Abstract
In this paper, we consider the following Kirchhoff equation with Choquard nonlinearity:
where V(x) is a smooth function, a and b are positive constants, \(\alpha \in (1,3)\), \(q\in (4,6)\). By employing the results from the matrix theory, gluing approach and Brouwer degree theory, we prove that for any integer k, the above equation with \(p\in (4,3+\alpha )\) has a sign changing radial solution, which changes sign k times.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction and statement of main result
Consider the Kirchhoff type equation
where \(a,b>0\), V(x) is a smooth function. This problem is related to the stationary analogue of the equation
which was proposed by Kirchhoff [12] as an extension of the classical D’Alembert’s wave equations for free vibration of elastic string. After Lions [15] introduced an abstract function analysis framework to the problem, many researchers have paid attention to it, see [1, 4] and the references therein.
There are many interesting results on the existence and multiplicity of solutions for problem (1.1), such as [6, 8,9,10, 13, 19, 21, 23] and references therein. In particular, He and Zou [10] studied the existence of positive solutions for (1.1) by the variational method, and obtained the multiplicity by means of Category theory. Moreover, they also studied the concentrated behavior of positive solutions. When \(f(x,u)=|u|^{p-1}u\), Li and Ye [13] proved (1.1) has a positive ground state solution by using a monotonicity trick and global compactness lemma. This result can be seen as a partial extension of the results of He and Zou in [10]. Wu [19] considered the existence of nontrivial solutions and infinitely many high energy solutions for (1.1) using a symmetric Mountain Pass Theorem. Guo [6] considered the positive ground state solution of (1.1) without classical Ambrosetti–Rabinowitz condition by using variational methods. The existence of sign-changing solution of (1.1) has also been studied in [16, 22].
Moreover, there are many results about the existence of nodal solutions for elliptic problems. Bartsch and Willem [2], Cao and Zhu [3] proved that for any positive integer k, there exists a pair of solutions \({u_k}^\pm \) having exact k nodes for the following equation:
By gluing method, Deng, Peng and Shuai [5] considered the existence and asymptotic behavior of nodal solutions for the following Kirchhoff equation:
Due to the existence of nonlocal items, gluing method cannot be used to solve this problem directly. To solve this difficulty, they regard this problem as a system of \(k+1\) equations with \(k+1\) unknown functions \(u_i\), each \(u_i\) is supported on only one annulus and vanishing on the complement. Huang, Yang and Yu [11] showed the existence of nodal solutions of Choquard equation by the same method as in [5]. Wang and Guo [20] proved the existence and nonexistence of nodal solutions for Choquard type equations with perturbation by employing the variational method, gluing approach and the Brouwer degree. Recently, Guo and Wu [7] showed the existence of nodal solutions for the Schrödinger–Poisson equations with convolution terms.
Motivated by the above results, we intend to establish infinitely many nodal solutions to the following equation:
where V(x) is a smooth function, a, b are positive constants, \(\alpha \in (1,3)\) and \(q\in (4,6)\).
Our main result can be stated as follows.
Theorem 1.1
Suppose that V(x) satisfies
(V) \(V(x)=V(|x|)\in C([0,\infty ),\mathbb {R})\) is bounded from below by a positive constant \(V_0\).
Moreover, if \(\alpha \in (1,3)\), \(p\in (4,3+\alpha )\) and \(q\in (4,6)\). Then for any positive integer k, Eq. (1.3) has a radial solution \(u_k\) changing sign exactly k times.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we give some notations and preliminary results. In Sect. 3, we are devoted to the proof of our main result which mainly show the construction of least energy nodal solutions changing sign exactly k times.
2 Variational framework and some results in the matrix theory
In this section, we give some notations and preliminary results. First, we present the variational framework. The space \(H_V(\mathbb {R}^3)\) is defined by
with the norm
The energy functional associated with problem (1.3) is given by
By Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality ([14, Theorem 4.3]), \(I_b\) is well defined on \(H^{1}(\mathbb {R}^3)\) when \(p\in (4,3+\alpha )\).
For any integer k, we define
and for each \(\varvec{\rho }_k\in \Gamma _k\), set
Fix \(\varvec{\rho }_k\)=\((\rho _1,\ldots ,\rho _{k})\in \Gamma _k\) and thereby a family of \(\left\{ B^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_i\right\} ^{k+1}_{i=1}\), we denote
for \(i=1,\ldots ,k+1\). Therefore, \(H^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_i\) is a Hilbert space with the norm
Let us set
and
We now define the function \(J_b\): \({\mathcal {H}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) by
where \({\mathcal {H}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k=H^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_1\times \cdots \times H^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_{k+1}\) and \(u_i\in H^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_i\) for \(i=1,\ldots ,k+1\). Obviously, for each \(i=1,\ldots ,k+1\)
If \((u_1,\ldots ,u_{k+1})\in {\mathcal {H}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\) is a critical point of \(J_b\), then every component \(u_i\) satisfies
We regard \(u_i \in H^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_i\) as an element in \(H^1(\mathbb {R}^3)\) by setting \(u\equiv 0\) in \({\mathbb {R}^3}\setminus {B^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_i}\). To find least energy radial solution which changes signs exactly k times of (1.3), let Nehari manifold
and \(c_k=\inf \limits _{{\mathcal {N}}_k}J_b\). Obviously, \(u=\sum \nolimits _{i=1}^{k+1}u_i\) and \({\mathcal {N}}_k\) consists of nodal functions with precisely k nodes.
Least energy radial solution of (1.3) which changes signs exactly k times will constructed by gluing the solutions of the system (2.3). To this end, we look for critical points of \(J_b\) with nonzero component by considering the following Nehari type set
Next, we will present some results of the matrix theory in order to prove that \({\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\) is nonempty.
Lemma 2.1
[11] For any \((u_1,\ldots ,u_{k+1})\in {\mathcal {H}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\) with \(u_i\ne 0\),\(i=1,\ldots ,k+1\), define the matrix \(A:=(a_{ij})_{(k+1)\times (k+1)}\) by \(a_{ij}=(u_i,u_j)_\alpha \). Then the matrix A is positive definite.
Lemma 2.2
(Gersgorin Disc Theorem [18, Theorem 1.1]) For any matrix \(B=(b_{ij})\in \mathbb {C}^{n\times n}\) and any eigenvalue \(\lambda \in \sigma (B):\)=\(\left\{ \mu \in \mathbb {C}: det(\mu E-B)=0\right\} \), there is a positive integer \(m\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,n\right\} \) such that
By this lemma, we have the following result.
Lemma 2.3
[7] For any \(b_{ij}\)=\(b_{ji}>0\) with \(i\ne j\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,n\right\} \) and \(s_i>0\) with \(i=1,\ldots ,n\), define the matrix \(C:=(c_{ij})_{n\times n}\) by
Then the real symmetric matrix \((c_{ij})_{n\times n}\) is non-positive definite.
3 The proof of Theorem 1.1
In this section, we are devoted to the proof of Theorem 1.1. First, we give the following lemma.
Lemma 3.1
Assume that \(\varvec{\rho }_k\in \Gamma _k\) is fixed. Then for each \((v_1,\ldots ,v_{k+1})\in {\mathcal {H}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\) with \(v_i\ne 0\) for \(i=1,\ldots ,k+1\), there exists a unique \((k+1)\) tuple \((t_1,\ldots ,t_{k+1})\in (\mathbb {R}>0)^{k+1}\) such that \((t_1v_1,\ldots ,t_{k+1}v_{k+1})\in {\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\).
Proof
When \(q\ge p\), for each \((v_1,\ldots ,v_{k+1})\in {\mathcal {H}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\) with \(v_i\ne 0\) for \(i=1,\ldots ,k+1\), we define \(G:(\mathbb {R}\ge 0)^{k+1}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) by
Then
It is clearly that G is continuous and \(G(c_1,\ldots ,c_{k+1})\rightarrow 0\) as \(|(c_1,\ldots ,c_{k+1})|\rightarrow 0\) and \(G(c_1,\ldots ,c_{k+1})\rightarrow -\infty \) as \(|(c_1,\ldots ,c_{k+1})|\rightarrow \infty \), due to \(p\in (4,\alpha +3)\) and \(q\in (4,6)\). Thus, G possesses a global maximum point \(({\bar{c}}_1,\ldots ,{\bar{c}}_{k+1})\in (\mathbb {R}\ge 0)^{k+1}\).
We claim that \({\bar{c}}_i>0\) for all \(i=1,\ldots ,k+1\). Otherwise, there exists \(i_0\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,{k+1}\right\} \) such that \({\bar{c}}_i=0\). Without loss of generality, we assume \({\bar{c}}_1=0\). Then since
is increasing with respect to \(\tau >0\) when \(\tau \) is small enough. Thus, \((0,{\bar{c}}_2,\ldots , {\bar{c}}_{k+1})\) is not a maximum point of G. This contradicts the assumption above. Therefore, the claim follows.
Next, we prove that this global maximum point is unique in \((\mathbb R> 0)^{k+1}\). In fact, by direct computation, we have
Let the matrix
where
Note the fact that \(p>4\) and \(q\ge p\), thus \((a_{ij})\) is negative definite. By Lemma 2.3, \((b_{ij})\) is non-positive definite. By Lemma 2.1, \((c_{ij})\) is negative definite. Thus, \(\left( \frac{\partial ^2G}{\partial _{c_i}\partial _{c_j}}\right) \) is negative definite and G is strictly concave in \((\mathbb R>0)^{k+1}\). Therefore, G has a unique maximum point in \((\mathbb R>0)^{k+1}\).
When \(q<p\), for each \((v_1,\ldots ,v_{k+1})\in {\mathcal {H}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\) with \(v_i\ne 0\) for \(i=1,\ldots ,k+1\), we define \(G:(\mathbb {R}\ge 0)^{k+1}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) by
Then
By the same arguments as above, the conclusion follows. \(\square \)
We define \(\psi _b:({\mathbb {R}}>0)^{k+1}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) by
where \((v_1,\ldots ,v_{k+1})\in {\mathcal {H}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\). Then we have the following corollary.
Corollary 3.2
Let \(\varvec{\rho }_k\in \Gamma _k\). Then for any \((v_1,\ldots ,v_{k+1})\in {\mathcal {H}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\) with \(v_i\ne 0\) for \(i=1,\ldots ,k+1\), there exists a unique global maximal point \(({\bar{t}}_1,\ldots ,{\bar{t}}_{k+1})\in \mathbb {R}_+^{k+1}\) of \(\psi _b\) such that
and \(({\bar{t}}_1v_1,\ldots ,{\bar{t}}_{k+1}v_{k+1}) \in {\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }_K}_k\).
Lemma 3.3
For \(p\in (4,3+\alpha )\), \(q\in (4,6)\), \({\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\) is a differentiable manifold in \({\mathcal {H}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\). Moreover, all critical points of \(J_b|_{{\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k}\) are critical points of \(J_b\) in \({\mathcal {H}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\) with no zero component.
Proof
Note that
where \(F=(F_1,\ldots ,F_{k+1}):{\mathcal {H}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) is given by
Then
When \(q\ge p\), by direct computation, we have that at each point \((u_1,\ldots ,u_{k+1}) \in {\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\), there holds that
for \(i=1,\ldots ,k+1\), and
By the same arguments as Lemma 3.1, when \(q\ge p\), the matrix
is negative definite and, therefore, det\(\left( M_{ij}\right) \ne 0\), where
When \(q<p\), by direct computation, we have that at each point \((u_1,\ldots ,u_{k+1}) \in {\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\), there holds that
for \(i=1,\ldots ,k+1\), and
By the same arguments as above, when \(q<p\), the matrix
is also negative definite and, therefore, det\(\left( M_{ij}\right) \ne 0\), where
Thus, \((M_{ij})\) is nonsingular at each point \((u_1,\ldots ,u_{k+1})\in {\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\). So \({\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\) is differentiable in \({\mathcal {H}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\).
If \((u_1,\ldots ,u_{k+1})\) is a critical point of \(J_b|_{{\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k}\), by the Lagrange multiplier principle, there exist \(\eta _1,\ldots ,\eta _{k+1}\) such that
Applying \((u_1,0,\ldots ,0)\),\((0,u_2,\ldots ,0)\),\((0,\ldots ,0,u_{k+1})\) into the identity above, we get
Since \(det\left( M_{ij}\right) \ne 0\), we see that \(\eta _i=0\) for all \(i=1,\ldots ,k+1\). Thus \((u_1,\ldots ,u_{k+1})\) is a critical point of \(J_b\). \(\square \)
Consider the infimum level
Then we have the following result.
Lemma 3.4
For any \(p\in (4,3+\alpha )\), \(q\in (4,6)\) and \(\varvec{\rho }_k\in \Gamma _k\), there is a minimizer \((\xi ^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_1,\ldots ,\xi ^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_{k+1})\in {\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\) of \(J_b|_{{\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k}\) with \((-1)^{i+1}\xi ^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_i>0\) in \(B^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_i\), for \(i=1,\ldots ,k+1\) such that
Moreover, \((\xi ^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_1,\ldots ,\xi ^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_{k+1})\) satisfies (2.3).
Proof
For \((u_1,\ldots ,u_{k+1})\in {\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\), denote by \(u=\sum \limits _{i=1}^{k+1}u_i\), then
By Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality and Sobolev embedding theorem, we can see
Since \(p\in (4,3+\alpha )\), \(q\in (4,6)\), we have \(\Vert u\Vert _V\ge c_1>0\) for some \(c_1>0\).
When \(q\ge 2p\), we have
When \(q< 2p\), we have
Thus, \(d(\varvec{\rho }_k)\ge c_2>0\). We can choose a minimizing sequence \(\{(u^n_1,\ldots ,u^n_{k+1})\}_{n=1}^\infty \subset {\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\) of \(J_b|_{{\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k}\). From (3.2), (3.3), we know that \(\left\{ u_i^n\right\} _{n=1}^\infty \) is bounded in \({\mathcal {H}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\). Up to a subsequence, \((u^n_1,\ldots ,u^n_{k+1})\) converges to an element \((u^0_1,\ldots ,u^0_{k+1})\) weakly in \({\mathcal {H}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\).
We claim that for all \(i=1,\ldots ,k+1\), \(u^0_i\ne 0\). If \(u_i^n\rightarrow u_i^0\) strongly in \(H^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_i\), for any \(i=1,\ldots ,k+1\),
Hence,
This implies that \(u^0_i\ne 0\) for all \(i=1,\ldots ,k+1\). Thus, the claim follows.
If \(u_i^n\rightharpoonup u_i^0\) weakly but not strongly in \(H^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_i\), then there exists \(i\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,k+1\right\} \) such that \(\Vert u_i^0\Vert _i<\liminf \limits _{n\rightarrow \infty }\Vert u_i^n\Vert _i\), we have
By Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality and Sobolev embedding theorem, the claim also follows.
We further claim that \((u^n_1,\ldots ,u^n_{k+1})\rightarrow (u^0_1,\ldots ,u^0_{k+1})\) in \({\mathcal {H}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\). Suppose by contradiction that the claim does not hold. There exists \(i\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,k+1\right\} \) such that \(\Vert u_i^0\Vert _i<\liminf \limits _{n\rightarrow \infty }\Vert u_i^n\Vert _i\). By Lemma 3.1, there is \((t^0_1,\ldots ,t^0_{k+1})\ne (1,\ldots ,1)\) satisfying \((t^0_1u^0_1,\ldots ,t^0_{k+1}u^0_{k+1})\in {\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\), then
which is a contradiction. Thus, the claim follows and \((u^0_1,\ldots ,u^0_{k+1})\in {\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\) is a minimizer of \(J_b|_{{\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k}\).
It is easy to check that
belongs to \({\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\) and is a minimizer of \(J_b|_{{\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k}\) satisfying (3.1). From Lemma 3.3, it is a critical point of \(J_b\) in \({\mathcal {H}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k\) and satisfying (2.3). Using the strong maximum principle, each component \((-1)^{i+1}\xi ^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_i>0\) in \(B^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_i\), for \(i=1,\ldots ,k+1\). The proof is complete. \(\square \)
Lemma 3.5
For any \(p\in (4,3+\alpha )\), \(q\in (4,6)\) and \(\varvec{\rho }_k=(\rho _1,\ldots ,\rho _k)\in \Gamma _k\)
-
(i)
For uniformly bounded \(\varvec{\rho }_k\), if \(\rho _i-\rho _{i-1}\rightarrow 0\) for some \(i\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,k\right\} \), then \(d(\varvec{\rho }_k)\rightarrow +\infty \).
-
(ii)
If \(\rho _k\rightarrow \infty \), then \(d(\varvec{\rho }_k)\rightarrow +\infty \).
-
(iii)
d is continuous in \(\Gamma _k\). Therefore, there exists a \(\bar{\varvec{\rho }}_k\in \Gamma _k\) such that
$$\begin{aligned}d(\bar{\varvec{\rho }}_k)=\inf _{\varvec{\rho }_k\in \Gamma _k}d(\varvec{\rho }_k).\end{aligned}$$
Proof
(i) By lemma 3.4, it is easy to see that for each \({\varvec{\rho }}_k\in \Gamma _k\), there exists a solution \(\varvec{\xi }^{\varvec{\rho }_k}=(\xi ^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_1,\ldots ,\xi ^{\varvec{\rho _k}}_{k+1})\in {{\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_k}\) such that \(d({\varvec{\rho }_k})=J_b(\xi ^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_1,\ldots ,\xi ^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_{k+1})\). By Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality, Hölder inequality and embedding inequality, we have
Since \(\varvec{\rho }_k\) is uniformly bounded, then if \(\rho _i-\rho _{i-1}\rightarrow 0\) for some \(i\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,k\right\} \), we have \(|B^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_i|\rightarrow 0\). From \(p\in (4,3+\alpha )\), \(q\in (4,6)\), we have \(\sum \limits _{j=1}^{k+1}\Vert \xi ^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_j\Vert ^p_j\rightarrow \infty \). By the same arguments as in (3.2) or (3.3), we have
or
Then, \((i)\) holds.
\((ii)\) By the Strauss inequality [2], for every radial function \(u\in H_V\), we can find \(a_0>0\) such that \(u(x)\le \frac{a_0\Vert u\Vert _V}{|x|}\) for a.e. \(|x|>1\).This combined with Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality and embedding theorem, yields
which yields that \(\sum \limits _{j=1}^{k+1}\Vert \xi ^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_j\Vert ^p_j\rightarrow \infty \) as \(\rho _k\rightarrow \infty \), due to \(p\in (4,3+\alpha ), q\in (4,6), \alpha \in (1,3)\). So \(d(\varvec{\rho }_k)\rightarrow \infty \) and \((ii)\) follows.
\((iii)\) Take a sequence \(\left\{ \varvec{\rho }^n_k\right\} _{n=1}^\infty \) satisfying \(\varvec{\rho }^n_k\rightarrow \varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k\in \Gamma _k\). We will prove the conclusion by showing \(d(\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k)\ge \limsup \nolimits _{n\rightarrow \infty }d(\varvec{\rho }^n_k)\), \(d(\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k)\le \liminf \nolimits _{n\rightarrow \infty }d(\varvec{\rho }^n_k)\).
First, we prove that \(d(\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k)\ge \limsup \limits _{n\rightarrow \infty }d(\varvec{\rho }^n_k)\). In order to emphasize that \(v^{\varvec{\rho }^n_k}_i\) is radial in \(B^{\varvec{\rho }^n_k}_i\), we will rewrite \(v^{\varvec{\rho }^n_k}_i(|x|){=}v^{\varvec{\rho }^n_k}_i(\rho )\). Define \(v^{\varvec{\rho }^n_k}_i{:}[\rho ^n_{i-1},\rho ^n_i] \rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) by
where \((\xi ^{\varvec{\rho }^n_k}_1,\ldots ,\xi ^{\varvec{\rho }^n_k}_{k+1})\) and \((\xi ^{\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k}_1,\ldots ,\xi ^{\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k}_{k+1})\) are minimizers of \(J_b|_{{\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }^n_k}_k}\) and \(J_b|_{{\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k}_k}\) respectively. \((t^n_1,\ldots ,t^n_{k+1})\) is the unique \((k+1)\) tuple of positive numbers such that \((v^{\varvec{\rho }^n_k}_1,\ldots ,v^{\varvec{\rho }^n_k}_{k+1})\in {\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }^n_k}_k\). By the definition of \((\xi ^{\varvec{\rho }^n_k}_1,\ldots ,\xi ^{\varvec{\rho }^n_k}_{k+1})\), we know that
Since \(\varvec{\rho }^n_k\rightarrow \varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k\in \Gamma _k\), we can easily get the following equations,
and
Since \((v^{\varvec{\rho }^n_k}_1,\ldots ,v^{\varvec{\rho }^n_k}_{k+1})\in {\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\rho }^n_k}_k\) and \((\xi ^{\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k}_1,\ldots ,\xi ^{\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k}_{k+1})\in {\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k}_k\), there holds that
and
This combined with Lemma 3.1, we have \(\lim \limits _{n\rightarrow \infty }t^n_i=1\) for all i. Hence, from (3.5) we can see that
Next, we prove that \(d(\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k)\le \liminf \limits _{n\rightarrow \infty }d(\varvec{\rho }^n_k)\). By the same argument as former case, let \(u^{\varvec{\rho }^n_k}_i=[\bar{\rho }_{i-1},\bar{\rho }_i]\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) be defined by
where \((s^n_1,\ldots ,s^n_{k+1})\in (\mathbb {R}_+)^{k+1}\) such that \((u^{\varvec{\rho }^n_k}_1,\ldots ,u^{\varvec{\rho }^n_k}_{k+1})\in {\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k}_k\).
By the same arguments, we can deduce \(s^n_i\rightarrow 1\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) for all \(i={1,\ldots ,k+1}\). Thus
This combined with (3.6) yields that d is continuous in \(\Gamma _k\). Furthermore, this combined with \((i)\), \((ii)\), we know that there is a \(\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k\in \Gamma _k\) such that \(d(\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k)=\inf \limits _{\varvec{\rho }_k\in \Gamma _k}d(\varvec{\rho }_k)\). Hence, \((iii)\) holds. \(\square \)
Proof of Theorem 1.1
By Lemmas 3.4 and 3.5, there exist \(\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k\in \Gamma _k\) and \((\xi ^{\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k}_1,\ldots ,\xi ^{\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k}_{k+1})\in {\mathcal {M}}^{\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k}_k\) with \((-1)^{i+1}\xi ^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_i>0\) in \(B^{\varvec{\rho }_k}_i\) such that
This implies that
\(\square \)
We claim that \(u^b_k=\sum \limits _{i=1}^{k+1}\xi ^{\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k}_i\) is a solution of (1.3). Suppose by contradiction that the claim does not hold, that is, \(u^b_k\) is not a weak solution of (1.3). Then by the density argument, there is a radial function \(\phi \in \mathbb {C}^\infty _0(\mathbb {R}^3)\) such that
For \(\varvec{s}=(s_1,\ldots ,s_{k+1})\) and \(\mathbf{1} =(1,\ldots ,1)\in {\mathbb {R}^{k+1}}\), we define function \(g:= \mathbb {R}^{k+1}\times \mathbb {R}\rightarrow H^1(\mathbb {R}^3)\) by
Since \(\sum \limits _{i=1}^{k+1}\xi ^{\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k}_i\) is continuous and has k nodes, we know that there exists a neighborhood \(B_\tau (\mathbf{1} ):=\left\{ \varvec{s}\in \mathbb {R}^{k+1}:|\varvec{s}-\mathbf{1} |<\tau \right\} \) such that \(g(\varvec{s},\tau )\) also changes signs exactly k times and
for all \((\varvec{s},\epsilon )\in B_\tau (\mathbf{1} )\times [0,\tau ]\).
Let \(\eta \in {\mathbb {C}}^\infty ({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), \(0\le \eta \le 1\) with \(\eta (\varvec{s})=1\) if \(s\in \overline{B_{\frac{\tau }{4}}(1,\ldots ,1)} \) and \(\eta (\varvec{s})=0\) if \(\varvec{s}\not \in B_{\frac{\tau }{2}}(1,\ldots ,1)\). We define another continuous function \({\bar{g}}:\mathbb {R}^{k+1}\rightarrow \mathbb {H}_V\) by
Obviously, for any \(\varvec{s}\in B_\tau (\mathbf{1} )\), \({\bar{g}}(\varvec{s})\) also changes signs exactly k times and has k nodes \(0<\rho _1(\varvec{s})<\cdots<\rho _{k}(\varvec{s})<\infty \). Moreover,
Next, we will prove that there exists \(\varvec{{\bar{s}}}\in B_{\frac{\tau }{2}}(\mathbf{1} )\) such that \({\bar{g}}(\varvec{{\bar{s}}})\in {\mathcal {N}}_k\) changing sign k times. Denote
For any \(\varvec{s}\in \partial B_{\frac{\tau }{2}}(\mathbf{1} )\), we have
By Lemma 3.1 and Corollary 3.2, we obtain \(G(\mathbf{s} )\) is strictly concave function in \(\mathbb {R}_+^{k+1}\) and attains its unique global maximum point at \(\varvec{1}\). By the Taylor expansion at \(\varvec{s}\ne \varvec{1}\) in \([0,\infty )^{k+1}\), and the strictly concavity, we have
that is
Set \({\widetilde{G}}_i(\mathbf{s} )=\frac{1}{p}s^{-1}_i\left<\partial _{u_j}J_b(s^{\frac{1}{p}}_1\xi _1^{\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k},\ldots ,s^{\frac{1}{p}}_{k+1}\xi ^{\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k}_{k+1}),s^{\frac{1}{p}}_i\xi _i^{\varvec{\bar{\rho }}_k}\right>\) and \({\widetilde{G}}(\mathbf{s} )=({\widetilde{G}}_1(\mathbf{s} ), \ldots ,{\widetilde{G}}_{k+1}(\mathbf{s} ))\). Define a map \(F(\theta ,\mathbf{s} ):[0,1]\times {\bar{B}}_{\frac{\tau }{2}}(\mathbf{1} )\rightarrow \mathbb {R}^{k+1}\) by
Obviously, \(F(0,\mathbf{s} )=\mathbf{1} -\mathbf{s} \), \(F(1,\mathbf{s} )={\widetilde{G}}(\mathbf{s} )\). Thus, \(\mathbf{1} -\mathbf{s} \) and \({\widetilde{G}}(\mathbf{s} )\) are homotopy. Moreover, for any \(\theta \in [0,1]\) and \(\mathbf{s} \in B_{\frac{\tau }{2}}(\mathbf{1} )\), we obtain \(F(\theta ,\mathbf{s} )\cdot (\mathbf{1} -\mathbf{s} )>0\). Thus, \(F(\theta ,\mathbf{s} )\ne \mathbf{0} \). By the Brouwer degree theory, we have
Therefore, there exists some \(\varvec{{\bar{s}}}\in B_{\frac{\tau }{2}}(\mathbf{1} )\) such that \({\bar{g}}(\varvec{{\bar{s}}})\in {\mathcal {N}}_k\) . The claim follows.
According to the claim, we have
On the other hand, by the mean value theorem and (3.8), we have
If \(\varvec{s}\in B_{\frac{\tau }{2}}(\mathbf{1} )\) for each i, then \(\eta (\varvec{{\bar{s}}})>0\), by Corollary 3.2
and if \(\varvec{s}\not \in B_{\frac{\tau }{2}}(\mathbf{1} )\), then \(\eta (\varvec{{\bar{s}}})=0\), by corollary 3.2
which also contradicts to (3.9). Therefore, the function \(u^b_k\) is a solution of (1.3), such that \(J_b(u^b_k)=c_k\). The proof of Theorem 1.1 is complete.
References
Arosio, A., Panizzi, S.: On the well-posedness of the Kirchhoff string. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 348, 305–330 (1996)
Bartsch, T., Willem, M.: Infinitely many radial solutions of a semilinear elliptic problem on \(\mathbb{R}^N\). Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 124, 261–276 (1993)
Cao, D., Zhu, X.: On the existence and nodal character of solutions of semilinear elliptic equations. Acta Math. Sci. 8, 345–359 (1988)
Cavalcanti, M.M., Domingos Cavalcanti, V.N., Soriano, J.A.: Global existence and uniform decay rates for the Kirchhoff-Carrier equation with nonlinear dissipation. Adv. Differ. Equ. 6, 701–730 (2001)
Deng, Y., Peng, S., Shuai, W.: Existence and asymptotic behavior of nodal solutions for the Kirchhoff-type problems in \(\mathbb{R}^3\). J. Funct. Anal. 269, 3500–3527 (2015)
Guo, Z.: Ground states for Kirchhoff equations without compact condition. J. Differ. Equ. 259, 2884–2902 (2015)
Guo, H., Wu, D.: Nodal solutions for the Schrödinger-Poisson equations with convolution terms. Nonlinear Anal. 196, 111781 (2020)
He, Y., Li, G., Peng, S.: Concentrating bound states for Kirchhoff type problems in \(\mathbb{R}^3\) involving critical Sobolev exponents. Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 14, 483–510 (2014)
He, X., Zou, W.: Ground states for nonlinear Kirchhoff equations with critical growth. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 193, 473–500 (2014)
He, X., Zou, W.: Existence and concentration behavior of positive solutions for a Kirchhoff equation in \(\mathbb{R}^3\). J. Differ. Equ. 252, 1813–1834 (2012)
Huang, Z., Yang, J., Yu, W.: Multiple nodal solutions of nonlinear Choquard equations. Electron. J. Differ. Equ. 2017, 1 (2017)
Kirchhoff, G.: Mechanik. Teubner, Leipzig (1883)
Li, G., Ye, H.: Existence of positive ground state solutions for the nonlinear Kirchhoff type equations in \(\mathbb{R}^3\). J. Differ. Equ. 257, 566–600 (2014)
Lieb, E.H., Loss, M.: Analysis, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 14. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2001)
Lions, J.L.: On some questions in boundary value problems of mathematical physics. North Holland Math. Stud. 30, 284–346 (1978)
Liu, Z., Lou, Y., Zhang, J.: A Perturbation Approach to Studying Sign-Changing Solutions of Kirchhoff Equations with a General Nonlinearity. arXiv:1812.09240v2
Strauss, W.A.: Existence of solitary waves in higher dimensions. Commun. Math. Phys. 55, 149–162 (1977)
Varga, R.S.: Gersgorin and His Circles. Springer Science & Business Media, New York (2010)
Wu, X.: Existence of nontrivial solutions and high energy solutions for Schrödinger-Kirchhoff-type equations in \(\mathbb{R}^N\). Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl. 12, 1278–1287 (2011)
Wang, T., Guo, H.: Existence and nonexistence of nodal solutions for Choquard type equations with perturbation. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 480, 123438 (2019)
Wang, J., Tian, L., Xu, J., Zhang, F.: Multiplicity and concentration of positive solutions for a Kirchhoff type problem with critical growth. J. Differ. Equ. 253, 2314–2351 (2012)
Xu, L., Chen, H.: Sign-changing solutions to Schrödinger-Kirchhoff-type equations with critical exponent. Adv. Differ. Equ. 121, 1–14 (2016)
Zhang, J., Zou, W.: Multiplicity and concentration behavior of solutions to the critical Kirchhoff-type problem. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 68, 1–27 (2017)
Acknowledgements
The research has been supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China 11971392, Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing, China cstc2021ycjh-bgzxm0115, and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities XDJK2020B047.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, W., Zhou, T. Nodal solutions for Kirchhoff equations with Choquard nonlinearity. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 24, 17 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11784-022-00930-3
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11784-022-00930-3