1. Introduction and Main Results
In this paper, we consider the following quasilinear Schrödinger equation
where
,
,
,
The solutions of Equation (
1) are related to the existence of standing waves of the following quasilinear elliptic equations
where
V is a given potential,
,
l and
g are real functions. Quasilinear Equation (
2) has been derived as models of several physical phenomena (see e.g., [
1,
2,
3] and the references therein). In recent years, extensive studies have been focused on the existence of solutions for quasilinear Schrödinger equations of the form
One of the main difficulties of Equation (
3) is that there is no suitable space on which the energy functional is well defined and belongs to
-class except for
(see [
4]). In [
5], for pure power nonlinearities, Liu and Wang proved that Equation (
3) has a ground state solution by using a change of variables and treating the new problem in an Orlicz space when
and the potential
satisfies
Such kind of hypotheses was firstly introduced by Bartsch and Wang [
6] to ensure the compactness of embeddings of
where
In [
7], for
,
, Liu and Wang established the existence of both one-sign and nodal ground states of soliton type solutions for Equation (
3) by the Nehari method under the assumptions on
Very recently, when
Equation (
1) without
, Xu and Chen [
8] studied the existence of positive ground state solution with the help of global compactness Lemma. See also related results obtained in [
9,
10,
11]. All the ground state solutions obtained in [
5,
7,
8] are only valid for
. In [
12], under the assumption that
Ruiz and Siciliano showed Equation (
3) with the subcritical growth has ground state solutions for
via Nehari-Pohožaev manifold.
To the best of our knowledge, there is no result in the literature on the existence of positive ground state solutions of Pohožaev type to the problem in Equation (
1) with critical term. The first purpose of the present paper is to prove the existence of positive ground state solutions of Pohožaev type to the problem in Equation (
1) with critical term. Since the approaches in [
5,
7,
8,
13], when applied to the monomial nonlinearity
, are only valid for
, we want to provide an argument which covers the case
and this is the second purpose of the present paper. Moreover, our argument does not depend on existence of the Nehari manifold.
Before state our main results, we make the following assumptions.
and
, ;
It is worth noting that the similar hypotheses on
as above
and
are introduced in [
14,
15,
16] and have physical meaning. Moreover, there are indeed many functions satisfying
and
. For instance,
. Under conditions analogous to
,
, Zhao and Zhao [
17] obtained the positive solutions of Schrödinger-Maxwell equations with the case
.
Our main result reads as follows.
Theorem 1. Let , abd be positive constants. If is sufficiently large, then the problem in Equation (1) has a positive ground state solution for . Theorem 2. Under the assumptions , , and , the problem in Equation (1) has a positive ground state solution for and sufficiently large . Remark 1. As mentioned above, the results and methods in [5,7,8,18], when applied to the subcritical nonlinearity , are only valid for however, our result covers the case Hence, our results extend those established in the literature. Remark 2. The novelty of this works with respect to some recent results is that we treat the existence by using Pohožaev manifold method in an Orlicz space. The idea of Pohožaev manifold has been used in [8,12], where the authors studied problems with subcritical nonlinearity. It is worthy noting that their argument cannot be applied to our problem due to the presence of the critical term. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In
Section 2, we state the variational framework of our problem and some preliminary results. The proof of Theorem 1 is contained in
Section 3.
Section 4 is devoted to establishing a global compactness lemma and proving Theorem 2.
2. Preliminaries and Functional Setting
Let
be the usual Lebesgue space with norm
.
is the standard Sobolev space with norm
We formally formulate the problem in Equation (
1) in a variational structure as follows
for
. From a variational point of view,
J is not well defined in
, which prevents us from applying variational methods directly. To overcome this difficulty, we employ an idea from Colin and Jeanjean [
19]. First, we make a change of variables
, where
is defined by
on
and
on
. By the following lemma, we collect some properties of
f.
Lemma 1. ([5]) The function f satisfies the following properties: f is uniquely defined and invertible;
;
;
the function is strictly convex;
there exists a positive constant θ such that there exist positive constant and such that
Thus, after the above change of variables, we can write the functional
as
Under the assumptions
,
,
and
,
is well defined and
on the Orlicz space ([
20])
endowed with the norm
and
for any
Moreover, if
v is a critical point for the functional
, then
v is a solution for the equation
Therefore,
is a solution of the problem in Equation (
1) ([
19]).
Lemma 2. ([7,21]) Under the map: from E into is continuous for , and E is continuously embedded into for ; If , is radially symmetric, i.e., , the above map is compact for . Next, we prove a Pohožaev identity with respect to the problem in Equation (
7), which plays a significant role in constructing a new manifold.
Lemma 3. Under the assumptions , , and , if is a weak solution of Equation (7), then satisfies the following Pohožaev identity: Proof. We only prove it formally. For any given positive constant
R,
Let
and
be the unit outer normal at
. By the divergence theorem, we have
Next, by using
and the divergence theorem
By Equations (
9) and (
10), one has
Note that
u is a solution of Equation (
1); it follows from integration by parts that
We get by Equations (
7) and (
12) that
Next, we show that the right hand side of Equation (
14) converges to 0 for at least one suitably chosen sequence
. Since
there exists a sequence
such that
Indeed, if
then there exists
such that if
therefore,
would not be in
, which contradicts Equation (
15), implying that
i.e.,
The proof is finished. □
In particular, if
are positive constant
, the above-mentioned Pohožaev identity can be rewritten as follows
Lemma 4. The functional I is not bounded from below on E.
Proof. Let
Since
we have
as
for all
and large enough
. □
Lemma 4 means that we can not obtain the boundedness of the sequence by usual method. We need to consider a constrained minimization on a suitable manifold.
To give the definition of such a manifold, we need the following lemma.
Lemma 5. Let be positive constants. Define for Then, h has a unique critical point which corresponds to its maximum.
Proof. For large enough
such that
, consider derivatives of
Note that
as
and is positive for
small since
. Then, there exists
such that
The uniqueness of the critical point of
h follows from the fact that the equation
has a unique positive solution
since
. The proof is complete. □
Motivated by [
8], we introduce the following Pohožave manifold
where
is defined by Equation (
16).
Lemma 6. For any , there exists a unique such that where Moreover,
Proof. For every
and
, keeping the definition of
in mind. Denote
By Lemma 5, we have that
has a unique critical point
corresponding to its maximum, i.e.,
,
Thus,
which implies that
and
□
Lemma 7. The M is a natural manifold and every critical point of is a critical point of I in
Proof. By Lemma 6, it is easy to check that The proof consists of four steps.
Step 1..
Set
. Note that, for any
using Lemma 1, Sobolev embedding inequality and choosing a number
, then there exist
,
and
such that
for
small enough and
, so that
.
Step 2. The M is a manifold.
Since
is a
functional, to prove
M is a
manifold, it suffices to prove that
for all
. Indeed, suppose on the contrary that
for some
. Let
The equation
can be written as
and
v satisfies the following Pohožaev identity
From above system, we have
then
since
, which is a contradiction. Thus,
for any
. This completes the proof of
Step 2.
Step 3. Every critical point of is a critical point of I in
If
v is a critical point of
, i.e.,
and
Thanks to the Lagrange multiplier rule, there exists
such that
We prove that
Firstly, in a weak sense, the equation
can be written as
and
v satisfies the following Pohožaev identity
Using notations
,
and
as in
Step 3, we obtain that
It is deduced from the above equations that
If , then since , which is impossible. Therefore, and . □
Lemma 8. Let If is bounded in E andthen we have in for Proof. We use an idea from [
22]. Let
. Since
is bounded in
E and
is continuous,
is also bounded in
It follows from the Hölder and Sobolev inequalities that
where
then
. Choosing
, we obtain
Covering
by a family of balls
such that each point is contained in at most
k such balls and summing up these inequalities over this family of balls we obtain
Under the assumption of the lemma, in . Since , in for , by Sobolev and Hölder inequalities. □
Lemma 9. ([22], Lemma 1.32) Let Ω be an open subset of and let If is bounded in and a.e. on Ω, then 4. Ground State of Equation (1) with Nonconstant Coefficient
In this section, we investigate Equation (
1) in the case that
,
and
are nonconstant. A starting point is the following lemma.
Lemma 11. ([25]) Let be a Banach space and be an interval. Consider a family of functionals on X of the formwith and either or as Assume that there are two points such thatwhere Then, for almost every there is a bounded sequences in
For
, we consider the functional
defined by
where
,
It is clear that this functional is of
. Moreover, for every
We also need to consider the associated limit problem
It is clear that
is the Euler–Lagrange equations of the functional
The following lemma ensures that has the mountain pass geometry with the corresponding mountain pass level denoted by .
Lemma 12. If , , and hold. Then,
there exists such that for
for where Proof. (1) For any
as
Taking
for
t large, this shows at once that
(2) Recalling Lemma 1 and
Step 1 of Lemma 7, we get
for sufficiently small
, there exists
such that
then
. □
Lemma 12 means that, if satisfies the assumptions of Lemma 11 with and we then obtain immediately, for a.e. there exists a bounded sequence such that ,
Lemma 13. ([25], Lemma 2.3) Under the assumptions of Lemma 11, the map is non-increasing and left continuous. Introduce the following manifold
where
According to
Section 3,
has some similar properties to those of the manifold
M, such as containing all the nontrivial critical points of
.
Lemma 14. If and is obtained at some . Moreover, Proof. The proof is similar to that of Theorem 1, and is omitted here. □
Lemma 15. Suppose that , , and hold. Then, for
Proof. Let
be a minimizer of
. By Lemma 5,
Then, we see that, for
□
Next, we need the following global compactness lemma, which is adopted to prove that the functional satisfies condition for a.e. .
Lemma 16. Suppose that , and hold. For every , let be a bounded sequence for Then, there exist a subsequence of , still denote , and integer , sequence , for such that
- (i)
with
- (ii)
, if
- (iii)
and for
- (iv)
; and
- (v)
Here, we agree that in the case the above holds without and .
Proof. We complete the proof in two steps.
Step 1. Since
is bounded in
E, up to subsequence, there exists
such that
in
Arguing as in [
26], let
and
. Then,
a.e. on
and
for every
and a.e. on
with
(see Lemma A.1, [
22]). Consequently,
Now, we show that
. In fact, it suffices to prove that
It follows from Equation (
23) that for any fixed
Using
of Lemma 1 and
, we have that
The Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem implies that
Similarly, since
, we have
If
, using
and
of Lemma 1, we have
If
using
and
of Lemma 1, we have
Thus, combining Equation (
26) with Equation (
27), one deduces that
It follows from Equations (
24), (
25) and (
28) that
Thus,
Step 2. We prove that .
From
and
, we deduce that
Step 3. Set , then we get in E.
Vanishing: If
, then it follows from Lemma 8 that
in
for
By
and Fatou’s Lemma, we have
which means that
.
Non-vanishing: If
we can find a sequence
such that
where
. Note that
, we see that
is bounded. Going if necessary to a subsequence, we have a
such that
in
E. Since
we see that
. Moreover,
in
E implies that
. Next, we prove that
. Similar to the proof of
Step 1, for any fixed
, it suffices to show that
. By
,
,
and
, as
, we have that
Since
in
E, one has that
, i.e.
as
. Thus, using Equations (
34)–(
37), one has
. Therefore,
. In the following, we prove that
and
Firstly, we claim that the relation below holds:
We have by
and
of Lemma 1 that
Thus,
is bounded in
E and
. Because of the local compactness of the Sobolev embedding theorem, we have, up to a subsequence,
almost everywhere on
. Then, the conclusion follows from the Brrézis-Lieb Lemma. This implies that Equation (
40) holds. Using similar arguments above, for any
, we also obtain
In addition, by Lemma 9, we have
Now, from Equations (
40) and (
43), we know that Equation (
38) holds. We deduce from Equations (
20) and (
22) that
It is deduced from Equations (
40)–(
44) that Equation (
39) holds.
Step 4. Set
, then
in
E. It follows from Equations (
40)–(
42) that
By similar argument, we can deduce that
and then
Similar to the proof in
Step 2 of Lemma 16, we obtain that
. Then, we get from Equation (
30) that
Repeating the same type of arguments explored in
Step 3, set
If vanishing occurs, then
in
E. Thus, Lemma 16 holds with
. If
is non vanishing, then there exists a sequence
and
such that
in
E and
Furthermore,
in
E means that
and
. By iterating this technique, we obtain
with
such that
and sequences
such that
and
if
as
and using the properties of the weak convergence, we have
Equation (
46) implies that the iteration stops at some finite index
. Therefore,
in
E. We can verify that
and
hold by Equations (
45) and (
46). This proves the lemma.
Lemma 17. Assume that , and hold; . Let be a bounded sequence of Then, there exists a nontrivial such that and for almost all
Proof. For
, let
be the minimizer of
. By Lemma 13, we have that
It follows from Lemma 16 that there exists
,
and sequences
,
for
such that
where
is a critical point of
. Similar to the argument of Equation (
30), by
and
, we also have
. If
, and then, by Equation (
48), one obtains that
which contradicts Equation (
47). Thus,
, which implies
in
E and
□
Proof of Theorem 2. The proof contains two steps.
Step 1. From Lemmas 11 and 12, for almost every
, there exists a bounded
sequence for
. Then, Lemma 7 implies that there exists
such that
and
Choose
such that
has a critical point
still denoted by
. Now, we show that
is bounded in
Denote
From these relations,
,
and
, one has that
which implies that
is bounded since
and
. Therefore,
is bounded. Using
Step 1 of Lemma 10, we deduce that
is bounded in
E. Moreover, using Lemma 13, we deduce that
Since the sequence
is bounded in
E, we have that
is bounded in
for
. Then,
It is deduced from Equations (
50) and (
51) that
Similar to the argument for Equation (
52), we get that
Equations (
52) and (
53) show that
is a bounded
sequence for
. Then, by Lemma 17, there exists a nontrivial critical point
for
and
.
Step 2. Now, we prove the existence of a ground state solution for Equation (
1). Set
As in the proof of
Step 2 of Lemma 16, we can see that every critical point of
has nonnegative energy. Thus,
Let
be a sequence of nontrivial critical points of
satisfying
. Since
is bounded, using the similar arguments as Equation (
50), we can conclude that
is bounded
sequence of
. Similar arguments in Lemma 17, there exists a positive and nontrivial
such that
, which implies that
is a ground state solution for Equation (
1). By strong maximum principle,
is a positive ground state solution for Equation (
1). The proof is complete.