Abstract
Abstract We deal with Dirichlet problems of the form { Δ u + f ( u ) = 0 in Ω , u = 0 on ∂ Ω , \left\{\begin{aligned} \displaystyle{}\Delta u+f(u)&\displaystyle=0&&% \displaystyle\phantom{}\text{in }\Omega,\\ \displaystyle u&\displaystyle=0&&\displaystyle\phantom{}\text{on }\partial% \Omega,\end{aligned}\right. where Ω is a bounded domain of ℝ n {\mathbb{R}^{n}} , n ≥ 3 {n\geq 3} , and f has supercritical growth from the viewpoint of Sobolev embedding. In particular, we consider the case where Ω is a tubular domain T ε ( Γ k ) {T_{\varepsilon}(\Gamma_{k})} with thickness ε > 0 {{\varepsilon}>0} and center Γ k {\Gamma_{k}} , a k-dimensional, smooth, compact submanifold of ℝ n {\mathbb{R}^{n}} . Our main result concerns the case where k = 1 {k=1} and Γ k {\Gamma_{k}} is contractible in itself. In this case we prove that the problem does not have nontrivial solutions for ε > 0 {{\varepsilon}>0} small enough. When k ≥ 2 {k\geq 2} or Γ k {\Gamma_{k}} is noncontractible in itself we obtain weaker nonexistence results. Some examples show that all these results are sharp for what concerns the assumptions on k and f.
Highlights
IntroductionWhere Ω is a bounded domain of Rn, n ≥ 3 and f has supercritical growth from the viewpoint of the Sobolev embedding
The results we present in this paper are concerned with existence or nonexistence of nontrivial solutions for Dirichlet problems of the form
Where Ω is a bounded domain of Rn, n ≥ 3 and f has supercritical growth from the viewpoint of the Sobolev embedding
Summary
Where Ω is a bounded domain of Rn, n ≥ 3 and f has supercritical growth from the viewpoint of the Sobolev embedding. Let us consider, for example, the case where f (t) = |t|p−2t ∀t ∈ R (this function obviously satisfies the condition (2.4) we use in this paper). In this case, a well known nonexistence result of Pohozaev (see [23]) says that the Dirichlet problem. In the present paper our aim is to show that, even if the Pohozaev nonexistence result cannot be extended to all the contractible domains of Rn, one can prove that there exist contractible non starshaped domains Ω, which may be very different from the starshaped ones and even arbitrarily close to noncontractible domains, such that the Dirichlet problem for all p. 2n n−2 because of Propositions 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 (see Remark 3.7)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.