'q:q:. . . qyItljl = ~Fltq:.. . qyljl,the term t k - l q f ~ t ( ~ i k kisp of) the form of the first term in (9.42) and therefore (9.34) is verified.


216

Let cp E C," (G; [O, 11) satisfy Mt : L$,(G) -, CrC(G)by

SG cp = 1. We define the mollification operator

Mtu := u * Itcp7where Itcp := t-Qcp o & - I , t E (0,l).

Lemma 9.7

(9.43)

If u E C," (G), then

Proof. Using the change of variables

H

c7we get

which due to absolute continuity of u converges to zero as t

+ 0.

Lemma 9.8 Let R c R1 C G be two open bounded sets. There exists a C > 0 and to > 0 such that for every u E C r ( G ) and t E (0, to),

Proof. By the second assertion of Lemma 9.6, there exist i = 1,.. ., m such that

Let to

a,<E u

+ Jot

>

$i

E Cr(fl),

0 be such that for t E (t, to), i = 1,. . . , m , {qCP1 : 77 E bt(supp$i)) C 01. Thus, by Lemma 9.7 and (9.46), Mtu = ~ , u d s= u Y , * MSGids. Then, using the Cauchy

+ Jot

xEl


217

inequality, and a t a later step, Lemma 9.5 and (9.27), we have

9.5

Compactness of subelliptic Sobolev imbeddings

Lemma 9.9 Let R G ill c G be two open bounded sets. If there is a C > 0 such that uk E C r ( G ) is such that

uklR has a subsequence convergent in L2(R).

Proof. Let t > 0 be sufficiently small so that {rl[-', Gt(suppcp)) c R1. Then for every E 0, u E C r ( G ) , IMtu(~)l5

I

q E R,

0 such that for every u E C,"(G),

Q > 2,

Consequently, the space D112(G)is continuously imbedded into L'; (G).

c,"((+,

Proof. Let u E C,"(G) and let x E 4);[O, 41) be such that ~ ( s=) s for s E [I,21, ( ~ ' 1 5 2. We set x j ( t )= 2-jx(2jt), j E Z and apply (9.54) to functions xj(luI) E C r , taking into account that, since derivation by Y, follows the chain rule, IY,xj ( u )1 5 21Y,ul. Then


222

Taking into account the bounds of u on the respective sets of integration, we have

and, if we substitute t j = 2-(26/Q)jt, take the sum over j E Z,and note that each of the intervals [2j-', 2j+'] overlaps with the rest of them not more than four times, we get

The inequality (9.56) then follows from setting t = X(JG lul2;)6 with X > 0 large enough and collecting similar terms. Note that from (9.56) easily follows, by multiplying u with a smooth cut-off function, that for two open sets U G W , W G G,

whenever u E C r ( G ) . By the Holder inequality this extends to

9.8

Concentration compactness on Carnot groups due to shifts

Proposition 9.1

Let G be a Carnot group. The pair (H1(G), DG), where DG ={go : u

++

u o q , q E G),

(9.58)

is a dislocation space. 0 in H1(G) if and only if qk has no Proof. First, observe that g,, bounded subsequence. Indeed, if, on a renumbered subsequence, qk -+ Q, then for every u E C?(G) \ {0), (Uo qk, u o q) -+ Ilu o q1I2 = llu112 > 0 and


223

D,, f\ 0. If, conversely, for any compact set K there is a jK E N such that v j @ K for j > jK,then for every u, v E C r ( G ) , (U0 r]k,v) = 0 for all sufficiently large k, since the set { r ] E G : qsuppv n suppu # 0) is compact. The group DG consists of unitary operators, so Proposition 3.1 applies. Relation (3.7) follows then from the observation above. Let Go be a closed subgroup of G and assume that there exists a neighborhood of zero V @ G, such that

The group DG, is obviously also a dislocation set on H1(G). In particular, the Heisenberg group Wn has such a subgroup WE, consisting of points whose canonic coordinates (x, y, z ) take integer values.

Lemma 9.12 Let Go be a subgroup of a Carnot group G satisfying (9.59) and let uk be a bounded sequence in H1(G) and let p E (2,25). Then

Proof. The proof of necessity is repetitious of the proof for Lemma 3.3 In order to proof sufficiency, consider (9.57) with where U = r]V2, W = r]V3, r] E Go, with Vz, V3 given by (A.l) with X = G and V1 = V. We have

Let J c Go be as given by Lemma A.1. Then adding the terms in (9.61) over r] E J we obtain

where

r]k

E

J is any sequence satisfying

-

Since uk 0 ~ 1 , ~ 0, by Lemma 9.9, uk o r ] i l -+ 0 in L2(V2),and thus, due to the Holder inequality, in LP(V2). By (9.62) this implies uk -+ 0 in LP(G).


224

Remark 9.2 Chapters 4 4 .

The following statements have immediate analogs in

(a) Theorem 3.1 for the dislocation space ( H 1( G ) ,DG,), where Go is a subgroup of the Carnot group G , holds, with (3.9) implying that whenever

rn # n, the sequence @ ) - l q ~ ) has no bounded subsequence. Furthermore, if Go satisfies (9.59), then (3.11) yields to the interpretation of Lemma 9.12. (b) If (9.59) is satisfied, the natural counterparts of Lemma 3.4 and Remark 3.4 hold true for the integral SG F ( u ) , resp. SG F ( q ,u ) . (c) Let b E L w ( G ) and assume that either b is Go-periodic and (9.59) is satisfied or b, := limlql,, b(q) 5 b(q), q E G . Then the minimum in

p E ( 2 ,2 5 ) , is attained. (d) Assume that G has an infinite compact subgroup T such that whenever T # e and qk E G is discrete, the sequence q i l o T o qk is discrete. Let H$(G) be a subspace of H1(G) consisting of functions u such that U O T = u for all T E T . Then H$(G) is compactly imbedded into LP(G), 2 < p < 2;. (e) There are natural counterparts of Theorem 6.5 and Theorem 6.6.

9.9

Concentration compactness on Carnot groups due to dilations

In this section we consider v ' > ~ ( G )equipped with the product group D G ,= ~ dR x DG or with its subgroup D G , = ~ dz x DG, where the group of anisotropic dilation actions dR is defined by (9.24) and dz = { h j E dR,j E Z}. Note that dtq = qdt It is easy to see that the elements of D G , ex~ tend by continuity to unitary operators on D112(G),and to isometries on ~~6 ( G ).

Lemma 9.13 Let u E D112(G)\{O). The sequence h,,uoqk, qk E G , sk CO. E W, converges weakly to zero if and only if l;fskl 1qkl

EX, k

+

The proof is repetitive of Lemma 5.1 and can be omitted.

Proposition 9.2

The group D G , is ~ a dislocation group on D1y2(G).

This of course implies that D G , is ~ a dislocation group as well.

E

225

Chapter 9 Sobolev spaces on manzfolds

Proof. Since D N , is~ a group of unitary operators, by Proposition 3.1, it suffices to prove that gk E DN,w,gk f\ 0

* gk has a strongly convergent subsequence.

(9.64)

By Lemma 9.13, if gk f\ 0, then the corresponding parameter sequence (sk, qk) is bounded and has convergent (renumbered) subsequences qk + E G, s k -+ SO E R. Let gou = h8,u 0 70. Then gku gou for u E C e However, since the operators gk, go, are unitary, llgkull = llull = llgOulland therefore gk -+ gou. By density this extends to all u E V1>2(G).

-

Lemma 9.14

Proof.

If uk is a bounded sequence in V1s2(G), then

Assume without loss of generality that uk E C r ( G ) .

The implication uk D2R 0 + uk D3Z 0 is trivial and the argument implication lluk112;2 4 0

J

uk D30R is repetitive of that in Lemma 5.3.

*

Let us prove the implication uk Dsz 0 uk + 0. Assume uk D2Z 0. ) t whenever t E [I,21 and Let x E C?((:, 4), [O, 3]), such that ~ ( t = I x ' I I 2.From (9.57) with U = V2, W = V3 provided by (A.l) with any fixed open set Vl , LZ*

from which follows, if we take into account that ~ ( t ) ~5 ;c t 2 ,

Let J c G be as given by Lemma A.1. Adding the above inequalities over q E J and taking into account that ~ ( t 5) clt12;, ~ SO that by (9.56)

we obtain


226

Let qk E J be such that

Since uk

="z

0, uk

o

r l ~ --\ l 0 in D1>2(RN)and due to Lemma 9.2,

J "lk

V2

Substituting this into (9.65), we obtain

Let

xj (t) = 2jX(2-jt)), j E Z. Since for any sequence jr E Z, hjkuk D2z 0, we have also, with arbitrary j k E Z,



Adding the inequalities (9.67) over j E Z and taking into account that the sets 2j-I 5 lukl 5 2j+' cover IR with uniformly finite multiplicity, we obtain

Let jk be such that


227

and note that the right hand side converges to zero due to (9.66). Then from (9.68) follows that u k --, 0 in L ~ ; , which proves the lemma.

Remark 9.3 The following statements have immediate analogs in Chapters 5 and 6 with the proofs that require but trivial modifications. (a) Theorem 3.1 for the dislocation space (D112(G),D G , ~ holds ) i n the form similar to Theorem 5.1 i f we replace N i n all the exponents with Q; replace 0 E RN with e E G; read 2-j . +y and 2j(- - y ) as ~-'(62-j .) and d2j7. respectively and interpret (3.9) as I 1

jim) jp) +

I6,c)(m)-17)p)lco whenever rn # n. Vk

--,

(b) The natural generalizations of Lemma 5.2, Lemma 5.5 and Lemma 5.6 hold true. (c) The natural analog of Theorem 5.2 holds true, provided that N i n the condition (5.19) is replaced by Q. The minimizer in the case F ( s ) = 1 . ~ 1when ~ ~ G is a Carnot group of rank two is found in [60], Theorem 2 -Qp 1.1, and is a scalar multiple of ((1 x 2 ) 2 16y ) , where x , y are the exponential coordinates corresponding, respectively, to the strata Vl and Vz. (d) There are natural generalizations of Theorem 6.7 and Theorem 6.8.

+

9.10

+


Sobolev inequalities on compact Riemannian manifolds follow immediately from those on bounded domains. On paracompact manifolds, Sobolev imbeddings into LP(X, w) with some weight w are immediate, but if the manifold sprouts "tentacles" where the local Sobolev constant goes to infinity, there is no imbedding with weight w = 1. Global Sobolev inequality is essentially determined by existence of lower bound for scalar curvature. We refer the reader to the book of E. Hebey [67] for details. Periodic manifolds provide an immediate elementary example of Sobolev inequality with a constant weight. For the general matters concerning the magnetic Schrodinger equation, see J. Avron, I. Herbst and B. Simon ([B])Existence of minima in (9.19) for the case of the constant magnetic field on R3 was proved by M. Esteban and P.-L. Lions in [50]. The generalization of their work to periodic manifolds with a periodic magnetic field, outlined in Section 8.3 is due to 11151, which builds upon the paper on the non-magnetic problem 1541. The concentration compactness argument in this case becomes an obvious analogy

228


of that in the Euclidean case, once it is shown that magnetic shifts (or actions of isometries in absence of magnetic field) are dislocations, that (3.9) in this case amounts to discreteness of the sequence of isometries, and that in case of periodic manifold, DI,,(M)-weak convergence is LP-convergence. The paper [55] gives constructions and classification of invariant Riemannian metrics for arbitrary noncompact differentiable manifolds equipped with a proper transformation group. Typical existence results in literature for minimization problems of the type (9.19) in literature involve a potential term J Vlu12 that provides a variational penalty a t infinity that overrides the contribution of the magnetic field (see for example the paper of K. Kurata [77] and references therein). Subelliptic differential operators on RN associated with quadratic form a(u,u) = JCi Ixi(u)12 were introduced by L. Hormander ([71]), who proved that if subsequent commutators of Xi span the whole tangent space, then the operators are hypoelliptic, i.e. the form a on functions with compact support dominates their L2-norm. A necessary and sufficient condition of hypoellipticity was given by C. Fefferman and D.H. Phong [53] in terms of geometric optics (or the Carnot-Caratheodory metric, where the balls are defined as a union of integral curves y([O, 11) of unit vectors from the span of Xi). Subelliptic operators on Lie groups and related Sobolev spaces were first studied by G.B. Folland [57]) and G.B. Folland and E. Stein, [58]. For general Sobolev inequality for subelliptic quadratic forms on Carnot groups we refer to the book of N. Varopoulos ([118]),where the proof of Sobolev inequalities is based on estimates of the subelliptic heat kernel (cf. D. Jerison and A. SBnchez-Calle [74];the textbook [82]gives a detailed presentation of this approach to Sobolev inequalities in the Euclidean case); the proof of the subelliptic Sobolev inequality (9.56) in this chapter follows in fact a much more general construction for axiomatic Sobolev spaces (see P. Koskela and P. Halasz, [63],for metric spaces, or M. Biroli and U. Mosco [19] for quasimetric spaces that cover the case of quantum fi-actals, for a textbook on axiomatic Sobolev spaces see L. Ambrosio and P. Tilli, [5]),where the central assumption is the scaled Poincark inequality. On the Carnot groups, due to their shift and dilation invariance, the scaled Poincark inequality follows from the Poincar6 inequality in a ball, which is in turn, a consequence of compactness in the Sobolev imbedding, which in turn requires an appropriate construction of mollifiers, Lemma 9.6 (see also the construction of subelliptic mollifiers in L. Capogna, D. Danielli and N. Garofalo [28]). This chain of arguments for the case of Carnot group was provided by D. Jerison in [72], and followed by the proof by D. Jerison and A. SBnchez-Calle,

Chapter 9 Sobolev spaces o n manzfolds

229

[73],who used operators on Carnot groups as local approximations for the general operators of Fefferman-Phong type. A proof of compactness in the Sobolev imbeddings in the setting of Fefferman-Phong operators, was done by D. Danielli, [41]. The concentration compactness argument in generalization of problems of the type considered in Chapters 3-6, has been applied t o the case of the Heisenberg group by S. Biagini [18] and numerous authors afterwards. This chapter does not present actual existence results, which become a trivial analogy of the results in the Euclidian case, once Theorem 3.1 is analytically interpreted for this case. To this ends we show that the Lie group shifts and anisotropic dilations are dislocations, and give the analytic interpretation of the separation relation (3.9) as that the corresponding sequence of group shifts is discrete, and of D-weak convergence as L P convergence in Lemma 9.12 and Lemma 9.14. A detailed implementation of the concentration compactness argument in the subcritical case is given in the paper of I. Schindler and K. Tintarev [107]. For the critical case we refer to G. Citti ([37]) and N. Garofalo and D. Vassilev ([60]). A tentative framework of concentration compactness for on topological measure spaces equipped with a transformation group and an invariant Dirichlet form is found in the paper of M. Biroli, I. Schindler and K. Tintarev [20].


Chapter 10

F'urther applications

This chapter contains several further examples of concentration compactness argument.

10.1

Dilations on the sphere and Yamabe problem

Let S N , N > 2, be the standard sphere, that is, a unit sphere in RNfl with a metric induced by the Euclidean metric on IRNS1. We consider SN imbedded in RN+l = RN x R with its center placed at the point ( 0 , l ) . Then one defines the stereographic coordinates on SNby the map : R~ -+ RN+~.

1 with 2* replaced with 2;. No substantial changes in the proof are needed. Consider now the space V m t 2 ( R N ) ,N > 2 m , defined in Section 2.11, and equip it with the group of unitary operators DFTZ := DRlv x 6,,~,

234


where

dmYz := { h j : h j u = 2 7 3 ~ ( 2 j . ) , Ej z). N-2m.

(10.8)

I t is easy t o see that operators from 6m,2, and thus, from DGtZ,preserve the L2:-norm. Remark 10.3 An elementary reproduction of the argument in Lemma 5.1 and Lemma 5.2 yields that gk E DGYw,gk -\ 0 , gku = ( h S h ) u (-. yk) if and only if lskl+ lykl + oo and the group DG,w (and thus DF,z) is a dislocation group on V m ~ 2 ( R N )This . and the subsequent lemma yield natural analogs of Theorem 5.1, Proposition 5.1 and Lemma 5.4. Lemma 10.1

uk

If uk is a bounded sequence in

N > 2m, then

D ~ Z

0 , if and only i f u k --, 0 in L2>.

-

Proof. Necessity. Since uk + 0 in L2> then for every sequence gk E DG,z, gkuk --, 0 in L2>. Therefore u k ( . - y k ) 0 in L2;, and since uk is bounded in V ~ ~ ~ (gkuk I W ~ 0 in ) V, m 1 2 ( R N ) . Sufficiency. Without loss o f generality assume that uk E C r ( R N ) . Let vk := V m - l u k . Then

-

and therefore b y Lemma 5.3, vk -+ 0 in L2*( R N ) ,or, in other words, uk -t 0 in Dm-l12;. B y (2.66), the space Dm-l12; is continuously imbedded into L2;, which proves the lemma. There are immediate analogs o f Lemma 5.5 and Lemma 5.6 for the case m > 1. W e also have an analog o f Theorem 5.2, and, in particular, the following Proposition 10.2

The minimum in

is attained. Moreover, evey minimizing sequence for (10.10) has a renumbered subsequence such that, with suitable gk E DF,z, the sequence gkuk converges to a minimizer.

Proof. and

Let uk be a minimizing sequence for (10.10),namely, 11uk112; = 1 -+ Without loss o f generality we may assume that, on

sLm).

235

Chapter 10 Further applications

a renumbered subsequence,

DJ,z

0, then by Lemma 10.1, uk -' 0 in L~;, which contradicts Indeed, if uk the assumptions on uk. Thus, renaming gkuk with suitable gk E DF,Z as uk, we have (10.11). From Proposition 1.6 we have

and, by Theorem 3.2, on a renumbered subsequence if necessary,

The last two inequalities may hold simultaneously only if ( ( ~ ( ( 2 ;takes values 0 or 1. Since w # 0, IIw112:, = 1. Then (10.12) provides ~ l l : , , ~ 5 sLrn), which implies that w i s a minimizer. When m = 2, a minimizer for (10.10), with the (2.65), is

norm specified as

N-4

where c x = ~ ( N ( N - 4)(N2 - 4))

and

From a simple calculation

one can easily deduce that a multiple of w2 solves the correspondent EulerLagrange equation

For the further details see the paper E. Hebey and D. Robert, [69].


236

10.3

Minimizer in the Nash inequality

In this section we prove existence of the minimizer for the Nash inequality (2.35).

Theorem 10.1

There exists a minimizer in the problem

Moreover, there exists a sequence uk E H1(RN) such that lluklll = llukllz = 1, I J V U ~ J J ; -+ CN and, for every such sequence there are some yk E RN such that uk(. yk) converges to a minimizer in H1(RN) n L ~ ( R ~ ) .

+

Proof. I f w e s e t f o r e v e r y u ~ H ~ ( R ~ ) 2

S

N

= l l u l l ~ , v ( x := ) sTu(sx),

then we will have llvlll =

1 1 ~ 1 =1 ~ 1 and

CN =

inf

(10.16)

v€H1(WN):IIvII~=II~llz=1

Let uk E C r (RN) be a minimizing sequence for (10.16), that is, lluk[ll = IIukll2 = 1 and JWlv IVukI2 + C N . w # 0. (Note that if there Let yk E R N be such that uk(. yk)

+

-\

sN

is no such yk and w, then uk 0, and, by Lemma 3.3, uk + 0 in LP, p E (2,2*). Since lluklll = 1,from the Holder inequality follows that uk + 0 in LP, p E (1,2*), and in particular, in L2, which contradicts the constraint value llukllz = 1.) Let now vk = uk-w(--yk) andlet t = IIwII1, T = IIwII$. Then from the Brhzis-Lieb Lemma (Theorem 3.2) follows, on a renumbered subsequence,

On the other hand, by Proposition 1.6 and (2.35),

Consequently, 1 2 (1 - T)l+2/N(1 - t)-4/N + T1+2/Nt-4/N

1

which is false, unless t, 7 E {O,l). Since w # 0, we have with necessity t = T = 1 and therefore w is a minimizer. Moreover, this also implies


237

+ +

that uk(. yk) -+ w in L1 n L ~ By . the weak lower continuity of norm, J J V W5~CN, ~ which due to the definition of C, yields J IVwI2 = CN and thus u k ( - yk) 4 w in H1 n L1.

A rearrangement argument yields that the minimum in (10.16) is attained on a decreasing radial function, and it is shown in [29] that this minimizer is unique up to translations and dilations. 10.4 A minimization problem with nonlocal term Let N E N , N > 2 , P E (O,N), C I E (-,-),

and consider

where 6 satisfies

Note that when

CI

is in the interval above, we have 19 E (0,l).

fi

Lemma 10.2 Let ql > > q2 2 1. There exists C whenever u E Laql (RN) n L ~ ~ Z ( R ~ ) ,

> 0 such that

Proof. Changing the integration variables (x, y) to (x, z) = (x, x - y) we represent @ (u, u) as (u, u) @2 (u, u), where

+

and


238

+

Let p satisfy $ 1 = $, which implies p > Then from the Holder inequality we obtain

Then, since 1 P

and

=

< .:

+ 1 = 2 ,by the Young inequality for convolutions (1.6), 91

The same argument applies to Q2: the only modification is that the choice yields p < in the relation $ 1 := 2 , which assures of 92 < 92 that ~zl-p'fi is integrable in the exterior of the ball. Consequently,

fi

+

Note that one can choose qi in (10.19) so that aqi E (2,2*) and therefore, by to the Sobolev imbedding, @(u,u) is bounded on bounded sets of H1(RN) and is continuous at zero in H1(IRN). Problem 10.1

Verify that @(u,u) is continuous in H1(IRN).

In particular, @(u,u) is bounded whenever llVu112 = 1 and llul12 = 1. Since both @(u,u) and the product IIvullg lluIIi-' are preserved under the ~ ( t . )we , have the inequality transformation u H t

and the constant

6

in (10.18) is positive.

Lemma 10.3 Let uk be a bounded sequence in H1(RN). If uk then @(uk,uk) 4 0.

D ~ N 0,

Proof. By Lemma 3.3, uk 4 0 in L ~ ( R for ~ )any r E (2,2*). By the assumptions on a! one can choose ql, 92 from Lemma 10.2 so that aql, a92 E (2,2*). Then @(uk,u k ) + 0 by (10.19).

Chapter 10 firther applications

239

Lemma 10.4 Let u k be a bounded sequence i n H1(IRN) and let y?) t w ( ~E) H 1 ( R N ) , be as i n Corollary 9.3. Then

zN,

Proof. By continuity of @ and Lemma 10.3 it suffices to prove (10.21) M when u k = E n = , w ( ~ ) ( .y?)), A4 E N,and w ( ~E) CP(IWN). Then

c JJ

~(uk,uk)= m,n=l,...,M

a I ~ ( ~ ' ( (xn -))I Y I W~( ~ ) ( Y

)I

(m) a

- ~ k

dxdy

la: - Y I P

~ ~ ( n ) ( ~ ) l a l ~ ( m ) ( n~) -a ~ i ~ ) Yk dxdy.

+xJJ

)I

+

la: - Y I P

m#n

To prove the lemma it suffices to show now that the second sum converges to zero. Indeed, whenever m # n, lw'n'(x-~k

=JS since 1 y?) - yim) (

Corollary 10.1 quence,

Proof.

)I

(n) a

)I

(m) a l w ( m ) ( ~ ~ k

la: - YIP ~ W ( ~ ) ( Z ) I " I W ( ~ ) ( ~ + y?) - yim))la Ix - YIP

4

oo by

Let

uk

dxdy

dxdy + 0 ,

(3.38). u i n H1( R N ) . Then, o n a renumbered subse-

Relation (10.21) applied to the sequence u k

-

u

-

0 gives

Substitution of the right hand side of (10.23) into (10.21), once one takes into account that w(') = w limuk = u, gives (10.22).

Theorem 10.2

The infimum i n (10.18) is attained.


240

Proof. The problem (10.18) is invariant with respect to the transformation u I+ ut := t*u(t.), t > 0. In particular, for every u E H1(R) one can choose t > 0 such that llut 112 = 1. Therefore,

and every minimizer for (10.24) is a minimizer for (10.18). Let uk be a minimizing sequence for (10.24), namely, @(uk.uk)= 1, IJuk112 = 1 and ~ 3 Let . yk E ZN be such that uk(. yk) -, w # 0. (If there IlVukllg

+

-f

-

is no such yk and w, then uk %N 0, and by Lemma 10.4 @(uk,uk) 0, a contradiction.) Let vk := uk - w(. - yk) and let t = IIw [I;, 7 = @(w,w). Then from Proposition 1.6 and Corollary 10.1 respectively follows that, on a renumbered subsequence,

On the other hand, by Proposition 1.6

which is true, given that w # 0, only if t = T = 1, which by the standard argument yields that w is a minimizer.

+

Observe that for the minimizing sequence uk selected in the proof, uk(. yk) -, w in L2, and by weak lower semicontinuity, IVw12 5 K . $ . Then by definition of K., S IVwI2 = K.;= lim S ( ~ u ~ ( . + y kand ) ( thus ~ uk(.+yk) -' w in H ~ ( R ~ ) . 10.5

Concentration compactness with topological charge

This section presents a slightly modified version of the "splitting lemma" from the papers [15]), ([16] of V. Benci, D. Fortunato, P. D'Avena, and, in the second paper, L. Pisani. We focus here on the issue of conservation of a topological index under weak convergence, rather than on the actual problem (Derrick model) studied in [15], [16]. Let R c RN, N E N, be an open bounded set. We recall that there exists a unique function uE

~ ( nRN), ;

r] E

RN \ u(dR) H deg(u, R, r ] ) E Z,

(10.26)


241

(called topological degree) such that

deg(u, a,Y) = deg(u, %, Y)

+ deg(u, O27 Y)

(10.28)

whenever R1, R2 are disjoint open subsets of R and y @ u(R \ (01U fl2)); ) independent of t E [0, 11 deg(h(t, .), R, ~ ( t ) is

(10.29)

a;

lRN), 77 E C([O, 11;RN), and ~ ( t $)! h(t, d o ) , whenever h E C([O, 11 x t E [0, 11. It is not required that any of the sets R, 01, 0 2 is nonempty, which immediately implies that deg(u, 0, y) = 0 for every u and y. We will not need here the constructive definition of the degree of smooth maps that is normally involved in computations (for additional details see, for instance, the book of K. Deimling [42]). Let m , N E W, 2m > N > 1, and consider the Hilbert space H m ( R N ;EXNf l ) equipped with the dislocation group DZlv. The variables in lRN+ l = R x R N will be denoted as ( = (Jo, I ) .

(10.31)

Since 2m > N, Hm(RN;lRNfl ) is imbedded in c ( R N ;RN+l), for any bounded set B c lRN the imbedding (of restrictions to B ) into C ( B ; IWN+l) is compact (cf. (2.62)) and, by (2.63), for every u E Hm(RN;lRN+') the open set K, is bounded. Moreover, since x E dK, + uo = 1, 6 does not attain the zero value on dK,, the topological degree for (6, K,, 0) is defined. Definition 10.1

The function car : A

4

Z,

is called topological charge. Proposition 10.3 For every u E A there exists an E > 0 such that whenever v E C ( R ~ ; R ~ + ' )(Iv , - u((, 5 E , one has v E A and car(v) = car(.).


242

Proof. Note that infZEwnrlu(x) - (1,0)1 > 0, so no v with Ilv - u ( ( , sufficiently small attains the value (1,0). Assume now that there is a sequence vk E A such that vk + u uniformly in RN and car(vk) # car(u). Then for all k sufficiently large,

Indeed, assume, without loss of generality, that there exists a sequence xk E K , \%, that is, uo(xk) > 1 and V ~ , ~ ( < X ~1,) such that .iik(xk)= 0. Consider a renumbered convergent subsequence (the set K , is bounded) xk + xo E R N . Then uo(x0) = 1 and 6 ( x o ) = limGk(xo) = 0, which contradicts the assumption u E A. Observe now that for k sufficiently large it follows from (10.29) that deg(vk,K,, fl K,, 0 ) = deg(6,K,, f l K,, 0). Then (10.33) and (10.28) imply that

car(vk) = deg(.Uk,K V k0, ) = deg(ck,Ku,fl Ku, 0) = deg(6,K,,

n K,, 0 ) = deg(fi,K,, 0 ) = car(u),

a contradiction. Problem 10.2 Prove that A is an open set and that the topological charge is constant on connected components of A. The weak convergence in Hm(IRN)does not preserve the topological charge. +~ car(,) ) # 0, and yk E R N , lykl -+ Indeed, if w E c ~ ( I R ~ ; I Rn~A, oo, then w(. - yk) 0, while car(w( - y k ) ) = car(w) # car(0) = 0. Moreover, a weak limit of a sequence in A does not necessarily remain in A. Sequences whose weak limits remain in A arise in [15]and [16]where the functional carries a variational penalty that prevents minimizing sequences from approaching the exceptional value (1,O). --\

Proposition 10.4 Let 2m > N > 1. Let uk satisfying the assertion of D Z ~ (in ) the sense Theorem 3.1 for the dislocation space ( H m ( R NRN+l ; of Remark 10.1, and applied componentwise) with g i ' : u ++ u(.- yk(e)), y f ) E IRN and let

Assume that there exist an E > 0 such that


243

) A, !E N, and there exists an integer L such for all k E N. Then w ( ~ E that whenever e > L, ~ a r ( w ( ~=) 0, ) and L

car (ug ) =

car ( ~ ( ~ 1 ) .

(10.36)

e= 1

Proof. Since H ~ ( I R is ~ compactly ) imbedded into C(R) for any bounded set R c IRN and since the sets Re := {x E IRN, wf) > $ 1 are bounded, from (10.34) follows that

which yields w ( ~ E ) A for all e. Moreover, from (3.10) and (2.62) follows that there exists a L E N such that for all 4 > L, I ( ~ ( ~ ) l l , < 1, and therefore, c a ~ ( w ( ~=) )0. Let K ( ~:= ) {wf) > 1) (which is a non-empty set only if el L) and let

-

+

Note that the sets K(e) yf) are disjoint for all k sufficiently large, and pass to a renumbered subsequence so that they are disjoint for every k. Let us show that for all k sufficiently large

Indeed, assume, without loss of generality, that there is a sequence xk E lhfN such that iik(xk) = 0, uk,o(xk) > 1, and w, (4(xk - yk(0) < l,! 5 L.

(10.40)

due to Theorem 3.1 and (10.37), that xk - y p ) From U ~ , ~ (>X1 ~follows, ) has a bounded subsequence for some lo5 L. Then, on a renumbered subsequence, xk --, z E lhfN and from (10.40) follows that w@o)(t)= 0, w p ) ( z ) 5 1 and w p ) ( r ) 5 1. Therefore w(~o)(z) = (1,6) which contradicts ~ ( ~ E0 A.) This verifies (10.39). From (10.39), (10.28), disjointness of

yp)


244

Ke

and (10.37) follows that for all k sufficiently large,

-

=

deg(w(e),Kt, 0) =

car ( w ( ~ ) ) ) ,

which proves the proposition. 10.6


Dilations on the sphere defined via stereographic projection can be used to study problems with critical exponent there, see e.g. C. Bandle, R. Benguria [13]. The geometric background of the Yamabe problem is elaborated in the book of T. Aubin, [7]. The recent survey of A. Chang [35] has references to solution of Yamabe problem for the solved case, when the prescribed curvature is constant and to the current research for the case of variable prescribed curvature. Concentration compactness in Sobolev spaces of higher derivatives and existence proofs for constrained minimizers is due to P.-L. Lions, [86] (subcritical case) and [88](critical case). A multi-peak expansion in V2v2(lRN) equipped with DT,whas been used by E. Hebey and D. Robert ([69]), who show uniqueness (modulo translations and dilations) of the positive solution to (10.14). Concentration involving terms with dilated solution w2 arises, in particular, in the semilinear elliptic problem involving a fourth order Paneitz type operator - a higher-order analog of Yamabe problem. Like in the case of Yamabe problem, the stereographic projection induces an isomorphism between critical problem in v2121RN and one on H2(SN). P.-L. Lions included existence of the minimizer for the Nash inequality among problems that allow the concentration compactness argument, even if the existence is immediate from the rearrangement argument. The common reason to provide a concentration compactness proof nonetheless is that, unlike the rearrangement argument, it can be extended to the case of variable coefficients. The nonlocal problem in Section 4 has been studied by Lions in [89],V3. Additivity of a topological index in "multi-peak" decompositions is a natural conjecture, but the papers [15]) of V. Benci, D. Fortunato,


245

P. D'Avena, and ([16] of the same authors with L. Pisani, are the only ones known to us that implement this extension of the concentration compactness. Proposition 10.4 is a model statement in the setting of their work.


Appendix A

Covering lemma

Let X be a locally compact metric space endowed with a differentiable action of a group G, and a Radon (i.e. bounded on compact sets) measure p that is invariant with respect to G: p o q = p, q E G. One says that the action of G on X is properly discontinuous, if for every pair of compact sets K, L c X we have K n qL # 0 for a t most finitely many 77 E G. Given an open set Vl c X, we define the sets Vn by induction: Vn+1 :=

U

(A.1)

qK,nEN. q€G:qVnnvnZO

Obviously, the sets Vn are open and, since id E G, Vn

c Vn+l.

Lemma A . l Assume that there exists an open, relatively compact set Vl C X , such that p(Vl) > 0 , and that the corresponding set V4 is relatively compact i n X . Let Xo c X be a closed set and assume that, wenever X o # X , that the action of G on X is properly discontinuous. Assume furthermore that there exists a set Jo c G such that the collection of sets { q V ~ ) v E covers ~o X O . Then there is a subset J of Jo such that the sets i n the collection { q v ~ ) , ,J~are mutually disjoint, while the collection {?7V2}qEJ covers X o . Moreover, the multiplicity of the open cover {77V3}qEJ is uniformly bounded. If Xo = X , the multiplicity of the covering does not exceed p(V4)/p(V1).

Proof. The second assertion of the lemma follows from the first one by the following argument. Let first X = Xo and consider a point x E CV3, C E G. The multiplicity there will not exceed the number of q E J, such that qV3nCV3 # 0. This number is not larger than the number of q E J such that qVl C CV4. Since these sets are disjoint, the multiplicity of the covering a t x does not exceed p(V4)/p(Vl). Note that p(V1) > 0 by assumption, and p(V4) < 00 since p is Radon measure and V4 is by assumption relatively

247

248


compact. Let now Xo # X . Then the action of G is properly discontinuous and therefore every point x E X has a neighborhood U c X intersecting only finitely many qV3, q E G. After a shrinking of U we may assume x E ql/3 for all those q and it follows that there are no more of them than elements in the finite set {q E G; qV3 n 7 3 # 0). Now let us construct the subset J c Jo: We assume first that (qV1),, Jo is locally finite. By induction we define subsets Jk= Ak UBk C Josuch that the number of elements in Ak equals k,

Concentration Compactness

Concentration Compactness: Functional-Analytic Grounds and Applications

Concentration Compactness for Critical Wave Maps

Uhlenbeck compactness

Camp Concentration

Camp Concentration

Camp Concentration

Camp Concentration

Equational Compactness in Rings

Concentration and Meditation

The Power Of Concentration

Vertex Isoperimetry and Concentration

The power of concentration

The Power of Concentration

Camp de Concentration

Camp de Concentration

The Power of Concentration

Concentration and Meditation

Camp de Concentration

The Power of Concentration

The concentration of measure phenomenon

Thomas M. Disch - Camp Concentration

Disch, Thomas M. - Camp Concentration

Concentration inequalities and model selection

Thomas M. Disch - Camp Concentration

Concentration: An Approach to Meditation

The Concentration of Measure Phenomenon

The Concentration of Measure Phenomenon

Peterson's Stress Concentration Factors, 3rd Edition

Uhlenbeck Compactness (EMS Series of Lectures in Mathematics)

Concentration Compactness