English

Existence and multiplicity of solutions for a critical Kirchhoff type elliptic equation with a logarithmic perturbation

Analysis of PDEs 2025-05-01 v2

Abstract

In this paper, we are interested in the following critical Kirchhoff type elliptic equation with a logarithmic perturbation \begin{equation}\label{eq0} \begin{cases} -\left(1+b\int_{\Omega}|\nabla{u}|^2\mathrm{d}x\right) \Delta{u}=\lambda u+\mu u\log{u^2}+|u|^{2^{*}-2}u, &x\in\Omega,\\ u=0,&x\in\partial\Omega, \end{cases} \end{equation} where Ω\Omega is a bounded domain in RN(N3)\mathbb{R}^{N}(N\geq3) with smooth boundary Ω\partial \Omega, bb, λ\lambda and μ\mu are parameters and 2=2NN22^{*}=\frac{2N}{N-2} is the critical Sobolev exponent. The presence of a nonlocal term, together with a critical nonlinearity and a logarithmic term, prevents to apply in a straightforward way the classical critical point theory. Moreover, the geometry structure of the energy functional changes as the space dimension NN varies, which has a crucial influence on the existence of solutions to the problem. On the basis of some careful analysis on the structure of the energy functional, existence and (or) multiplicity results are obtained by using variational methods. More precisely, if N=3N=3, problem (0.1) admits a local minimum solution, a ground state solution and a sequence of solutions with their H01(Ω)H_0^1(\Omega)-norms converging to 00. If N=4N=4, the existence of infinitely many solutions is also obtained. When N5N\geq5, problem (0.1) admits a local minimum solution with negative energy. Sufficient conditions are also derived for the local minimum solution to be a ground state solution.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.2501.05083,
  title  = {Existence and multiplicity of solutions for a critical Kirchhoff type elliptic equation with a logarithmic perturbation},
  author = {Qian Zhang and Yuzhu Han},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05083},
  year   = {2025}
}

Comments

In the new version, we have made minor revisions to the paper and provided a detailed proof of Lemma 3.4