Abstract
Existence of nodal (i.e., sign changing) solutions and constant-sign solutions for quasilinear elliptic equations involving convection–absorption terms are presented. A location principle for nodal solutions is obtained by means of constant-sign solutions whose existence is also derived. The proof is chiefly based on sub-supersolutions technique together with monotone operator theory.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Let \(\Omega \) be a bounded domain in \({\mathbb {R}}^{N}\) (\(N\ge 2)\) having a smooth boundary \(\partial \Omega .\) Given \(1<p<N\), we consider the Neumann quasilinear elliptic problem with general gradient dependence
where \(f:\Omega \times {\mathbb {R}}\times {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) is a Carathéodory function, \(\delta >0\) is a small parameter, \(\eta \) is the unit outer normal to \(\partial \Omega \) while \(\Delta _{p}\) denotes the p-Laplace operator, namely \(\Delta _{p}:=\textrm{div}(|\nabla u|^{p-2}\nabla u)\), \(\forall \,u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega ).\)
We say that \(u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) is a (weak) solution of \(\left( \textrm{P }\right) \) provided \(u+\delta >0\) a.e. in \(\Omega ,\) \(\frac{|\nabla u|^{p}}{ u+\delta }\in L^{1}(\Omega )\) and
for all \(\varphi \in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\cap L^{\infty }(\Omega )\). The requirement of \(\varphi \) to be bounded is necessary since \(\frac{|\nabla u|^{p}}{u+\delta }\) is only in \(L^{1}(\Omega )\).
Problem \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) brings together a lower-order term with natural growth with respect to the gradient \(\frac{|\nabla u|^{p}}{u+\delta },\) called absorption, as well as a reaction–convection term \(f(x,u,\nabla u)\). Both depend on the solution and its gradient. The absorption describes a natural polynomial growth in the \(\nabla u\)-variable while the convection outlines a p-sublinear one (cf. Sect. 3). Note that the absorption term dominates the diffusion operator by its growth at infinity.
Absorption and/or reaction–convection terms appear in various nonlinear processes that occur in engineering and natural systems. In biology, they arise in heat transfer of gas and liquid flow in plants and animals while in geology, they are involved in thermoconvective motion of magmas and during volcanic eruptions. They also appear in chemical processes such as in catalytic and noncatalytic reactions, in exothermic and endothermic reacting, as well as in global climate energy balance models [17, 20]. Moreover, convective–absorption problem \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) can be associated with different class of nonlinear equations including nonlinear Fokker–Planck equations and multidimensional formulation of generalized viscous Burgers’ equations. These equations are involved in diverse physical phenomenon such as plasma physics, astrophysics, physics of polymer fluids and particle beams, nonlinear hydrodynamics and neurophysics [19]. We also mention that problems like \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) arise in stochastic control theory and have been first studied in [26]. The study of Dirichlet problems involving absorption term has raised considerable interest in recent years and has been the subject of substantial number of papers that it is impossible to quote all of them. A significant part are carried on semilinear problems with quadratic growth (i.e., \(p=2\)). Among them, we quote [5, 13, 14, 24, 35] and the references therein. For quasilinear Dirichlet problems we refer, for instance, to [2, 15, 18, 36, 39, 40]. Surprisingly enough, so far we were not able to find previous results dealing with Neumann boundary conditions. This case is considered only when the absorption term is canceled, see [21, 38]. We also mention [3, 4, 8, 9, 16, 22, 37] where convective problem \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) (without absorption) subjected to Dirichlet boundary conditions is examined.
Problem \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) exhibits interesting features resulting from the interaction between absorption and reaction–convection terms. Their involvement in \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) gives rise to nontrivial difficulties such as the loss of variational structure thereby making it impossible applying variational methods. Obviously, the mere fact of their presence impacts substantially the structure of \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) as well as the nature of its solutions which, in some cases, leads to surprising situations, especially from a mathematical point of view. For instance, in [1, 36], it is shown that the absorption term regularizes solutions and it is sufficient to break down any resonant effect of the reaction term. In [7], it is established that a problem admits nontrivial weak solutions only under the effect of absorption. Otherwise, zero is the only solution for the problem.
In the present paper, we provide at least two nontrivial solutions for problem \((\textrm{P})\) with precise sign properties: one is nodal (i.e., sign changing) and the other is positive. According to our knowledge, this topic is a novelty. The study of the existence of nodal solutions has never been discussed for convection–absorption problems, just as the latter have never been handled under Neumann boundary conditions.
The multiplicity result is achieved in part through a location principle of nodal solutions which, in particular, helps distinguish between solutions of \((\textrm{P})\). However, this principle constitutes in itself a crucial part of our work since the multiplicity result depends on it. Indeed, under assumption \((\mathrm {H.}2)\) (cf. Sect. 3), if \(f(x,0,0)\ge 0\) a.e. in \(\Omega \), it is shown that every nodal solution of problem \((\textrm{P})\) should be bounded above by a positive solution. In particular, this provides the powerful fact that the existence of a nodal solution implies under the stated hypotheses that a positive solution must exists. In other words, nodal solutions generate positive solutions which is an unusual fact since generally, it is rather the opposite implication occurs (see [12, 32, 33]). This phenomenon happens also in the opposite unilateral sens: if \( f(x,0,0)\le 0\) a.e. in \(\Omega \), every nodal solution of problem \((\textrm{ P})\) should be bounded below by a negative solution. However, if \(f(x,0,0)=0\) a.e. in \(\Omega \), the both cases above are satisfied simultaneously and hence, every nodal solution to problem \((\textrm{P})\) is between two opposite constant-sign solutions.
The location principle of nodal solutions is stated in Theorem 7. The proof is chiefly based on Theorem 5, shown in Sect. 2 via monotone operator theory together with perturbation argument and adequate truncation. Theorem 5 is a version of sub-supersolutions result for quasilinear convective elliptic problems involving natural growth. It can be applied for large classes of Neumann elliptic problems since no sign condition on the nonlinearities is required and no specific structure is imposed. However, it is worth noting that due to the effect of the presence of absorption term, stretching out monotone operators theory’s scope to convection–absorption problems is not a straightforward task. This requires, on the one hand, truncation in order to stay inside the rectangle formed by sub-supersolution pair and, on the other hand, perturbation (regularization), by introducing a parameter \(\varepsilon >0\) in \((\textrm{P} )\), necessary to have a minimal control on the absorption term.
Another significant feature of our result lies in obtaining nodal solutions for problem \((\textrm{P})\). Taking advantage of Theorem 5, we construct a sign-changing sub-supersolution pair \(({\underline{u}},{\overline{u}} ) \) for problem \((\textrm{P})\) which inevitably leads to a nodal solution \( u_{0}\) for \((\textrm{P})\). The choice of suitable functions with an adjustment of adequate constants closely dependent on the small parameter \( \delta >0\) is crucial. By construction, the subsolution \({\underline{u}}\) is positive inside the domain \(\Omega \) while the supersolution \({\overline{u}}\) is negative near the boundary \(\partial \Omega \). Therefore, the solution \( u_{0}\) of \((\textrm{P}),\) being naturally imbued with these properties, is positive inside \(\Omega \) and negative once \(d(x)\rightarrow 0\). We emphasize that, without the implication of the absorption term, it would not have been possible to get nodal solutions for problem \((\textrm{P}),\) at least with the techniques developed in this work.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 contains the existence theorem involving sub-supersolutions. Section 3 focuses on a location principle of nodal solutions. Section 4 deals with the multiplicity result.
2 A Sub-supersolution Theorem
Let \((X,\Vert \cdot \Vert )\) be a real Banach space and let \(X^{*}\) be its topological dual, with duality bracket \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \). An operator \({\mathcal {A}}:X\rightarrow X^{*}\) is said to be:
-
bounded if it maps bounded sets into bounded sets.
-
coercive provided \(\displaystyle {\lim _{\Vert x\Vert \rightarrow +\infty }}\frac{\langle {\mathcal {A}}(x),x\rangle }{\Vert x\Vert }=+\infty \).
-
pseudomonotone if \(x_{n}\rightharpoonup x\) in X and \( \displaystyle {\limsup _{n\rightarrow +\infty }}\langle {\mathcal {A}} (x_{n}),x_{n}-x\rangle \le 0\) force \(\displaystyle {\liminf _{n\rightarrow +\infty }}\langle {\mathcal {A}}(x_{n}),x_{n}-z\rangle \ge \langle {\mathcal {A}}(x),x-z\rangle \) for all \(z\in X\).
Recall (see, e.g., [11, Theorem 2.99]) that
Theorem 1
If X is reflexive and \({\mathcal {A}}:X\rightarrow X^{*}\) is bounded, coercive, and pseudomonotone then \({\mathcal {A}}(X)=X^{*}\).
In the sequel, the Banach space \(W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) is equipped with the following usual norm
where, as usual,
The following assumptions will be posited.
-
(H.1)
Let \(0\le q\le p-1\). For every \(\rho >0\) there exists \(M:=M(\rho )>0\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} |f(x,s,\xi )|\le M(1+|\xi |^{q})\text { \ in }\Omega \times [-\rho ,\rho ]\times {\mathbb {R}}^{N}. \end{aligned}$$ -
(H.2)
There are \({\underline{u}},{\overline{u}}\in {\mathcal {C}}^{1}({\overline{\Omega }})\) fulfilling
$$\begin{aligned} {\overline{u}}+\delta \ge {\underline{u}}+\delta >0\text { \ a.e. in }\Omega , \end{aligned}$$(2)as well as
$$\begin{aligned} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \int _{\Omega }|\nabla {\underline{u}}|^{p-2}\nabla {\underline{u}}\,\nabla \varphi { }\textrm{d}x+\int _{\Omega }\frac{|\nabla {\underline{u}}|^{p}}{ {\underline{u}}+\delta }\varphi \,\textrm{d}x-\int _{\Omega }f(x,{\underline{u}},\nabla {\underline{u}})\varphi \,\textrm{d}x\le 0, \\ \int _{\Omega }|\nabla {\overline{u}}|^{p-2}\nabla {\overline{u}}\,\nabla \varphi \,\textrm{d}x+\int _{\Omega }\frac{|\nabla {\overline{u}}|^{p}}{{\overline{u}}+\delta } \varphi \,\textrm{d}x-\int _{\Omega }f(x,{\overline{u}},\nabla {\overline{u}})\varphi \,\textrm{d}x\ge 0, \end{array} \right. \end{aligned}$$(3)for all \(\varphi \in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\cap L^{\infty }(\Omega )\) with \( \varphi \ge 0\) in \(\Omega \).
The functions \({\underline{u}}\) and \({\overline{u}}\) in \((\mathrm {H.}2)\) are called subsolution and supersolution of problem \((\textrm{P})\), respectively.
2.1 An Auxiliary Problem
Let \({\underline{u}},{\overline{u}}\in {\mathcal {C}}^{1}(\overline{\Omega })\) be a sub-supersolutions of problem \((\textrm{P})\) as required in condition \(( \mathrm {H.}2)\). We consider the truncation operators \({\mathcal {T}}:W^{1,p}(\Omega )\rightarrow W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) defined by
Lemma 2.89 in [11] ensures that \({\mathcal {T}}\) is continuous and bounded. We introduce the cutoff function \(b:\Omega \times {\mathbb {R}}\longrightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) defined by
The function b is a Carathéodory function satisfying the growth condition
where c is a positive constant and k \(\in L^{\infty }(\Omega ).\) Moreover, it holds
with appropriate constants \(C_{1},C_{2}>0\); see, e.g., [11, pp. 95–96].
For \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\) and for \(\mu >0\) that will be selected later on, we state the auxiliary problem
We provide the existence of solutions \(u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) for problem \(( \textrm{P}_{\varepsilon ,\mu })\). The proof is chiefly based on pseudomonotone operators theorem stated in [11, Theorem 2.99].
Next lemmas furnish useful estimates related to nonlinear terms involved in \( (\textrm{P}_{\mu })\). The first estimate deals with the nonlinearity f.
Lemma 2
Under assumption \((\mathrm {H.}1)\), there exists a constant \(C_{0}>0\) such that, for all \(u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega ),\) we have
Proof
For any fixed \(\sigma \in ]0,\frac{1}{2M}[\), Young’s inequality implies
for every \(u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\). Moreover, by (4) we have
Then, using \((\mathrm {H.}1),\) (7) and the fact that \(\sigma <\frac{1 }{2\,M}\), thanks to Hölder’s inequality, we get
which completes the proof. \(\square \)
We turn to estimating the natural growth gradient term in \((\textrm{P} _{\varepsilon ,\mu })\).
Lemma 3
Assume that \((\mathrm {H.}1)\) and \((\mathrm {H.}2)\) hold. Then, for all \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\), there exists a constant \({\hat{C}}_{\varepsilon }>0\) such that for all \(u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\), it holds
Proof
By (4) note that
Then
In view of (2) we have
Hence
and
Gathering the above inequalities, we obtain
We claim that \(\Vert u\mathbbm {1}_{\{{\underline{u}}<u<{\overline{u}}\}}\Vert _{p}\) is uniformly bounded. Indeed, test in \((\textrm{P}_{\varepsilon ,\mu }) \) with \((u+\delta )\mathbbm {1}_{\{{\underline{u}}<u<{\overline{u}}\}}\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\cap L^{\infty }(\Omega )\) which is possible in view of [31, Proposition 1.61]. Here, on the basis of (5) and \((\mathrm { H.}1),\) with \(-\rho \le {\underline{u}}\le {\overline{u}}\le \rho \), for \( u\in [{\underline{u}},{\overline{u}}],\) \({\underline{u}},{\overline{u}}\in L^{\infty }(\Omega )\) (see \((\mathrm {H.}2)\)), one has
for a certain constant \(C_{\varepsilon }>0\) independent of u. Then, the regularity up to the boundary result in [27] ensures that \(u\in {\mathcal {C}}^{1,\tau }({\overline{\Omega }})\) for certain \(\tau \in (0,1).\) Therefore, [31, Proposition 1.61] applies.
Then, noting that
it follows that
Therefore, from (12), we deduce that
Exploiting (8) and \((\mathrm {H.}1)\), we get
where \({\tilde{C}}_{0}:=C(1+\rho |\Omega |^{\frac{1}{p}}+\rho ^{p}|\Omega |)+\delta M\). Combining with (13) and since \(q<p\), we conclude that there is a constant \({\tilde{C}}>0,\) independent of u, such that
This proves the claim.
Consequently, in view of (10) and (14), we infer that there exists a constant \({\hat{C}}_{\varepsilon }>0\), independent of u, such that ( 9) holds true. This ends the proof. \(\square \)
The existence result for problem \((\textrm{P}_{\varepsilon ,\mu })\) is formulated as follows.
Theorem 4
Suppose \((\mathrm {H.}1)\)–\((\mathrm {H.}2)\) hold true. Then, problem \((\textrm{P}_{\mu ,\varepsilon })\) possesses a weak solution \(u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\), for \(\mu >0\) sufficiently large, and for all \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\).
Proof
By (5), the Nemytskii operator \({\mathcal {B}}\) given by \({\mathcal {B}} u(x)=b(\cdot ,u)\) is well defined and \({\mathcal {B}}:W^{1,p}(\Omega )\longrightarrow W^{-1,p^{\prime }}(\Omega )\) is continuous and bounded. By the compact embedding \(W^{1,p}(\Omega )\hookrightarrow L^{p}(\Omega )\), \( {\mathcal {B}}\) is completely continuous.
Considering (2), define the function \(\pi _{\delta ,\varepsilon }:(-\delta ,+\infty )\times {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\longrightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) by
which satisfies the estimate
Let \(\Pi _{\delta ,\varepsilon }:[{\underline{u}},{\overline{u}}]\subset W^{1,p}(\Omega )\longrightarrow L^{1}(\Omega )\subset W^{-1,p^{\prime }}(\Omega )\) denote the corresponding Nemytskii operator, that is \(\Pi _{\delta ,\varepsilon }u(x)=\pi _{\delta ,\varepsilon }(u(x),\nabla u(x)),\) which is bounded and continuous (see [31, Theorem 2.76] and [23, Theorem 3.4.4]). Moreover, \(\Pi _{\delta ,\varepsilon }\) is completely continuous due to the compact embedding of \(W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) into \( L^{p}(\Omega )\).
In view of \((\mathrm {H.}1),\) if \(\rho >0\) satisfies
the Nemitskii operator \({\mathcal {N}}_{f}:[{\underline{u}},{\overline{u}}]\subset W^{1,p}(\Omega )\rightarrow W^{-1,p^{\prime }}(\Omega )\) generated by the Carathéodory function f is bounded and completely continuous thanks to Rellich–Kondrachov compactness embedding theorem.
At this point, problem \((\textrm{P}_{\mu ,\varepsilon })\) can be equivalently expressed as
By \((\mathrm {H.}1),\) it is readily seen that the operator \({\mathcal {A}}_{\mu ,\varepsilon }:W^{1,p}(\Omega )\rightarrow W^{-1,p^{\prime }}(\Omega )\) is well defined, bounded, and continuous.
Let us show that \({\mathcal {A}}_{\mu ,\varepsilon }\) is coercive. From (16), we have
Bearing in mind (6) as well as the estimates in Lemmas 2 and 3, we thus arrive at
In view of (14) and for \(\mu >0\) large so that \(\mu C_{1}-C_{0}>0,\) for every sequence \((u_{n})_{n}\) in \(W^{1,p}(\Omega )\), the last inequality forces
as desired.
The next step is to show that the operator \({\mathcal {A}}_{\mu }\) is pseudomonotone. Toward this, suppose \(u_{n}\rightharpoonup u\) in \( W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) and
In view of the complete continuity of the operators \({\mathcal {B}}\), \(\Pi _{\delta ,\varepsilon }\) and \({\mathcal {N}}_{f}\), we get
Then, using the \((\textrm{S})_{+}\)-property of \(-\Delta _{p}\), we deduce that \(u_{n}\rightarrow u\) in \(W^{1,p}(\Omega ).\) Therefore,
for all \(v\in W^{1,p}(\Omega ),\) because \({\mathcal {A}}_{\mu ,\varepsilon }\) is continuous. This proves that the operator \({\mathcal {A}}_{\mu ,\varepsilon } \) is pseudomonotone.
According to the properties above, we are in a position to apply the main theorem for pseudomonotone operators [11, Theorem 2.99] to the operator \({\mathcal {A}}_{\mu ,\varepsilon }\). It entails the existence of \( u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) fulfilling
Owing to [10, Theorem 3], one has
Thus, \(u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) is a weak solution of \((\textrm{P}_{\mu ,\varepsilon })\). This ends the proof. \(\square \)
2.2 A Sub-supersolution Theorem
Theorem 5
Suppose \((\mathrm {H.}1)\)–\((\mathrm {H.}2)\) hold true. Then, problem \((\textrm{P})\) possesses a solution \(u\in {\mathcal {C}}^{1}(\overline{ \Omega })\) such that
Proof
According to Theorem 4, problem \((\textrm{P}_{\mu ,\varepsilon })\) admits a weak solution u in \(W^{1,p}(\Omega ).\) Let us next verifythat u satisfy the inequalities (18). We provide the argument only for \( u\le {\overline{u}}\) because \({\underline{u}}\le u\) can be similarly established. First, note from Lemma 3 that \(\frac{|\nabla ({\mathcal {T}} u)|^{p}}{{\mathcal {T}}u+\delta +\varepsilon }(u-{\overline{u}})_{+}\in L^{1}(\Omega )\). Thus, test \((\textrm{P}_{\mu ,\varepsilon })\) with \((u- {\overline{u}})_{+}\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) and taking \((\mathrm {H.}2)\) into account, we achieve
By (4) note that
Then, it turns out that
The monotonicity of \(\Delta _{p}\) directly leads to \(u\le {\overline{u}}\). Test \((\textrm{P}_{\mu ,\varepsilon })\) with \(({\underline{u}}-u)_{+}\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\), a quite similar reasoning furnishes \({\underline{u}}\le u\). Moreover, by [34, Remark 8], one has \(u\in {\mathcal {C}}^{1,\tau }( {\overline{\Omega }})\) for some \(\tau \in ]0,1[\) as well as \(\frac{\partial u}{ \partial \eta }=0\) on \(\partial \Omega \). Consequently, u is a solution of \((\textrm{P}_{\varepsilon ,\mu })\) within \([{\underline{u}},{\overline{u}}]\) which, due to (11), reads as
The task is now to find solutions of \((\textrm{P})\) by passing to the limit in \((\textrm{P}_{\varepsilon })\) as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\). To this end, set \(\varepsilon =\frac{1}{n}\) with any positive integer \(n\ge 1\), there exists \(u_{n}:=u_{\frac{1}{n}}\in {\mathcal {C}}^{1,\tau }({\overline{\Omega }})\) solution of \((\textrm{P}_{n})\) (\((\textrm{P}_{\varepsilon })\) with \(\varepsilon =\frac{1}{n}\)), that is,
and
for all \(\varphi \in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\cap L^{\infty }(\Omega )\). Since the embedding \({\mathcal {C}}^{1,\tau }(\overline{\Omega })\subset {\mathcal {C}}^{1}( {\overline{\Omega }})\) is compact, we can extract subsequences (still denoted by \(\{u_{n}\}\)) such that
Therefore,
and
because f is a Carathéodory function. Then, on the basis of (20) and (2), owing to Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, we may pass to the limit as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) in (21) to get
for all \(\varphi \in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\cap L^{\infty }(\Omega )\). Moreover, according to (22), we have \(u+\delta >0\) a.e. in \(\Omega \). This proves that \(u\in {\mathcal {C}}^{1}(\overline{\Omega })\) is a solution of problem \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) within \([{\underline{u}},{\overline{u}}]\). The proof is now completed. \(\square \)
3 Location Principle for Nodal Solutions
It this section, we focus on the location of nodal solutions for problem \( \left( \textrm{P}\right) \). We will posit the hypothesis below.
-
(H.3)
There exist \(\alpha ,\beta ,M>0\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} \max \{\alpha ,\beta \}<p-1 \end{aligned}$$and, moreover,
$$\begin{aligned} |f(x,s,\xi )|\le M(1+|s|^{\alpha }+|\xi |^{\beta })\text {,} \end{aligned}$$for all \((x,s,\xi )\in \Omega \times {\mathbb {R}} \times {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\).
Lemma 6
Assume \((\textrm{H}.2)\) and \((\textrm{H}.3)\) are fulfilled.
-
(i)
If \({\overline{u}}_{1},{\overline{u}}_{2}\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\cap L^{\infty }(\Omega )\) are supersolutions for problem \( \left( \textrm{P}\right) \), then \({\overline{u}}=\min \{{\overline{u}}_{1}, {\overline{u}}_{2}\}\) is also a supersolution for problem \(\left( \textrm{P} \right) \).
-
(ii)
If \({\underline{u}}_{1},{\underline{u}}_{2}\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\cap L^{\infty }(\Omega )\) are subsolutions for problem \( \left( \textrm{P}\right) \), then \({\underline{u}}=\max \{{\underline{u}}_{1}, {\underline{u}}_{2}\}\) is also a subsolution for problem \(\left( \textrm{P} \right) \).
Proof
We provide the argument only for part \(\mathrm {(}i\mathrm {)}\) because \( \mathrm {(}ii\mathrm {)}\) can be similarly established. Inspired by [11, Theorem 3.20], [9, Lemma 1] and the proof of [29, Lemma 3], for a fixed \(\varepsilon >0,\) let us define the truncation function \( \xi _{\varepsilon }(s)=\max \{-\varepsilon ,\min \{s,\varepsilon \}\}\) for \( s\in {\mathbb {R}}.\) It is shown in [28] that \(\xi _{\varepsilon }(({\overline{u}}_{1}- {\overline{u}}_{2})^{-})\in W^{1,p}(\Omega ),\)
For any test function \(\varphi \in C_{c}^{1}(\Omega )\) with \(\varphi \ge 0,\) it holds
and
On the other hand, using the monotonicity of the p-Laplacian operator, we get
Then, gathering (23) together with (24), by means of (25), one gets
Passing to the limit as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\) and noticing that
we obtain
for all \(\varphi \in C_{c}^{1}(\Omega ),\) \(\varphi \ge 0\) a.e. in \(\Omega \). Since \(C_{c}^{1}(\Omega )\) is dense in \(W^{1,p}(\Omega ),\) we achieve the desired conclusion. \(\square \)
We set \(r_{\pm }:=\max \{\pm r,0\}\) and so \(w_{+}\) and \(w_{-}\) denote the positive and the negative part of a function w, respectively (that is, \(w=w_{+}-w_{-}\)). Inspired by [30], next we set forth a result addressing location of solutions and a priori estimates for problem \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \).
Theorem 7
Assume that condition \((\textrm{H}.2){-}(\textrm{H}.3)\) are fulfilled.
-
(i)
If \(f(x,0,0)\ge 0\) for a.e. \(x\in \Omega \), then for every nodal solution \(u_{0}\in [{\underline{u}},{\overline{u}}]\) of problem \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) there exists a nontrivial solution \( u_{+}\) of \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) such that \(u_{0}\le u_{+}\le {\overline{u}}_{+}\) and \(u_{+}\ge 0\) on \(\Omega \).
-
(ii)
If \(f(x,0,0)\le 0\) for a.e. \(x\in \Omega \), then for every nodal solution \(u_{0}\in [{\underline{u}},{\overline{u}}]\) of problem \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) there exists a nontrivial solution \( u_{-}\) of \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) such that \(u_{0}\ge u_{-}\ge {\overline{u}}_{-}\) and \(u_{-}\le 0\) on \(\Omega \).
-
(iii)
If \(f(x,0,0)=0\) for a.e. \(x\in \Omega \), then for every nodal solution \(u_{0}\in [{\underline{u}},{\overline{u}}]\) of problem \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) there exist two other nontrivial solutions \(u_{+}\) and \(u_{-}\) of \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) such that \( u_{-}\le u_{0}\le u_{+}\), \(u_{+}\ge 0\) and \(u_{-}\le 0\) on \(\Omega \).
Proof
(i) Let \(u_{0}\) be a nodal solution of problem \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) within \([{\underline{u}},{\overline{u}}]\). The assumption \( f(x,0,0)\ge 0\) for a.e. \(x\in \Omega \) ensures that 0 is a subsolution of problem \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \). By Lemma 6, part \(\mathrm {(} i\mathrm {),}\) we infer that \(u_{0,+}:=\max \{0,u_{0}\}\ \)is a subsolution of problem \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) which obviously satisfies \(u_{0,+}\le {\overline{u}}_{+}\), with \({\overline{u}}_{+}:=\max \{0,{\overline{u}}\}\). So, in view of Theorem 5, there exists a solution \(u_{+}\in {\mathcal {C}}^{1}( {\overline{\Omega }})\) of \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) within \([u_{0,+}, {\overline{u}}_{+}]\). Since the solution \(u_{0}\) of \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) is nodal, its positive part \(u_{0,+}\) is strictly positive on a subset of \( \Omega \) of positive measure. Hence, \(u_{+}\) is positive.
(ii) Let \(u_{0}\) be a nodal solution of problem \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) within \([{\underline{u}},{\overline{u}}]\). The assumption \( f(x,0,0)\le 0\) for a.e. \(x\in \Omega \) ensures that 0 is a supersolution of problem \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \). By Lemma 6, part \( \mathrm {(}ii\mathrm {)}\), we infer that \(u_{0,-}:=\min \{0,u_{0}\}\ \)is a supersolution of problem \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) which clearly satisfies \(u_{0,-}\ge {\overline{u}}_{-}\), with \({\overline{u}}_{-}:=\min \{0,{\overline{u}} \}\). Then, Theorem 5 implies that there exits a solution \(u_{-}\in {\mathcal {C}}^{1}({\overline{\Omega }})\) of \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) within \( [ {\overline{u}}_{-},u_{0,-}]\). Recalling that the solution \(u_{0}\) of \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) is nodal, its negative part \(u_{0,-}\) is strictly negative on a subset of \(\Omega \) of positive measure. Therefore, \(u_{-}\le 0\) and \(u_{-}\ne 0\).
(iii) If \(f(x,0,0)=0\) for a.e. \(x\in \Omega \), then the assertions (i) and (ii) can be applied simultaneously, giving rise to two nontrivial opposite constant-sign solutions \(u_{+}\) and \(u_{-}\) of problem \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) with the properties required in the statement. \(\square \)
4 Nodal Solutions
In this section, beside \((\textrm{H}_{1}),\) we will posit the hypothesis below.
-
(H.4)
With appropriate \(m>0\) one has
$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{|s|\rightarrow 0}\inf \{f(x,s,\xi ):\xi \in {\mathbb {R}}^{N}\}>m\text {,} \end{aligned}$$uniformly in \(x\in \Omega \).
Our first goal is to construct sub-and-supersolution pairs of \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \). With this aim, consider the homogeneous Dirichlet problem
which admits a unique solution \(z\in {\mathcal {C}}^{1,\tau }({\overline{\Omega }} )\) satisfying
for certain constant \(c>1\).
Now, given \(0<\delta <\textrm{diam}(\Omega )\), denote by \(z_{\delta }\in {\mathcal {C}}^{1,\tau }({\overline{\Omega }})\) the solution of the Dirichlet problem
where \(\Omega _{\delta }:=\left\{ x\in \Omega :d(x)<\delta \right\} \) with \(\delta >0\) sufficiently small.
Existence and uniqueness directly stem from Minty–Browder’s Theorem [6] while \({\mathcal {C}}^{1,\tau }({\overline{\Omega }})\) regularity follows from Lieberman’s regularity Theorem [27]. Moreover, the weak comparison principle implies that
while, for \(\delta >0\) small enough, it holds
(see [25]).
Define
where
and
From (32), (27), (30) and (28), it follows
with \({\hat{L}}:={\overline{\omega }}L^{{\overline{\omega }}}\). Moreover,
because z, \(z_{\delta }\) solve (26), (29), respectively, and \( \omega ,{\overline{\omega }}>1\).
We claim that \({\underline{u}}\le {\overline{u}}\) with a small \(\delta >0\). Indeed, since \(\omega >{\overline{\omega }}\) and \(z_{\delta }\le z\) for all \( \delta <\textrm{diam}(\Omega ),\) it follows that
provided that \(\delta >0\) is small. Thus, \({\underline{u}}\le {\overline{u}}\) in \(\Omega \), as desired.
Theorem 8
Let \((\mathrm {H.}3)\)–\((\mathrm {H.}4)\) be satisfied. Then, for \(\delta >0\) small enough in (32), problem \( \left( \textrm{P}\right) \) admits a nodal solution \(u_{0}\in {\mathcal {C}}^{1}( {\overline{\Omega }})\) within \([{\underline{u}},{\overline{u}}]\) such that \(u_{0}(x)\) is negative once \(d(x)\rightarrow 0\). Furthermore, there exists a positive solution \(u_{+}\in {\mathcal {C}}^{1}({\overline{\Omega }} )\) of \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) with \(u_{+}(x)\) is zero once \( d(x)\rightarrow 0\).
Proof
Let us show that the function \({\overline{u}}\) given by (32) satisfies (3). With this aim, pick \(u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) such that \(-{\overline{u}}\le u\le {\overline{u}}\). From \((\mathrm {H.}3),\) (35), it follows
for some constant \(C>0\) and for \(\delta >0\) sufficiently small. A direct computation gives
Thus, after decreasing \(\delta \) if necessary, we achieve
because of (34). Thus, (37)–(39) yield
Let now \(x\in {\Omega }_{\delta }\). From (28) and (33), one can find a constant \({\bar{\mu }}>0\) such that
for \(\delta >0\) small enough, that is
Summing up,
Finally, test with \(\varphi \in W_{b}^{1,p}(\Omega ),\) \(\varphi \ge 0\) a.e. in \(\Omega \), and recall (36) to get
as desired. Here, \(\gamma _{0}\) is the trace operator on \(\partial \Omega \),
while \(\left\langle \cdot ,\cdot \right\rangle _{\partial \Omega }\) denotes the duality brackets for the pair
Next, we show that the function \({\underline{u}}\) in (32) satisfies ( 3). In \(\Omega \backslash {\overline{\Omega }}_{\delta }\), a direct computation gives
while in \(\Omega _{\delta },\) we get
Thus, by (32) and due to (33), we have
Hence, on account of (30), (27) and for an appropriate constant m in \((\mathrm {H.}4)\) chosen so that
we get
Finally, test (41) with \(\varphi \in W_{b}^{1,p}(\Omega ),\) \(\varphi \ge 0\) a.e. in \(\Omega ,\) and recall (36), besides Green’s formula [10], to arrive at
because \(\gamma _{0}(\varphi )\ge 0\) whatever \(\varphi \in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\), \(\varphi \ge 0\) a.e. in \(\Omega \) (see [11, p. 35]).
Therefore, \({\underline{u}}\) and \({\overline{u}}\) satisfy assumption \((\mathrm { H. }2)\), whence Theorem 7 can be applied, and there exists a solution \(u_{0}\in {\mathcal {C}}^{1,\tau }({\overline{\Omega }}),\) \(\tau \in ]0,1[,\) of problem \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) such that
Moreover, \(u_{0}\) is nodal. In fact, through (32) and (28) we obtain
which actually means
Again, by (32)–(28) together with (31), it follows that
which implies that
On account of (42)–(44), the conclusion follows.
On the other hand, on the basis of \((\mathrm {H.}4)\) and bearing in mind Theorem 7, there exists a nontrivial solution \(u_{+}\) of \(\left( \textrm{P}\right) \) such that \(u_{0}\le u_{+}\le {\overline{u}}_{+}\) and \( u_{+}\ge 0\) on \(\Omega \). In view of (32), \({\overline{u}}_{+}=0\) once \( d(x)\rightarrow 0\) and so \(u_{+}\) vanishes as \(d(x)\rightarrow 0\). This completes the proof. \(\square \)
Data Availability Statement
No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
References
Abdellaoui, B., Peral, I., Primo, A.: Breaking of resonance and regularizing effect of a first order quasi-linear term in some elliptic equations. Ann. I. H. Poincar-AN 25, 969–985 (2008)
Abdellaoui, B., Boccardo, L., Peral, I., Primo, A.: Quasilinear elliptic equations with natural growth. Diff. Integral Equ. 20(9), 1005–1020 (2007)
Alves, C.O., Moussaoui, A.: Existence of solutions for a class of singular elliptic systems with convection term. Asymptot. Anal. 90, 237–248 (2014)
Alves, C.O., Carrião, P.C., Faria, L.F.O.: Existence of solutions to singular elliptic equations with convection terms via the Galerkin method. Electron. J. Differ. Equ. 12, 1–12 (2010)
Arcoya, D., Carmona, J., Martínez-Aparicio, P.J.: Gelfand type quasilinear elliptic problems with quadratic gradient. Ann. I. H. Poincaré-AN 31, 249–265 (2014)
Brezis, H.: Analyse Fonctionnelle Theorie et Applications. Masson, Paris (1983)
Boccardo, L., Gallouët, T.: Strongly nonlinear elliptic equations having natural growth terms and \({L}^{{1}}\) data. Nonlinear Anal. 19, 573–579 (1992)
Bueno, H., Ercole, G.: A quasilinear problem with fast growing gradient. Appl. Math. Lett. 26, 520–523 (2013)
Candito, P., Livrea, R., Moussaoui, A.: Singular quasilinear elliptic systems involving gradient terms. Nonl. Anal. Real World Appl. 55, 103142 (2020)
Casas, E., Fernandez, L.A.: A Green’s formula for quasilinear elliptic operators. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 142, 62–73 (1989)
Carl, S., Le, V.K., Motreanu, D.: Nonsmooth Variational Problems and Their Inequalities. Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer, New York (2007)
Carl, S., Motreanu, D.: Constant-sign and sign-changing solutions for nonlinear eigenvalue problems. Nonlinear Anal. 68, 2668–2676 (2008)
Carmona, J., Martínez-Aparicio, P.J., Suárez, A.: Existence and nonexistence of positive solutions for nonlinear elliptic singular equations with natural growth. Nonlinear Anal. 89, 157–169 (2013)
Carmona, J., Leonori, T., López-Martínez, S., Martínez-Aparicio, P.J.: Quasilinear elliptic problems with singular and homogeneous lower order terms. Nonlinear Anal. 179, 105–30 (2019)
de Figueiredo, D.G., Gossez, J.P., Quoirin, H.R., Ubilla, P.: Elliptic equations involving the p-Laplacian and a gradient term having natural growth. Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 35(1), 173–194 (2019)
Dellouche, H., Moussaoui, A.: Singular quasilinear elliptic systems with gradient dependence. Positivity 26, 1–14 (2022)
Diaz, J.I., Tello, L.: On a climate model with a dynamic nonlinear diffusive boundary condition. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S 1(2), 253–262 (2008)
El-Hadi Miri, S.: Quasilinear elliptic problems with general growth and nonlinear term having singular behavior. Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 12, 19–48 (2012)
Frank, T.D.: Nonlinear Fokker–Planck Equations Fundamentals and Applications. Springer, Berlin (2005)
Kaviany, M.: Principles of Convective Heat Transfer. Springer, New York (2001)
Guarnatto, U., Marano, S.A.: Infinitely many solutions to singular convective Neumann systems with arbitrarily growing reactions. J. Differ. Equ. 271, 849–863 (2021)
Guarnotta, U., Marano, S.A., Moussaoui, A.: Singular quasilinear convective elliptic systems in \({\mathbb{R} }^{N}\). Adv. Nonlinear Anal. 11, 741–756 (2022)
Gasinski, L., Papageorgiou, N.S.: Nonlinear Analysis. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (2006)
Giachetti, D., Petitta, F.: Elliptic equations having a singular quadratic gradient term and a changing sign datum. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. (5) 11, 1875–1895 (2012)
Hai, D.D.: On a class of singular p-Laplacian boundary value problems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 383, 619–626 (2011)
Lasry, J.M., Lions, P.L.: Nonlinear elliptic equations with singular boundary conditions and stochastic control with state constraints; the model problem. Math. Ann. 283, 583–630 (1989)
Lieberman, G.M.: Boundary regularity for solutions of degenerate elliptic equations. Nonlinear Anal. 12, 1203–1219 (1988)
Marcus, M., Mizel, V.J.: Absolute continuity on tracks and mappings of Sobolev spaces. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 45, 294–320 (1972)
Motreanu, D., Motreanu, V.V., Papageorgiou, N.S.: A unified approach for multiple constant sign and nodal solutions. Adv. Differ. Equ. 12, 1363–1392 (2007)
Motreanu, D., Motreanu, V., Moussaoui, A.: Location of nodal solutions for quasilinear elliptic equations with gradient dependence. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S 11(2), 293–307 (2018)
Motreanu, D., Motreanu, V.V., Papageorgiou, N.: Topological and Variational methods with applications to Nonlinear Boundary Value Problems. Springer, New York (2014)
Motreanu, D.: Three solutions with precise sign properties for systems of quasilinear elliptic equations. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S 4(5), 831–843 (2012)
Motreanu, D., Papageorgiou, N.: Multiple solutions for nonlinear Neumann problems driven by a nonhomogeneous differential operator. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 139(10), 3527–3535 (2011)
Myajima, S., Motreanu, D., Tanaka, M.: Multiple existence results of solutions for the Neumann problems via super-and sub-solutions. J. Funct. Anal. 262, 1921–1953 (2012)
Orsina, L., Puel, J.P.: Positive solutions for a class of nonlinear elliptic problems involving quasilinear and semilinear terms. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 26, 1665–689 (2001)
Perrotta, A., Primo, A.: Regularizing effect of a gradient term in problem involving the p-Laplacian operator. Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 11, 221–231 (2011)
Motreanu, D., Moussaoui, A., Zhang, Z.: Positive solutions for singular elliptic systems with convection term. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 19(3), 2165–2175 (2017)
Presoto, A.E., de Paiva, F.O.: A Neumann problem of Ambrosetti–Prodi type. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 18, 189–200 (2016)
Ri, M., Huang, S., Tian, Q., Ma, Z.P.: Existence of \( W_{0}^{1,1}(\Omega )\) solutions to nonlinear elliptic equation with singular natural growth term. AIMS Math. 5(6), 5791–5800 (2020)
Wang, Y., Wang, M.: Solutions to nonlinear elliptic equations with a gradient. Acta Math. Sci. 35B(5), 1023–1036 (2015)
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The authors contributed equally to this work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Communicated by Rosihan M. Ali.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Moussaoui, A., Saoudi, K. Existence and Location of Nodal Solutions for Quasilinear Convection–Absorption Neumann Problems. Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. 47, 74 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40840-024-01669-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40840-024-01669-5
Keywords
- Natural growth
- Convection–absorption problem
- Perturbation
- Sub-supersolutions
- Neumann boundary conditions
- Monotone operator theory