- Research
- Open access
- Published:
Multiple solutions for p-Laplacian systems with critical homogeneous nonlinearity
Boundary Value Problems volume 2012, Article number: 27 (2012)
Abstract
In this article, we deal with existence and multiplicity of solutions to the p-Laplacian system of the type
where Ω ⊂ ℝNis a bounded domain with smooth boundary ∂Ω, Δ p u = div(|∇u|p-2∇u) is the p-Laplacian operator, denotes the Sobolev critical exponent, is a homogeneous function of degree p*. By using the variational method and Ljusternik-Schnirelmann theory, we prove that the system has at least catΩ(Ω) distinct nonnegative solutions.
AMS 2010 Mathematics Subject Classifications: 35J50; 35B33.
1 Introduction and main results
In this article, we consider the existence and multiplicity of solutions for the following critical p-Laplacian system:
where Ω ⊂ ℝNis a bounded domain with smooth boundary ∂Ω, Δ p u = div(|∇u|p-2∇u) is the p-Laplacian operator, denotes the Sobolev critical exponent, is a homogeneous function of degree and λ, δ are positive parameters.
The starting point on the study of the system (1.1) is its scalar version:
with 2 ≤ p ≤ q < p*. In a pioneer work Brezis and Nirenberg [1] showed that, if p = q = 2, the equation (1.2) has at least one positive solution provided N ≥ 4 and 0 < λ < λ1, where λ1 is the first eigenvalue of the operator . In particular, the first multiplicity result for (1.2) has been achieved by Rey [2] in the semilinear case. Precisely Rey proved that if N ≥ 5, p = q = 2, for λ small enough equation (1.2) has at least catΩ(Ω) solutions, where catΩ(Ω) denotes the Ljusternik-Schnirelmann category of Ω in itself. Furthermore, Alves and Ding [3] obtained the existence of catΩ(Ω) positive solutions to equation (1.2) with p ≥ 2, p ≤ q < p*.
In recent years, more and more attention have been paid to the elliptic systems. In particular, Ding and Xiao [4] concerned the case F(x, u, v) = 2|u|α|v|β,α > 1, β >1 satisfying α + β = p*, i.e., the following elliptic system
Using standard tools of the variational theory and the Ljusternik-Schnirelmann category theory, Ding and Xiao [4] have proved that system (1.3) has at least catΩ(Ω) positive solutions if λ, δ satisfied a certain condition. Hsu [5] obtained the existence of two positive solutions of system (1.3) with the sublinear perturbation of 1 < q < p < N. Recently, Shen and Zhang [6] extended the results in [5] to the case (1.1) with 1 < q < p < N and obtained similar results. In this article, we study (1.1) and complement the results of [5, 6] to the case 2 ≤ p ≤ q < p*, also extend the results of [4, 7]. To the best of our knowledge, problem (1.1) has not been considered before. Thus it is necessary for us to investigate the critical p-Laplacian systems (1.1) deeply. For more similar problems, we refer to [8–17], and references therein.
Before stating our results, we need the following assumptions:
(F0) and holds for all ;
(F1) , where u, v ∈ ℝ+;
(F2) are strictly increasing functions about u and v for all u, v > 0.
The main results we get are the following:
Theorem 1.1. Suppose N ≥ p2and F satisfies (F0)-(F2), then the problem (1.1) has at least one nonnegative solution for 2 ≤ p < q < p* and λ, δ > 0, or q = p and λ, δ ∈ (0, Λ1), where Λ1is the first eigenvalue of.
Theorem 1.2. Suppose N ≥ p2, 2 ≤ p ≤ q < p* and F satisfies (F0)-(F2), then there exists Λ > 0 such that the problem (1.1) has at least catΩ(Ω) distinct nonnegative solutions for λ, δ ∈ (0,Λ).
Remark 1.1. Theorem 1 in[4]is the special case of our Theorem 1.2 corresponding to F(x,u,v) = 2|u|α|v|β,α > 1,β > 1,α + β = p*. There are functions F(x,u,v) satisfying the conditions of our Theorems 1.1 and 1.2. Some typical examples are:
(i);
(ii)
where. Obviously, F(x, u, v) satisfies (F0)-(F2).
This article is organized as follows. In Section 2, some notations and the Mountain-Pass levels are established and the Theorem 1.1 is proved. We present some technical lemmas which are crucial in the proof of the Theorem 1.2 in Section 3. Theorem 1.2 is proved in Section 4.
2 Notations and proof of Theorem 1.1
Throughout this article, C, C i will denote various positive constants whose exact values are not important, → (respectively ⇀) denotes strong (respectively weak) convergence. O(εt) denotes |O(εt)|/εt≤ C, o m (1) denotes o m (1) → 0 as m → ∞. Ls(Ω)(1 ≤ s < +∞) denotes Lebesgue spaces, the norm Lsis denoted by | · | s for 1 ≤ s < + ∞. Let B r (x) denotes a ball centered at x with radius r, the dual space of a Banach space E will be denoted by E-1. We define the product space endowed with the norm , and the norm .
Using assumption of (F1), we have the so-called Euler identity
In addition, we can extend the function F(x,u,v) to the whole by considering , where u+ = max{u,0}. It is easy to check that is of class C1 and its restriction to coincides with F(x,u,v). In order to simplify the notation we shall write, from now on, only F(x,u,v) to denote the above extension.
A pair of functions (u, v) ∈ E is said to be a weak solution of problem (1.1) if
Thus, by (2.1) the corresponding energy functional of problem (1.1) is defined on E by
Using (F0)-(F2), we can verify I λ, δ (u, v) ∈ C1(E, ℝ) (see [6]). It is well known that the weak solutions of problem (1.1) are the critical points of the energy functional I λ, δ (u, v).
The functional I ∈ C1(E, ℝ) is said to satisfy the (PS) c condition if any sequence {u m } ⊂ E such that as m → ∞, I(u m ) → c, I'(u m ) → 0 strongly in E-1 contains a subsequence converging in E to a critical point of I. In this article, we will take I = I λ, δ (u, v) and .
As the energy functional Iλ,δis not bounded below on E, we need to study Iλ,δon the Nehari manifold
Note that contains every nonzero solution of problem (1.1), and define the minimax cλ,δas
Next, we present some properties of cλ,δand . Its proofs can be done as [18, Theorem 4.2]. First of all, we note that there exists ρ > 0, such that
It is standard to check that Iλ,δsatisfies Mountain-Pass geometry, so we can use the homogeneity of F to prove that cλ,δcan be alternatively characterized by
where Γ = {γ ∈ C([0, 1],E) : γ(0) = 0,Iλ,δ(γ(1)) < 0}. Moreover, for each (u, v) ∈ E\{(0,0)}, there exists a unique t* > 0 such that . The maximum of the function t ↦ Iλ,δ(t(u, v)), for t ≥ 0, is achieved at t = t*.
In this section, we will find the range of c where the (PS) c condition holds for the functional Iλ,δ. First let us define
Lemma 2.1. If N ≥ p2and F satisfies (F0)-(F2), then the functional Iλ,δsatisfies the (PS) c condition for all, provide one of the following conditions holds
(i) 2 ≤ p < q < p* and λ, δ > 0;
(ii) q = p, and λ, δ ∈ (0, Λ1), where Λ1 > 0 denotes the first eigenvalue of.
Proof. Let {(u m , v m )} ⊂ E such that and . Now, we first prove that {(u m , v m )} is bounded in E. If the above item (i) is true it suffices to use the definition of Iλ,δto obtain C1 > 0 such that
The above expression implies that {(u m , v m )} ⊂ E is bounded. When (ii) occurs, in this case, it follows that
and therefore we get
Since λ, δ ∈ (0,Λ1) the boundedness of {(u m , v m )} follows as the first case.
So, {(u m , v m )} is bounded in E. Going if necessary to a subsequence, we can assume that
as m → ∞. Clearly, we have
Moreover, a standard argument shows that . Thus we get
Let , then by Brezis-Lieb Lemma in [19] implies
By the same method of [8, Lemma 5] (or [6, Lemma 3.4]), we obtain
By (2.4)-(2.7) and the weak convergence of (u m , v m ), we have
By using and (2.4), (2.6), and (2.7), we get
Recalling that , we can use the above equality and (2.8) to obtain
where k is a nonnegative number.
In view of the definition of S F , we have that
Taking the limit we get . So, if k > 0, we conclude that and therefore
which is a contradiction. Hence k = 0 and therefore (u m , v m ) → (u, v) strongly in E.
Before presenting our next result we recall that, for each ε > 0, the function
satisfies
where S is the best constant of the Sobolev embedding . Thus, using [8, Lemma 3] and the homogeneity of F, we obtain A, B > 0 such that
from which and (2.10) it follows that
We define a cut-off function such that ϕ(x) = 1 if |x| ≤ R; ϕ(x) = 0 if |x| ≥ 2R and 0 ≤ ϕ(x) ≤ 1, where B2R(0) ⊂ Ω, set , where U ε was defined in (2.9). So that . Then, we can get the following results from [[20], Lemma 11.1]:
where A ≈ B means C1B ≤ A ≤ C2B.
Lemma 2.2. Suppose that F satisfies (F0)-(F2), 2 ≤ p < q < p* and λ > 0, δ > 0, then. The same result holds if q = p and λ, δ ∈ (0,Λ1), where Λ1 > 0 denotes the first eigenvalue of.
Proof. We can use the homogeneity of F to get, for any t ≥ 0,
We shall denote by h(t) the right-hand side of the above equality and consider two distinct cases.
Case 1. 2 ≤ p < q < p*.
From the fact that and h(t) > 0 when t is close to 0, there exists t ε > 0 such that
Let
and notice that the maximum value of g(t) occurs at the point
So, for each t ≥ 0,
and therefore
We claim that, for some C2 > 0, there holds
Indeed, if this is not the case, we have that for some sequence ε m → 0+, then,
which is a contradiction. So, the claim holds and we infer from (2.15) and (2.11)-(2.13) that
where . We know if N ≥ p2. By N ≥ p2 and 2 ≤ p < q < p* we obtain . Thus from the above inequality we conclude that, for each ε > 0 small, there holds
Case 2. q = p.
In this case, we have that h'(t) = 0 if and only if,
Since we suppose λ, δ ∈ (0,Λ1), we can use Poincaré's inequality to obtain
Thus, there exists t ε > 0 satisfying (2.14).
Arguing as in the first case we conclude that, from (2.16) for ε > 0 small, there holds
Because if N > p2 and if N = p2, then εp-1= o(εp-1| ln ε|). If N > p2, then , so . Choosing ε > 0 small enough, we have
This concludes the proof.
By Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2 we can prove our first result.
Proof of Theorem 1.1.
Since Iλ,δsatisfies the geometric conditions of the Mountain-Pass theorem, there exists {(u m , v m )} ⊂ E such that . It follows from Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2 that {(u m , v m )} converges, along a subsequence, to a nonzero critical point (u,v) ∈ E of Iλ,δ. Then, if we denote by u- = max{-u,0} and v- = max{-v,0} the negative part of u and v, respectively, we get
it follows that (u-,v-) = (0,0). Hence, u,v ≥ 0 in Ω. The Theorem 1.1 is proved.
We finalize this section with the study of the asymptotic behavior of the minimax level cλ,δas both the parameters λ, δ approach zero.
Lemma 2.3. .
Proof. We first prove the second equality. It follows from λ = δ = 0 that λ|u|q+ δ|v|q≡ 0. If A, B, u ε , g ε , and t ε are the same as those in the proof of Lemma 2.2, we have that . Thus
Taking the limit as ε →0+ and using (2.11), we conclude that .
In order to obtain the reverse inequality we consider {(u m , v m )} ⊂ E such that I0,0 (u m , v m ) → c0,0 and . It is easy to show that the sequence {(u m , v m )} is bounded in E and therefore . It follows that
Taking the limit in the inequality we conclude, as in the proof of Lemma 2.1, that . Hence,
and therefore .
We proceed now with the calculation of . Let {λ m },{δ m } ⊂ ℝ+ such that λ m , δ m → 0+. Since λ m , δ m are positive, we have that whenever (u, v) is nonnegative. Thus, for this kind of function, we have that .
It follows that
in the last equality, we have used the infimum c0,0 which can be attained at a nonnegative solution. The above inequality implies that
On the other hand, it follows from Theorem 1.1 that there exists {(u m , v m )} ⊂ E such that
Since is bounded, the same argument performed in the proof of Lemma 2.1 implies that {(u m , v m )} is bounded in E. Since
Let t m > 0 be such that . Since , we have that
If {t m } is bounded, we can use the above estimate and (2.18) to get
This and (2.17) we get
that is .
It remains to check that {t m } is bounded. A straightforward calculation shows that
Since , we obtain
Hence , and therefore from the above expression it follows that ∫ΩF(x, u m , v m )dx ≥ C5 > 0. Thus, the boundedness of {(u m , v m )} and (2.19) imply that {t m } is bounded. This completes the proof.
3 Some technical lemmas
In this section, we denote by the Banach space of finite Radon measures over Ω equipped with the norm . A sequence is said to converge weakly to provided σ m (φ) → σ(φ) for all φ ∈ C0(Ω). By [18, Theorem 1.39], every bounded sequence contains a weakly convergent subsequence.
The next lemma is a version of the second concentration-compactness lemma of Lions [21]. It is also inspired by [18, Lemma 1.40] and [[22], Lemma 2.4].
Lemma 3.1. Suppose that the sequence {(u m ,v m )} ⊂ D1,p(ℝN) × D1,p(ℝN) satisfies
and define
then it follows that
Moreover, if (u,v) = (0,0) and, then the measures μ,ν, and σ are concentrated at a single point, respectively.
Proof. We first recall that, in view of the definition of S F , for each nonnegative function we have
Moreover, arguing as [8, Lemma 5], we have that
Since F is p*-homogeneous, we can use the two above expressions and argue along the same line of the proof of Lemma 1.40 in [18] to conclude that (3.2)-(3.5) hold. If (u, v) = (0,0) and , the same argument of step 3 of the proof of Lemma 1.40 in [18] implies that the measures μ, ν and σ are concentrated at a single point, respectively.
Remark 3.1. We notice that the last conclusion of the above result holds even if (u, v) ≢ (0,0). Indeed, in this case we can defineand notice that
Sinceand therefore, and, where μ,σ, and ν are the same as those in Lemma 3.1. Thus, ifwe also have thatand the result follows from the last part of Lemma 3.1.
Now, we introduce the following Lemma.
Lemma 3.2. Suppose {(u m , v m )} ⊂ E such that ∫ΩF(x, u m , v m )dx = 1 and. Then there exist {r m } ⊂ (0, +∞) and {y m } ⊂ ℝNsuch that
contains a convergent subsequence denoted again bysuch thatin D1,p(ℝN) × D1,p(ℝN). Moreover, as m → ∞, we have r m → 0 and.
Proof. For each r > 0, we consider the Lévy concentration functions
Since for every m,
there exist r m > 0 and a sequence satisfying
Recalling that , we conclude that is bounded. Hence, up to a subsequence, and we obtain
We shall prove that the above sequences {r m } and {y m } satisfy the statements of the lemma. First notice that
By (3.6), a straightforward calculation provides
Hence, we can apply Lemma 3.1 to obtain (ω1,ω2) ∈ D1,p(ℝN) × D1,p(ℝN) satisfying
The second equality in (3.8) implies that . If one of these values belongs to the open interval (0,1), we can use (3.8), and (3.9) to get
which is a contradiction. Thus . Actually, it follows from (3.7) that for any R > 1. Thus, we conclude that ν∞ = 0.
Let us prove that ||ν|| = 0. Arguing by contradiction, then ||ν|| = 1. It follows from the first equality in (3.8) that S F ≥ ||μ|| + ||σ||. On the other hand, the first inequality in (3.9) provides ||μ|| + ||σ|| ≥ S F . Hence, we conclude that ||μ|| + ||σ|| = S F . Since we suppose that ||ν|| = 1 we obtain . It follows from Remark 3.1 that for some x0 ∈ ℝN. Thus, from (3.7), we get
This contradiction proves that ∥ν∥ = 0.
Since ∥ν∥ = ν∞ = 0, we have that . This and (3.8) provide
So, and therefore strongly in D1,p(ℝN) × D1,p(ℝN) and for a.e. x ∈ ℝN. In order to conclude the proof we notice that
Since {(u m , v m )} is bounded and (ω1, ω2) ≢ (0,0), we infer from the above equality that, up to a subsequence, r m → r0 ≥ 0. If |y m | → ∞, for each fixed x ∈ ℝN, we have that there exists m x ∈ N such that r m x + y m ∉ Ω for m ≥ m x . For such values of m we have that . Taking the limit and recalling that x ∈ ℝ is arbitrary, we conclude that (ω1, ω2) = (0,0), which is a contradiction. So, along a subsequence, y m →y ∈ ℝN.
We claim that r0 = 0. Indeed, suppose by contradiction that r0 > 0. Then, as m becomes large, the set Ω m = (Ω-y m )/r m approaches Ω0 = (Ω -y)/r0 ≠ ℝN. This implies that ω1,ω2 has compact support in ℝN. On the other hand, since (ω1,ω2) achieves the infimum in (2.3) and F is homogeneous, we can use the Lagrange Multiplier Theorem to conclude that ( ω1, ω2) satisfies
for . It follows from (F2) and the maximum principle that at least one of the functions ω1,ω2 is positive in ℝN. But this contradicts supp (ω1,ω2) ⊂ Ω0. Hence, we conclude that r0 = 0. Finally, if we obtain r m x + y m ∉ Ω for large values of m, and therefore we should have (ω1, ω2) ≡ (0, 0) again. Thus, and the proof is completed.
Up to translations, we may assume that 0 ∈ Ω, since Ω is a smooth bounded domain of ℝN, we can choose r > 0 small enough such that B r = B r (0) = {x ∈ ℝN: d(x, 0) < r} ⊂ Ω and the sets
are homotopically equivalent to Ω. Let
and
We define the functional
and set
where
Clearly, m λ , δ is nonincreasing in λ, δ. Note that m λ , δ > 0 for all λ, δ > 0.
Arguing as in the proof of Lemma 2.3 and Theorem 1.1, we obtain the following result.
Lemma 3.3. Suppose F satisfies (F0)-(F2), then the infimum mλ,δis attained by a nonneg-ative radial function (uλ,δ, vλ,δ) ∈ Eradwhenever 2 ≤ p < q < p* and λ,δ > 0, or q = p and λ,δ ∈ (0,Λ1,rad), where Λ1,rad > 0 is the first eigenvalue of the operator. Moreover,
We introduce the barycenter map as follows
This map has the following property.
Lemma 3.4. If N ≥ p2,2 ≤ p ≤ q < p* and F satisfies (F0)-(F2), then there exists λ* > 0 such thatwheneverand Iλ,δ(u, v) ≤ mλ,δ.
Proof. By way of contradiction, we suppose that there exist {λ m }, {δ m } ⊂ ℝ+ and such that λ m , δ m → 0+ as but .
From and we have that {(u m , v m )} is bounded in E. Moreover,
Since λ m , δ m → 0+, we can use the boundedness of {(u m , v m )} to get
from which it follows that
Notice that
Recalling that and both converge to , we can use the above expression and ∫Ω(λ m |u m |q+ δ m |v m |q)dx → 0 again to conclude that , that is,
Let and notice that t m (u m , v m ) satisfies the hypotheses of Lemma 3.2. Using Lemma 3.2, there exist sequences {r m } ⊂ (0,+∞) and {y m } ⊂ ℝNsatisfying we have that in D1,p(ℝN) × D1,p(ℝN).
The definition of β(u, v), (3.10), the strong convergence of and Lebesgue's theorem provide
Since and ∫ΩF(x,ω1,ω2)dx = 1, the above expression implies that
which contradicts .
According to Lemma 3.3, for each λ, δ > 0 small the infimum mλ,δis attained by a nonnegative radial function . We consider
and define the function by setting, for each ,
A change of variables and straightforward calculations show that the map γ is well defined. Since σλ,δis radial, we have that . Hence, for each , we obtain
where .
Along the way of proving Lemma 3.4 we can check easily the following
Lemma 3.5. If λ,δ → 0+, αλ,δ→ 1.
Proof. By Lemma 3.3, we have
As before . Thus, , the above expression and the same arguments used in the proof of Lemma 3.3 imply that
The above equality and the definition of αλ,δimply that αλ,δ→ 1. The lemma is proved.
Next we define by
We have the following
Lemma 3.6. if F satisfies (F0)-(F2), then there exists λ** > 0 such that
for all λ, δ ∈ (0, λ**).
Proof. Arguing by contradiction, we suppose that there exist sequences {λ m },{δ m } ⊂ ℝ+ and such that λ m , δ m → 0+, as m → ∞, and for all m. Up to a subsequence t m → t0 ∈ [0, 1]. Moreover, the compactness of and Lemma 3.4 imply that, up to a subsequence, . From Lemma 3.5 . So, we can use the definition of Hλ,δto conclude that , which is a contradiction. The lemma is proved.
4 Proof of Theorem 1.2
We begin with the following lemma.
Lemma 4.1. If (u, v) is a critical point of Iλ,δon, then it is a critical point of Iλ,δin E.
Proof. The proof is almost the same as that [4, Lemma 4.1] and is omitted here.
Lemma 4.2. Suppose F satisfies (F0)-(F2), then any sequencesuch thatandcontains a convergent subsequence for λ,δ > 0 if q > p and λ,δ ∈ (0, λ*) if q = p for some small λ* > 0.
Proof. By hypothesis there exists a sequence θ m ∈ ℝ such that as m → ∞, where . Thus
Recall that
If , we have
Consequently ∥(u m ,v m )∥ E → 0.
On the other hand, if it follows that
for some C > 0. Hence we arrive at a contradiction if λ, δ > 0 and q > p or λ, δ ∈ (0, λ*) for small λ* > 0 when q = p. Thus we may assume that . Since , we conclude that θ m = 0, consequently, . Using this information we have
so by Lemma 2.1 the proof is completed.
Below we denote by the restriction of Iλ,δon .
Lemma 4.3. Suppose N ≥ p2,2 ≤ p ≤ q < p* and F satisfies (F0)-(F2), let Λ = min{λ*,λ**} > 0, λ, δ ∈ (0,Λ), then, where λ*, λ** given by Lemmas 34 and 3.6, respectively.
Proof. Assume that , where A j ,j = 1,2,...,m, are closed and contractible sets in , i.e., there exists such that
where ϑ ∈ A j is fixed. Consider B j = γ-1(A j ), 1 ≤ j ≤ m. The sets B j are closed and
We define the deformation g j : [0, 1] × B j by setting
for λ,δ ∈ (0,Λ). Note that
implies
and g j (1,y) = Hλ,δ(1, h j (1,γ (y))) = β(h j (1,γ(y))) implies
Thus the sets B j are contractible in . It follows that .
Proof of Theorem 1.2.
Using Lemmas 2.1, 2.2, and 3.3 we know that for λ,δ ∈ (0,Λ). Moreover, by Lemma 4.2, satisfies the (PS) c condition for all . Therefore, by Lemma 4.3, a standard deformation argument implies that, for contains at least catΩ(Ω) critical points of the restriction of Iλ,δon . Now Lemma 4.1 implies that Iλ,δhas at least catΩ(Ω) critical points, and therefore at least catΩ(Ω) nontrivial solutions of (1.1). As Theorem 1.1, the obtained solutions are nonnegative in Ω. The proof is completed.
References
Brezis H, Nirenberg L: Positive solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations involving critical Sobolev exponents. Comm Pure Appl Math 1983, 36: 437-477. 10.1002/cpa.3160360405
Rey O: A multiplicity results for a variational problem with lack of compactness. Nonlinear Anal 1989, 13(10):1241-1249. 10.1016/0362-546X(89)90009-6
Alves CO, Ding YH: Multiplicity of positive solutions to a p -Laplacian equation involving critical nonlinearity. J Math Anal Appl 2003, 279(2):508-521. 10.1016/S0022-247X(03)00026-X
Ding L, Xiao SW: Multiple positive solutions for a critical quasilinear elliptic system. Nonlinear Anal 2010, 72: 2592-2607. 10.1016/j.na.2009.11.007
Hsu TS: Multiple positive solutions for a critical quasilinear elliptic system with concave-convex nonlinearities. Nonlinear Anal 2009, 71(7-8):2688-2698. 10.1016/j.na.2009.01.110
Shen Y, Zhang JH: Multiplicity of positive solutions for a semilinear p -Laplacian system with Sobolev critical exponent. Nonlinear Anal 2011, 74: 1019-1030. 10.1016/j.na.2010.06.066
Han PG: The effect of the domain topology on the number of positive solutions of elliptic systems involving critical Sobolev exponents. Houston J Math 2006, 32: 1241-1257.
Filho DCM, Souto MAS: Systems of p -Laplacian equations involving homogeneous nonlinearities with critical Sobolev exponent degrees. Comm Partial Diff Equ 1999, 24: 1537-1553. 10.1080/03605309908821473
Barbosa ER, Montenegro M: Nontrivial solutions for critical potential elliptic systems. J Diff Equ 2011, 250: 3398-3417. 10.1016/j.jde.2011.01.001
Alves CO, Filho DCM, Miyagaki OH: Multiple solutions for an elliptic system on bounded or unbounded domains. Nonlinear Anal 2004, 56: 555-568. 10.1016/j.na.2003.10.004
Kang DS, Peng SJ: Existence and asymptotic properties of solutions to elliptic systems involving multiple critical exponents. Sci China Math 2011, 54: 243-256. 10.1007/s11425-010-4131-3
Figueiredo GM, Furtado MF: Multiple positive solutions for a quasilinear system of Schröodinger equations. NoDEA Nonlinear Diff Equ Appl 2008, 15: 309-333. 10.1007/s00030-008-7051-y
Lü DF: Multiple solutions for a class of biharmonic elliptic systems with Sobolev critical exponent. Nonlinear Anal 2011, 74: 6371-6382. 10.1016/j.na.2011.06.018
Chu CM, Tang CL: Existence and multiplicity of positive solutions for semilinear elliptic systems with Sobolev critical exponents. Nonlinear Anal 2009, 71: 5118-5130. 10.1016/j.na.2009.03.080
Adriouch K, El Hamidi A: The Nehari manifold for systems of nonlinear elliptic equations. Nonlinear Anal 2006, 64: 2149-2167. 10.1016/j.na.2005.06.003
Lü DF, Xiao JH: Multiple solutions for weighted nonlinear elliptic system involving critical exponents. Math Comput Model 2012, 55: 816-827. 10.1016/j.mcm.2011.09.007
Ribeiro B: The Ambrosetti-Prodi problem for gradient elliptic systems with critical homogeneous nonlinearity. J Math Anal Appl 2010, 363: 606-617. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2009.09.048
Willem M: Minimax Theorem. Birkhäuser, Boston; 1996.
Brezis H, Lieb E: A relation between pointwise convergence of functions and convergence of functionals. Proc Am Math Soc 1983, 88: 486-490.
Ghoussoub N, Yuan C: Multiple solutions for quasi-linear PDEs involving the critical Sobolev and Hardy exponents. Trans Am Math Soc 2000, 352(12):5703-5743. 10.1090/S0002-9947-00-02560-5
Lions PL: The concentration compactness principle in the calculus of variations. The limit case I Rev Mat Iberoam 1985, 1: 145-201.
Furtado MF: Multiplicity of nodal solutions for a critical quasilinear equation with symmetry. Nonlinear Anal 2005, 63: 1153-1166. 10.1016/j.na.2005.06.001
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the referees for carefully reading this article and making valuable comments and suggestions. This study was supported by the Youth Foundation of Hubei Engineering University (No. Z2012003).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Lü, D. Multiple solutions for p-Laplacian systems with critical homogeneous nonlinearity. Bound Value Probl 2012, 27 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-2770-2012-27
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-2770-2012-27