We establish new results concerning existence and asymptotic behavior of entire, positive, and bounded solutions which converge to zero at infinite for the quasilinear equation where are suitable functions and are not identically zero continuous functions. We show that there exists at least one solution for the above-mentioned problem for each for some . Penalty arguments, variational principles, lower-upper solutions, and an approximation procedure will be explored.
In this paper we establish new results concerning existence and behavior at infinity of solutions for the nonlinear quasilinear problem
where , with , denotes the -Laplacian operator; and are continuous functions not identically zero and is a real parameter.
A solution of (1.1) is meant as a positive function with as and
The class of problems (1.1) appears in many nonlinear phenomena, for instance, in the theory of quasiregular and quasiconformal mappings [1–3], in the generalized reaction-diffusion theory , in the turbulent flow of a gas in porous medium and in the non-Newtonian fluid theory . In the non-Newtonian fluid theory, the quantity is the characteristic of the medium. If , the fluids are called pseudoplastics; if Newtonian and if the fluids are called dilatants.
It follows by the nonnegativity of functions of parameter and a strong maximum principle that all non-negative and nontrivial solutions of (1.1) must be strictly positive (see Serrin and Zou ). So, again of , it follows that (1.1) admits one solution if and only if .
The main objective of this paper is to improve the principal result of Yang and Xu  and to complement other works (see, e.g., [8–20] and references therein) for more general nonlinearities in the terms and which include the cases considered by them.
In order to establish our results some notations will be introduced. We set
Additionally, we consider
Concerning the coefficients and ,
Our results will be established below under the hypothesis .
Consider , then there exists one such that for each there exists at least one solution of problem (1.1). Moreover,
for some constant . If additionally
then there is a positive constant such that
If we assume (1.5) with , , where , then (1.6) becomes
In the sequel, we will establish some results concerning to quasilinear problems which are relevant in itself and will play a key role in the proof of Theorem 1.1.
We begin with the problem of finding classical solutions for the differential inequality
Our result is.
Consider , then there exists one such that problem (1.8) admits, for each , at least one radially symmetric solution , for some . Moreover, if in additionally one assumes (1.5), then there is a positive constant such that
Theorems 1.1 and 1.3 are still true with if () hypothesis is replaced by
In fact, () implies (), if . (see sketch of the proof in the appendix).
In Theorem 1.3, it is not necessary to assume that and are continuous up to . It is sufficient to know that are continuous. This includes terms singular in .
The next result improves one result of Goncalves and Santos  because it guarantees the existence of radially symmetric solutions in for the problem
where , are continuous and suitable functions and is the ball in centered in the origin with radius .
Assume where , with , is continuous. Suppose that satisfies ( and additionally
then (1.10) admits at least one radially symmetric solution . Besides this, and satisfies
The proof of principal theorem (Theorem 1.1) relies mainly on the technics of lower and upper solutions. First, we will prove Theorem 1.3 by defining several auxiliary functions until we get appropriate conditions to define one positive number and a particular upper solution of (1.1) for each .
After this, we will prove Theorem 1.6, motivated by arguments in , which will permit us to get a lower solution for (1.1). Finally, we will obtain a solution of (1.1) applying the lemma below due to Yin and Yang .
Suppose that is defined on and is locally Hölder continuous (with ) in . Assume also that there exist functions such that
and is locally Lipschitz continuous in on the set
Then there exists with satisfying
In the two next sections we will prove Theorems 1.3 and 1.6.
2. Proof of Theorem (1.4)
So, for each , let given by
It is easy to check that
and, as a consequence,
Moreover, it is also easy to verify.
Suppose that and hold. Then, for each ,
By Lemma 2.1(iii), (iv), and (2.2), the function , given by
is well defined and continuous. Again, by using Lemma 2.1(i) and (ii),
Besides this, , for each , and using Lemma 2.1, it follows that satisfies, for each , the following.
Suppose that and hold. Then, for each ,
And, in relation to , we have the folowing.
Suppose that and hold. Then, for each ,
Finally, we will define, for each , , by
So, is a continuous function and we have (see proof in the appendix).
Suppose that and hold. Then,
By Lemma 2.4(ii), there exists a such that , where by either () or (), we have
So, by Lemma 2.4(v), there exists a such that . That is,
where , is given by where is the unique positive and radially symmetric solution of problem
More specifically, by DiBenedetto , , for some . In fact, satisfies
So, by (2.10), (2.11), and (2.13), we have for each ,
Hence, after some pattern calculations, we show that there is a such that and
As consequences of (2.9), (2.13) and (2.15), we have and
and hence, by Lemma 2.2 (i), (2.7) and , we obtain
that is, by using (2.2), we have
In particular, making , we get from (2.15), Lemma 2.2(i) and that and satisfies (1.8), for each . That is, is an upper solution to (1.1).
To prove (1.9), first we observe, using Lemma 2.2(i) and (2.15), that
So, by definition of , and hypothesis (1.5), we have
Recalling that and using (1.5) again, we obtain
Thus by (2.9), (2.13), and , there is one positive constant such that (1.9) holds. This ends the proof of Theorem 1.3.
3. Proof of Theorem (1.5)
To prove Theorem (1.5), we will first show the existence of a solution, say , for each for the auxiliary problem
where In next, to get a solution for problem (1.10), we will use a limit process in .
For this purpose, we observe that
(ii), by () and by (1.11), it follows that
(iii) is non-increasing, for each
By items (i)–(iii) above, and fulfill the assumptions of Theorem 1.3 in . Thus (3.1) admits one solution , for each Moreover, with satisfying
Adapting the arguments of the proof of Theorem 1.3 in , we show
where is the positive first eigenfunction of problem
and , independent of , is chosen (using ()) such that
with denoting the first eigenvalue of problem (3.4) associated to the .
Hence, by (3.3),
Using (), (3.3), the above convergence and Lebesgue's theorem, we have, making in (3.2), that
So, making , after some calculations, we obtain that . This completes the proof of Theorem 1.6.
4. Proof of Main Result: Theorem 1.1
To complete the proof of Theorem 1.1, we will first obtain a classical and positive lower solution for problem (1.1), say , such that , where is given by Theorem 1.3. After this, the existence of a solution for the problem (1.1) will be obtained applying Lemma 1.7.
To get a lower solution for (1.1), we will proceed with a limit process in , where is a classical solution of problem (1.10) (given by Theorem 1.6) with , is a suitable function and for and is such that in .
Thus, it is easy to check the following lemma.
Suppose that and hold. Then,
(ii) is non-increasing,
Hence, Lemma 4.1 shows that fulfills all assumptions of Theorem 1.6. Thus, for each such that there exists one with and satisfying
Consider extended on by . We claim that
Indeed, first we observe that satisfies Lemma 4.1(ii). So, with similar arguments to those of , we show .
To prove , first we will prove that . In fact, if for some , then there is one such that
because and with as .
So, using Lemma A.1 (see the appendix) with , and , we obtain
and from Lemma 4.1(i),
As a consequence of the contradiction hypothesis and the definition of , we get
Recalling that , it follows that
However, this is impossible. To end the proof of claim (4.4), we will suppose that there exist an and such that . Hence, there are with such that , and for all .
Following the same above arguments, we obtain
This is impossible again. Thus, we completed the proof of claim (4.4). Setting
it follows by claim (4.4) that
Moreover, making in (4.3), we use Lebesgue's theorem that
Hence, after some calculations, we obtain and setting it follows, by DiBenedetto , that for some . Recalling that and using Lemma 4.1(i), it follows that is a lower solution of (1.1) with
So, by Lemma 1.7, we conclude that problem (1.1) admits a solution. Besides this, the inequality (1.4) is a consequence of a result in . This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1.
This research was supported by FEMAT-DF, DPP-UnB.
Reshetnyak, YuG: Index boundedness condition for mappings with bounded distortion. Siberian Mathematical Journal. 9(2), 281–285 (1968). Publisher Full Text
Herrero, MA, Vázquez, JL: On the propagation properties of a nonlinear degenerate parabolic equation. Communications in Partial Differential Equations. 7(12), 1381–1402 (1982). Publisher Full Text
Esteban, JR, Vázquez, JL: On the equation of turbulent filtration in one-dimensional porous media. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications. 10(11), 1303–1325 (1986). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Serrin, J, Zou, H: Cauchy-Liouville and universal boundedness theorems for quasilinear elliptic equations and inequalities. Acta Mathematica. 189(1), 79–142 (2002). Publisher Full Text
Ambrosetti, A, Brezis, H, Cerami, G: Combined effects of concave and convex nonlinearities in some elliptic problems. Journal of Functional Analysis. 122(2), 519–543 (1994). Publisher Full Text
Bartsch, T, Willem, M: On an elliptic equation with concave and convex nonlinearities. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society. 123(11), 3555–3561 (1995). Publisher Full Text
Brezis, H, Kamin, S: Sublinear elliptic equations in . Manuscripta Mathematica. 74(1), 87–106 (1992). Publisher Full Text
Lair, AV, Shaker, AW: Entire solution of a singular semilinear elliptic problem. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. 200(2), 498–505 (1996). Publisher Full Text
Lair, AV, Shaker, AW: Classical and weak solutions of a singular semilinear elliptic problem. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. 211(2), 371–385 (1997). Publisher Full Text
Goncalves, JV, Santos, CA: Existence and asymptotic behavior of non-radially symmetric ground states of semilinear singular elliptic equations. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications. 65(4), 719–727 (2006). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Yang, Z: Existence of positive bounded entire solutions for quasilinear elliptic equations. Applied Mathematics and Computation. 156(3), 743–754 (2004). Publisher Full Text
Zhang, Z: A remark on the existence of entire solutions of a singular semilinear elliptic problem. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. 215(2), 579–582 (1997). Publisher Full Text
Zhang, Z: A remark on the existence of positive entire solutions of a sublinear elliptic problem. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications. 67(3-4), 727–734, 719–727 (2007). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Yin, H, Yang, Z: Some new results on the existence of bounded positive entire solutions for quasilinear elliptic equations. Applied Mathematics and Computation. 177(2), 606–613 (2006). Publisher Full Text
Proof of Lemma 2.4.
The proof of item (iv) is an immediate consequence of Lemma 2.3(i). The item (v) follows by Lemma 2.3(i) and (ii) using Lebesgue's Theorem.
By Lemma 2.2(i),
So, using (2.2), (2.5), and Lemma 2.1(i) and (ii), we get
Since, by Lemma 2.1(iv),
then the claim (i) of Lemma 2.4 follows from (A.2).
On the other hand, for all , it follows from Lemma 2.1(vi) that
where the last equality is obtained by using ()-(ii). Hence, using (A.2), the proof of Lemma 2.4(iii) is concluded.
In this case (),
That is, does not depend on . So, by L'Hopital and Lemma 2.2(iv),
This ends the proof of Lemma 2.4.
The next lemma, proved in , was used in the proofs of Theorems 1.1 and 1.6. To enunciate it, we will consider , for some , satisfying
and we define the continuous function by
So, we have and
If , then
Finally, we will sketch the proof of claim (), implies (), if .
Below, will denote several positive constants and , the function
If , by estimating the integral in (A.10), we obtain
Using the assumption in the computation of the first integral above and Jensen's inequality to estimate the last one, we have
Computing the above integral, we obtain
Similar calculations show that
So, by (),
On the other hand, if , set
and note that either for all or for some . In the first case, for all . Hence
So has a finite limit as , because . In the second case, for and hence,
Integrating by parts and estimating using , we obtain
Again by (), we obtain that is a finite number. This shows the claim.