Submitted:
04 November 2023
Posted:
06 November 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
We establish a new Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality characterized by radial symmetry and involving potentials exhibiting pure power polynomial behaviour. As an application of our result, we investigate the existence of extremals for this inequality, which also correspond to stationary solutions for the nonlinear Schrödinger equation with inhomogeneous nonlinearity, competing with Hs-subcritical nonlinearities, either of local or non-local nature.
Keywords:
Fractional Laplacian
; radially symmetric potential
; non-homogeneous potential
; Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality
; non-local noninearity
MSC: 30L15; 35A23; 35R11; 46B50; 46E35
1. Introduction
Consider the Cauchy problem associated to the fractional NLS, posed on with :
here and are nonlinear parameters, the fractional Laplacian is defined, via Fourier transform, by , provided , , is an initial data assumed to be in some function space and denotes a general nonlinearity. The stationary points of the above evolution equation satisfy the following non-linear fractional Laplacian equation.
We consider the nonlinearities of type
and
A substantial body of literature exists regarding the radial symmetry of solutions to elliptic equations of type (2), with the research tradition dating back to the seminal work [4]. As a result, it is not feasible to provide an exhaustive list of works in this context. We concentrate our attention on [3,7] and [14], addressing the references therein for a comprehensive overview of the topics. In [3], it is investigated the phenomenon of symmetry breaking for (2) with nonlinearity of type (3) and compact embedding theorems for Sobolev-type spaces involving radial functions with polynomial-weight are established. In [7] is demonstrated the existence of radial ground states of (2) in the case (3) with and . Finally in [14], a set of embeddings for the fractional space in the presence of a radial potential is proved by using Lions-type theorems using a refined Sobolev inequality with the Morrey norm. Subsequently, they utilize the results obtained to inspect the existence of ground state solutions for (2) in the case (3) with and . Motivated by that, we generalize the above outcomes extending the range of the parameters and s associated to the corresponding embeddings for function spaces. In addition, we improve the Gagliardo-Nirenberg type inequalities with symmetry related to (2), generalizing them to the non-local frame and, as a direct consequence, we shed lights on the extremals of the corresponding minimization problems (see various Remarks 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 4.1 and 6.1 for a complete overview of the details). Before stating our main results, we introduce some notations. We say that a function u is rapidly decreasing, that is with
for all multi-indices . The Sobolev space is the space of tempered distributions with Fourier transform endowed with the norm
We recall also that the fractional Laplacian, for , can be defined by
with a normalization constant (see [1,10] and [11]). Thus, in this regime, we have
We denote by the weighted Lebesgue space with the norm as
Moreover, we introduce also
with the norm
In addition, let be the set of radial functions in We start with the following
Theorem 1.1
(Continuous Embedding I). Let and and . Then we have that
with
or
where
and
In addition,
Theorem 1.2
Remark 1.1.
We prove also
Theorem 1.3
(Continuous Embedding II). Let and and . Then we have that
or
With also
Theorem 1.4
Remark 1.2.
The embeddings (12) and (16) in the case (7) were obtained in [14] with , we generalized them to . Let us underline that Theorem 1.4 is new in the literature and breaks down the dichotomy and . In addition, we bypass the application of Proposition 2.5 which is mandatory to achieve the crucial equicontinuity property in order to apply the method appearing in [3] and [12]. This property, which is based on the representations of a radial function with Fourier transform in by means of the Jost functions (see [13]), relies on the fact that (see the proof of Lemma 4.1 in [3]). We pay only the extra restriction (15). However, it perfectly handles the embedding in the case (7) of the work [3] and extend sit to the case (8).
Finally,
Theorem 1.5.
Let and , . Then we have that:
with
or
Moreover the embedding is compact for and with , defined as in (9).
Remark 1.3.
As a consequence of the above results we get
Theorem 1.6.
as well as
Corollary 1.1.
Let , and . There exists a constant such that the scaling-invariant inequality
holds for all functions if
are fulfilled with the extra condition,
Furthermore, the inequality (21) remains valid if
Remark 1.4.
The inequality (20) in the cases (7) and (18) was available in [3] (and seminally in [7], for and ), we improved the lower bound of the domain of admissibility for p. Moreover, we extended it in the ranges given in (8) and (19), respectively. The inequality (21) appears for the first time in the literature.
Let us introduce now the Weinstein-type functionals
and
Finally, by concentration-compactness arguments, we are in position to show also
Theorem 1.7.
Let , , with , q and γ as in Theorem 1.6. Then, there exists a function such that with and so that
Analogously, it is possible to prove the following
Corollary 1.2.
Let , , with , q, α and γ as in Corollary 1.1. Then, there exists a function such that with and so that
Remark 1.5.
Theorems 1.7 and Corollary 1.2 are new in the literature.
Outline of the paper. After introducing some preliminaries and auxiliary results in Section 2, through Section 3 we prove, in Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.3, the continuous embedding of the function spaces into the Lebesgue spaces . The principal target of Section 4 is to unveil that the previous embeddings are compact. This is done in Theorem 1.2, Theorem 1.4 and Theorem 1.5. We underline that in Theorem 1.4 we introduce a new method to prove the compactness of the embedding of into . This approach allows us to handle both and avoiding the use of Proposition 2.5. In Section 5 we give the proof of the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities (20) and (21). Finally, in Section 6, we prove Theorem 1.7 and Corollary 1.2 and thus the existence of positive radial solutions in for (2).
2. Preliminaries
In this section, we collect some notations as well as several useful results. We define . Let be a set , we denote by the complement of E in . For any two positive real numbers we write (resp. ) to denote (resp. ), with disclosing the constant only when it is essential. For what it concerns compactness, we have (see [17]):
Proposition 2.1
(Riesz-Kolmogorov). Let Ω be an open subset of , and let be such that
- 1.
- ;
- 2.
- for every , there exists compact such that ;
- 3.
- for every compact .
Then is precompact in .
We need the following generalization of Strauss Lemma (see [3], Theorem 3.1):
Proposition 2.2.
Let , and
Then
for any , where
Notice that a particular case of the previous (24) is the inequality
valid for all . We have also (see [1,3] and [15])
Proposition 2.3.
Let and . Then
for any , where and
Proposition 2.4.
Assume and . Then for , the inequality
with , if fulfilled for any .
The following result is about the local Hölder continuity property of functions in (see [3]).
Proposition 2.5.
Let , with and . Then the continuous representation of is Hölder continuous in , and moreover there exists a constant such that
Moreover (see [17])
Proposition 2.6.
Let , and let , be a sequence weakly convergent to u in , with . Then is bounded and
Let us recall the following generalized Leibnitz fractional rule (see [6]).
Proposition 2.7.
Suppose and
with . Then
where the constants depend on all of the parameters above but not on f and g.
We have the following Hardy-Littlewood- Sobolev inequality (see Lemma 2.4 in [8]):
Proposition 2.8.
For and , there exists a sharp constant such that
where and .
and the Hausdorff-Young inequality (see for example [5])
Proposition 2.9.
Assume that f in we have then
with .
The next tool is a Brezis-Lieb lemma for the nonlocal term (see Theorem in [9]).
Lemma 2.1.
Let and , , be a bounded sequence in . If almost everywhere on as , then
3. Embedding in Function Spaces: Continuity
We provide the proof of the Theorems 1.1 and 1.3. We start with
Proof of Theorem 1.1.
Let us choose , we shall estimate the norm of separately in and in , respectively. Since , in we have, by using the Sobolev embedding
To handle the estimate in we follow the lines of the one given in [3] by using now the inequality (24). More precisely, we have
Note that, in order to apply (24), one needs that
which is fulfilled since and . We shall look now at the embedding (6) in the case (8). On , for any we can estimate
by an application of the Hölder inequality together with (25). To achieve a bound in , we observe that due to and hence we can assume that . Then we get
Bear in mind that in this framework, to apply the inequality (24), we need the elementary bound , for , which is guaranteed if
This completes the proof. □
Our next target is the following.
Proof of Theorem 1.3.
Let it be , we will control the norm of in in the same way that we did in the proof of Theorem 1.1 because of . The estimate in can be handled by using now the inequality (26). In fact we achieve, by selecting and by a direct application of the Hölder inequality,
where in the second line of the above inequality we applied (26), with r and solution of the system
that is
because of the relations (27). It is easy to see that because and . In addition, we require also that
due to the second of the conditions in (41), which is satisfied when . Notice that we can rewrite
Let us examine now the case
In this regime we bound the norm of in by using the inequality (28), because of . For what it concerns the region , we will argue exactly as in (40), that is
by taking notice now that since and that the second of the conditions in (41) is fulfilled if one has
which means
The proof is then completed. □
4. Embedding in Function Spaces: Compactness
This section is divided into two parts. The first concerns the compactness results for functions in , with . The second is devoted to shed lights on the compact embeddings for .
4.1. Compactness: Higher Regularity
Let us focus now on the proof of the compactness results given in Theorem 1.2 and in Theorem 1.5. To show compactness, we will follow the classical argument introduced in [12] and lately extended in [3], with some refinements. More precisely
Proof of Theorem 1.2.
Observe that the space is reflexive, then it suffices to show that every given sequence converging weakly to 0 in , converges strongly in , that is . Given , we split in three parts and thus:
where will be chosen later. Assume now that conditions (8) are satisfied. We have, arguing as in the proof of (37),
for , given that . We have also, by using the inequality (24),
for and which is fulfilled for once . Finally, by choosing , we observe that according to the Hölder continuity property (29) of Proposition, we have
with and
By Proposition 2.1, the sequence , , admits a subsequence which converges almost everywhere to 0 on the compact set
By taking large enough one obtains
Thus, by (46), (47) and the above inequality, we work out for , as . The case depicted in (7), can be handled in a similar way as in [3], with the following difference that we argue as in the proof of (34) and exploit the bound,
if one uses again (45). The proof is now completed.
□
4.2. Compactness: Unified Approach
In this section, inspired by [1], we present a method to show compactness having as main scope to treat in a unified manner both the cases of functions with low and high regularity. Let us consider now
Proof of Theorem 1.4.
We select , by the fractional Leibniz rule (30) and Sobolev embedding , we obtain
where the last inequality is provided by Theorem 1.3. For all , we pick a smooth such that in and in . Let us set , with being a bounded sequence in . Furthermore one has that is bounded also in because the continuous embedding which is a consequence Theorem 1.3. In fact, if with as in (15), one can see that
while the case (44), with is straightforward. This bears to the fact that converges weakly to some w in with support still in . Notice that we have also that . By application of the Plancharel’s identity we achieve
for any . Then
which means that the quantity is uniformly small if is sufficiently large. In addition, if one observes that
by the definition of Fourier transform and of the weak convergence in , we have tends to almost everywhere as . By (52), (53) and Hölder’s inequality we have
for a suitable . Additionally, by an application of Young-Hausdorff inequality (32) and again Hölder’s inequality, we see that
The bounds (54) (55) allow us to acquire the uniform estimate
By an use of Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem we have that converges to u in the and thus almost everywhere, once This shows that is compactly embedded in . To deal with the general case we shall use a continuity argument in conjunction with a perturbation argument. Namely, if , with enjoying (15), we note that the constraint (42) is fulfilled with the strict inequality. We pick a , with , that gives rise to a new set of parameters . We have that
By (43), one can readily see that approaches to since is a decreasing function of . Moreover, by (41), we earn
and that , as . In conclusion, we can choose suitably small that still ensures , and that one can proceed as for (40) and deduce by Hölder inequality the following
Let . Selecting again , we can see that if is small enough so that , so the inequality
is still valid. We get then, similarly for (35),
where in the second inequality we used that for , with as in (58) and for . In the case (44), instead we recall that we have, by (28),
for and, by (37), one can write the similar inequality
when . The previous (57), (58), (60), and (61) give that
with . The proof of the theorem follows by interpolation with the case and by the above embedding . □
We conclude the section with
Proof of Theorem 1.5.
To show (17) if (18) is satisfied, we shall estimate again the norm of in and in . The bound in , because when , is the same as in (34). For what it concerns the bound in we have
where in the second line of the above inequality we utilised , for and (24), once
where we took into account that and for . We observe also that (63) is satisfied for and , with defined as in (9). In the frame of (19) we have again (37) in , when . To estimate in , with and we catch that, by Hölder inequality,
by the bound , for , if For what it concerns the compactness, choose , then again we take
where will be selected analogously as in the proof of Theorem 1.2. In the regime (18) we estimate the second and the third integrals on the right hand side of the above inequality as in (49) and (48), respectively. For the first one we achieve
from (63) if one follows the steps used to prove (62). If one considers now (19), we control the first and the third integrals on the right hand side of (65) as in (46) and (48), respectively. For the second we obtain
for , as we did in (64). The proof is thus accomplished.
Remark 4.1.
In order to have a self contained treatise, we need to prove the following.
Proposition 4.1.
Let and , , Then the space is complete.
Proof.
Assume that and consider the Cauchy sequence , , then is a Cauchy sequence in and thus there exists such that the sequence , converges strongly, as to f in . On the other hand, we have, for every ,
which gives
There exists thus a measurable function such that converges, as to u in . By Fatou’s lemma, we have
We observe that by (68) we can get also
since (69). Furthermore, by the Hölder inequality we obtain
for any and . An use again of (69) in combination with (70) guarantees
For this reason, , if , converges to 0 as tempered distributions on . Therefore, converges to as distributions on . This fact and the above consideration on the convergence of in imply that . Let now and select as above a Cauchy sequence , , converging strongly, as to f in . One sees that for and , by Sobolev embedding,
and for ,
which enhance to
Then we can find a measurable function such that converges, as to u in . Fatou’s lemma shows that
As above
for and . The inequality above, a further application of (72) infers
The remaining part of the proof is the same as the one carried out above for the case . Then we skip. □
5. Gagliardo-Nirenberg Inequalities
This section is addressed to present the proof of the Gagliardo-Nirenberg-type inequalities (20) and (21).
Proof of Theorem 1.6.
We shall treat only the case , because the proof for can be carried out in a similar manner, with some minor changes. Let us consider the scaling such that . The embedding leads to
which implies the following
By optimizing the sum on the left hand side of the above inequality (74) one obtains that the minimum of the above sum is attained at
with By plugging the pervious (75) into (74) we arrive at
which gives (20) with and , where , , , q as in (7), (8) or (18), (19), with , defined as in (9). □
We are in position now to give
6. Minimization Problems
In this section, we go over the proofs of the theorems connected to the minimization problems (1.7) and (1.2).
Proof of Theorem 1.7.
The fact that follows by Theorem 1.6. We will prove now that there is a function , such that with as in (22). For this propose, pick up a minimizing sequence , converging weakly to and such that
for . We may assume also because of the bound
By Proposition 2.6, we have
By the compact embedding of Theorems 1.2 and 1.5 we have that almost everywhere and
This will imply . Nevertheless, by the definition of m, we arrive at . Then, is the required minimizer and the proof is complete. □
Proof of Corollary 1.2.
We know that by Corollary 1.1. Choose as above a non-negative minimizing sequence , converging weakly to and such that
with as in (23), for . Proposition 2.6 and inequality (77) bring to
The compact embedding of Theorems 1.2 and 1.5 guarantees that almost everywhere, with , and
Then (33) in Lemma 2.1 we obtain
This gives . We conclude as above that . Then, we found a minimizer function . The proof is completed. □
We obtain
Corollary 6.1.
We get also
Corollary 6.2.
Remark 6.1.
In Corollary 6.1 we improve the result in [7]. To be more precise, we extend the lower bound of the domain of admissibility for p from to . We generalize it then to the case and Corollary 6.2 is instead new in the literature.
Remark 6.2.
We emphasize that the existence of positive minimizer solutions for (2) plays a fundamental role in the study of the dynamics of certain nonlinear evolution equations To have a full insight into the argument and its association with stability and scattering analysis we cite, for instance, [2] and [16], along with the references provided therein.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.T. and G.V.; methodology, M.T. and G.V..; formal analysis, M.T. and G.V.; investigation, M.T. and G.V.; writing—original draft preparation, M.T. and G.V.; writing—review and editing, M.T. and G.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- J. Bellazzini, M. Ghimenti, C. Mercuri, V. Moroz, J. Van Schaftingen, Sharp Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities in fractional Coulomb-Sobolev spaces. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 2018, 370, 8285–8310. [CrossRef]
- S. Cuccagna, M. Tarulli, On stabilization of small solutions in the nonlinear Dirac equation with a trapping potential. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 2016, 436, 1332–1368. [CrossRef]
- P. L. De Nápoli, Symmetry breaking for an elliptic equation involving the fractional Laplacian. Differ. Integral Equ. 2018, 31, 75–94.
- B. Gidas, W.M. Ni, .L Nirenberg, Symmetry and related properties via the maximum principle. Comm. Math. Phys. 1979, 68, 209–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grafakos, Loukas. Classical Fourier analysis, Second edition; Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 249; Springer: New York, 2008; p. xvi+489. [Google Scholar]
- A. Gulisashvili, M. A. Kon, Exact smoothing properties of Schroödinger semigroups. Amer. J. Math. 1996, 118, 1215–1248, MR1420922. [CrossRef]
- J. Li, L. Ma, Extremals to new Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality and ground states. Applied Mathematics Letters 2021, 120, 107266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- E. H. Lieb, Sharp constants in the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev and related inequalities. Ann. of Math. 1983, 18, 349–374.
- V. Moroz, J. Van Schaftingen, Existence of groundstates for a class of nonlinear Choquard equations. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 2015, 367, 6557–6579.
- E. Di Nezza, G. Palatucci, E. Valdinoci, Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces. Bull. Sci. Math. 2012, 136, 521–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- G. Palatucci, A. Pisante, Improved Sobolev embeddings, profile decomposition, and concentration-compactness for fractional Sobolev spaces. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 2014, 50, 799–829. [CrossRef]
- P. Sintzoff, Symmetry of solutions of a semilinear elliptic equation with unbounded coefficients. Differential Integral Equations 2003, 6, 769–786.
- E.M. Stein and G. Weiss. Introduction to Fourier Analysis on Euclidean Spaces; Princeton University Press, 1971. [Google Scholar]
- Y. Su, Z. Feng, Fractional Sobolev embedding with radial potential. Journal of Differential Equations 2022, 340, 1–44. [CrossRef]
- B. S. Rubin, One-dimensional representation, inversion and certain properties of Riesz potentials of radial functions (Russian). Mat. Zametki 1983, 34, 521–533.
- Tarulli, M. H2-scattering for systems of weakly coupled fourth-order NLS Equations in low space dimensions. Potential Analysis 2019, 51, 291–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- M. Willem. Functional Analysis, Fundamentals and Applications; Cornerstones, Birkhäuser: New York, 2013; pp. 1–213. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.