Ground state, bound state, and normalized solutions to semilinear Maxwell and Schrödinger equations

(a) The existence of a Cerami sequence (v_n,w_n)\in\mathcal{M} at the level c_{\mathcal{N}} follows from Proposition 3.4.4; this sequence is bounded due to Lemma 3.4.7. Similarly as in the proof of Lemma 3.5.1 we find v\in\mathcal{V}\setminus\{0\} such that (v_n, w_n)\rightharpoonup(v,w), (v_n, w_n)\to(v,w) a.e. in \mathbb{R}^3 (both along a subsequence), and \mathcal{J}'(v,w)=0 (with w=w(v)). More precisely, if |v_n|_\Phi\to 0, then (Proof) with u_n=0 holds by the same argument. This is impossible because J\bigl(m(v_n)\bigr)\to c_\mathcal{N}>0. Hence (Proof) with u_n=0 is satisfied and we can assume, up to translating by y_n, that \int_{B_R}|v_n|^2\,dx\ge\varepsilon, whence v\ne 0. From Fatou’s lemma and (F4),

Since (v,w)\in\mathcal{N}, J(v,w)=c_{\mathcal{N}} and \mathbf{U}=v+w solves (?) due to Proposition 3.2.7.

Note that here we have not assumed \mathcal{K} has finitely many distinct orbits.

(b) In order to complete the proof we use directly Theorem 3.3.5 (b). That (I1)–(I8) are satisfied and (M)_0^\beta holds for all \beta>0 follows from Proposition 3.4.4, Corollary 3.4.8, and Lemma 3.5.1.

For \mathbf{U}\in L^\Phi(\mathbb{R}^3)^3 we use the norm |\mathbf{U}|_{\Phi,3}:=\max_{i\in\{1,2,3\}}|\mathbf{U}_i|_\Phi, with \mathbf{U}=(\mathbf{U}_1,\mathbf{U}_2,\mathbf{U}_3). Since \Phi is increasing on positive numbers, for every k>0

hence, if the second integral is less than 1, so is the first one. Taking the infimum over k>0 we obtain |\mathbf{U}_i|_\Phi\le|\mathbf{U}|_\Phi for every i\in\{1,2,3\} and |\mathbf{U}|_{\Phi,3}\le|\mathbf{U}|_\Phi. In particular, L^\Phi(\mathbb{R}^3)^3\subset L^\Phi.

On the other hand, since \Phi is convex,

so |\mathbf{U}|_\Phi \le 3\max_{i=1,2,3}|\mathbf{U}_i|_\Phi = 3|\mathbf{U}|_{\Phi,3} and, in particular, L^\Phi\subset L^\Phi(\mathbb{R}^3)^3.

(i) follows from [RaoRen, Theorem II.III.3], (ii) follows from [RaoRen, Formula (III.III.17)], (iii) follows from [RaoRen, Theorem III.IV.12], (iv) follows from [RaoRen, Corollary III.IV.15].

In view of (N2), there exists C>0 such that \Phi(t)\leq C|t|^6 for every t\in\mathbb{R}, therefore we can conclude by Lemma 3.2.2 (iii).

Let w\in\mathcal{W} and \varphi_n\in\mathcal{C}_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^3) such that |w -\nabla\varphi_n|_{\Phi}\to 0. Then for every \psi\in\mathcal{C}_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3)

where we have used Lemma 3.2.2 (ii) and the fact that \nabla\times\psi \in L^\Psi. Hence \nabla\times w=0 in the sense of distributions and \|w\|_{\textup{curl},\Phi}=|w|_{\Phi}. Therefore \mathcal{W} is closed in \mathcal{D}(\textup{curl},\Phi); moreover, it is easily checked that \mathcal{V} is closed in \mathcal{D}(\textup{curl},\Phi).

Now, take any \mathbf{U}\in\mathcal{D}(\textup{curl},\Phi) and \varphi_n\in\mathcal{C}_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3) such that \varphi_n\to\mathbf{U} in \mathcal{D}(\textup{curl},\Phi). Let \varphi_n^2\in\mathcal{C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^3) be the Newtonian potential of \nabla\cdot\varphi_n, i.e., \varphi_n^2 solves \Delta \varphi_n^2 = \nabla\cdot\varphi_n. Note that the derivative \partial_i\varphi_n^2 is the Newtonian potential of \nabla\cdot\partial_i\varphi_n. Since \varphi_n\in\mathcal{C}_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^3), then by [Iwaniec, Proposition 1], \nabla\varphi_n^2 and \nabla(\partial_i\varphi_n^2) \in L^r(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3) for every r\in\,]1,\infty[. Hence from Lemma 3.2.3

and \varphi_n^1:=\varphi_n-\nabla \varphi_n^2\in L^{\Phi}. Moreover, \varphi_n^1,\partial_i\varphi_n^1\in L^r(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3). We also have \nabla\times\varphi_n^1 = \nabla\times\varphi_n and \nabla\cdot\varphi_n^1=0 pointwise. Using these two equalities and integrating by parts we obtain |\nabla\varphi^1_n|_2 = |\nabla\times\varphi^1_n|_2 = |\nabla\times\varphi_n|_2. It follows that for every m,n

thus \varphi_n^1 is a Cauchy sequence in \mathcal{D}. Let v:=\lim_n\varphi_n^1 in \mathcal{D}. Then

for every \varphi\in\mathcal{C}_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^3), hence \nabla\cdot v=0 and v\in\mathcal{V}. Moreover,

so \varphi_n^1\to v in \mathcal{D}(\textup{curl},\Phi) and \nabla \varphi^2_n=\varphi_n-\varphi^1_n\to\mathbf{U}-v in \mathcal{D}(\textup{curl},\Phi). Since \mathcal{W} is closed in \mathcal{D}(\textup{curl},\Phi), then \mathbf{U}-v\in \mathcal{W} and we get the decomposition

Now take \mathbf{U}\in\mathcal{V}\cap\mathcal{W}. Then \nabla\times\mathbf{U}=0, so by [Leinfelder, Lemma 1.1 (i)], \mathbf{U}=\nabla\xi for some \xi\in W^{1,6}_\textup{loc}(\mathbb{R}^3). Since \nabla\cdot\mathbf{U}=0, \xi is harmonic and therefore so is \mathbf{U}. Hence

and so \mathbf{U}=0, thus \mathcal{V}\cap\mathcal{W}=\{0\} and we obtain (3.2.4).

The equivalence of norms follows from Lemma 3.2.3.

Since \Phi\in\Delta_2, from Lemma 3.2.2 (i) and [RaoRen, Theorem I.III.3] there holds

From Lemma 3.2.3, the proof is complete if we prove that I\in\mathcal{C}^1(L^\Phi), where I(\mathbf{U}) := \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}F(x,\mathbf{U})\,dx, and I'(\mathbf{U})(\mathbf{V})=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}f(x,\mathbf{U})\cdot\mathbf{V}\,dx for every \mathbf{U},\mathbf{V}\in L^\Phi. Let \mathbf{U},\mathbf{V}\in L^\Phi and t\ne0 (we can assume |t|\le1). Then

for some \theta=\theta(t)\in[0,1]. Since f is a Charatéodory function, for a.e. x\in\mathbb{R}^3

Moreover, from (F3) and the monotonicity of \Phi',

owing to Lemmas 3.2.2 (ii) and 3.2.5. In view of the dominated convergence theorem, I'(\mathbf{U})(\mathbf{V})=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}f(x,\mathbf{U})\cdot\mathbf{V}\,dx. In addition, the same argument proves that, for a fixed \mathbf{U}\in L^\Phi, the linear map

is continuous. Now we prove that I'\in \mathcal{C}(L^\Phi,L^\Psi) (recall that L^\Psi\simeq(L^\Phi)'). Let \mathbf{U}_n\to\mathbf{U} in L^\Phi. We want to prove that \lim_n|f(\cdot,\mathbf{U}_n)-f(\cdot,\mathbf{U})|_\Psi=0, or equivalently

where c_1 is the same as (F3). In view of Lemma 3.2.2 (iii), this is the same as proving that

By the same classical argument used for Lebesgue spaces (see, e.g., [Rudin, Proof of Theorem 3.11]) together with Lemma 3.2.2 (iv), \mathbf{U}_n\to\mathbf{U} a.e. in \mathbb{R}^3 up to a subsequence, hence \Psi\bigl(|f(\cdot,\mathbf{U}_n)-f(x,\mathbf{U})|/(2c_1)\bigr)\to0 a.e. in \mathbb{R}^3. With the intent to use again the dominated convergence theorem, from (F3), Lemma 3.2.5, and the convexity of \Psi we have

and

Finally, since \Phi(2|\mathbf{U}_n-\mathbf{U}|)\to0 in L^1(\mathbb{R}^3), from [Willem, Lemma A.1] there exists g\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^3) such that \Phi(2|\mathbf{U}_n-\mathbf{U}|)\le g for every n.

For the first equivalence, let \mathbf{U}'=v'+w'\in\mathcal{V}\oplus\mathcal{W}. Then we have

and, since \nabla\times w=\nabla\times w'=0,

so that

and the conclusion follows from Lemma 3.2.4. For the second equivalence we just need to observe that for every \varphi\in\mathcal{C}_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3)

Let u\in\mathcal{N}. In view of (I8), we get by explicit computations

for every t\geq 0 and every v\in X^-.

It suffices to show that each sequence u_n^+\in X_k such that \|u_n^+\|\to\infty contains a subsequence along which \mathcal{J} tends to -\infty. Let u_n^+ = t_nv_n with \|v_n\|=1 and set m(u_n^+)=u_n^++u_n^-\in\mathcal{M}. Then, passing to a subsequence and using (I7), we obtain

(a) Set

Observe that \mathcal{J} has the mountain pass geometry and \Gamma and \Sigma are related as follows: if \gamma\in\Gamma, then \gamma^+\in\Sigma and J\bigl(\gamma(t)\bigr)=\mathcal{J}\bigl(\gamma^+(t)\bigr); if \sigma\in\Sigma, then m\circ\sigma\in\Gamma and \mathcal{J}\bigl(\sigma(t)\bigr) = J\bigl(m\bigl(\sigma(t)\bigr)\bigr). Hence the mountain pass value for \mathcal{J} is given by

The existence of a Cerami sequence u_n\in X^+ for \mathcal{J} at the level c_\mathcal{M} then follows.

The map u\mapsto m(u) is a homeomorphism between \mathcal{N}_0 and \mathcal{N} and, since \mathcal{J}(u)=J\bigl(m(u)\bigr), c_{\mathcal{N}_0}=c_{\mathcal{N}}. For u\in X^+\setminus\{0\}, consider \mathcal{J}(tu), t>0. From Lemma 3.3.2, \mathcal{J}(tu)\to-\infty as t\to\infty. Hence \max_{t > 0}\mathcal{J}(tu)\geq a exists. If t_1u,t_2u\in \mathcal{N}_0, then m(t_1u),m(t_2u)\in\mathcal{N}, so from Lemma 3.3.1, \mathcal{J}(t_1u) =\mathcal{J}(t_2u). Consequently, there exist 0 < t_\textup{min} \le t_\textup{max} such that \mathcal{J}(tu)\in\mathcal{N}_0 if and only if t\in[t_\textup{min},t_\textup{max}] and \mathcal{J}(tu) has the same value for those t. Hence \mathcal{J}'(tu)(u)>0 for 0<t<t_\textup{min} and \mathcal{J}'(tu)(u)<0 for t>t_\textup{max}. It follows that X^+\setminus \mathcal{N}_0 consists of two connected components, hence each path in \Sigma must intersect \mathcal{N}_0. Therefore c_{\mathcal{M}}\ge c_{\mathcal{N}_0}. Since c_{\mathcal{N}_0} = \inf_{u\in X^+\setminus\{0\}}\max_{t>0}\mathcal{J}(tu), (Proof) implies c_{\mathcal{M}} = c_{\mathcal{N}_0} = c_{\mathcal{N}}. Note in particular that \mathcal{J}\ge 0 on B_r, where r is given in (I6), so the condition \|\sigma(1)\|>r in the definition of \Sigma is redundant because it must necessarily hold if \mathcal{J}\bigl(\sigma(1)\bigr)<0.

Since gu\ne hv, u and v are not both 0 and we can assume u\ne0. If v\in G*u, then g^{-1}hv\in G*u and the claim follows from (G). If v\not\in G*u, then we can assume that v minimizes the distance from u to G*v, thus it suffices to take d := \frac12\|u-v\|. As for the last part, let \bar{u}=e_1u and \bar{v}=e_2v for some e_1,e_2\in G. If g,h\in G are such that g\bar{u}\ne h\bar{v}, then setting \bar{g}=ge_1 and \bar{h}=he_2 we have \bar{g}u\ne\bar{h}v and \|g\bar{u}-h\bar{v}\|=\|\bar{g}u-\bar{h}v\|>d_{u,v}.

(a) Suppose that \mathcal{J} does not have any critical values in [c_{\mathcal{M}},c_{\mathcal{M}}+\varepsilon_0] for some \varepsilon_0\in\,]0,\varepsilon]. Thus \mathcal{J} has only the trivial critical point 0 in \mathcal{J}^{c_{\mathcal{M}}+\varepsilon_0}. Take u\in\mathcal{J}^{c_{\mathcal{M}}+\varepsilon_0} and observe that, from Lemma 3.3.6, either \lim_{t \to T(u)^-}\eta(t,u)=0 or \lim_{t\to T(u)^-}\mathcal{J}\bigl(\eta(t,u)\bigr) = -\infty. Hence we may define the entrance time map e:\mathcal{J}^{c_{\mathcal{M}}+\varepsilon_0}\to [0,\infty[ by the formula

Let us prove that e is continuous. Take u_n,\bar u\in\mathcal{J}^{c_{\mathcal{M}}+\varepsilon_0} such that u_n\to\bar u: if by contradiction e(u_n)\to\infty up to a subsequence, then, recalling that \mathcal{J} is decreasing along the trajectories of \eta and fixing t\in]e(\bar{u}),T(\bar{u})[,

therefore e(u_n)\to t up to a subsequence for some t\ge0 and so

i.e., t=e(\bar u). Now take any \sigma\in\Sigma such that

where \Sigma is given by (Proof). Since e is continuous, \tilde{\sigma}(t):=\eta\big(e\bigl(\sigma(t)\bigr),\sigma(t)\big) is a continuous path in X^+ such that \mathcal{J}\bigl(\tilde{\sigma}(1)\bigr)\leq \mathcal{J}\bigl(\sigma(1)\bigr)<0. Hence \tilde{\sigma}\in\Sigma and

The obtained contradiction proves that either c_{\mathcal{M}} is a critical value or for every \varepsilon_0\in\,]0,\varepsilon] there exists a critical value in ]c_{\mathcal{M}},c_{\mathcal{M}}+\varepsilon_0].

(b) Take \beta\geq a and let

Since there are finitely many critical orbits, there exists \varepsilon_0>0 such that

In view of Lemma 3.3.4, there exists \delta\in \,]0,m_0^{\beta+\varepsilon_0}[ such that \overline B(u,\delta)\cap \overline B(v,\delta) = \emptyset for every u,v\in\mathcal{K}^\beta, u\ne v. We show that there exists \varepsilon\in\,]0,\varepsilon_0[ such that

We assume \mathcal{K}^\beta\ne\emptyset, the other case being trivial.

Consider the set

For every u\in A_0 we define

and note that 0\leq t_0(u)< t(u)<T(u). There holds

Let

If \rho=0 then we find u_n\in A_0 and t_n\in\,]t_0(u_n),t(u_n)[ such that

Since t_n> t_0(u_n), we have \eta(t_n,u_n)\in B(\mathcal{K}^\beta,\delta) and passing to a subsequence we can find u_0\in\mathcal{K}^\beta and g_n\in G such that

Since t_n<t(u_n), we see that

Let w_n:=u_0, v_n:=g_n\eta(t_n,u_n). Then w_n and v_n are two Cerami sequences such that \delta/2 \le \|v_n-w_n\| \le \delta<m_0^{\beta+\varepsilon_0}, a contradiction. Therefore \rho>0 and we take

Now let u\in \mathcal{J}_{\beta-\varepsilon}^{\beta+\varepsilon}\setminus B(\mathcal{K}^\beta,\delta) and suppose by contradiction that

which owing to Lemma 3.3.6 yields \lim_{t \to T(u)^-}\eta(t,u)\in\mathcal{K}^\beta, i.e., u\in A_0. Since

we obtain using (Proof)

This contradicts (Proof), hence (Proof) holds.

Define

and note that from Lemma 3.3.7 all the \beta_k are well defined, finite, and a\le\beta_1\le\beta_2\le\dots. Let \beta=\beta_k for some k\geq 1. If the set \mathcal{K}^\beta is nonempty, then it is discrete and we can order its elements in pairs \pm u_j and let the map \phi\colon\mathcal{K}^\beta\to\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\} be given by \phi(\pm u_j)=\pm 1. From the choice of \delta we can extend \phi to \overline B(\mathcal{K}^\beta,\delta), whence

Choose \varepsilon>0 such that (Proof) holds. Take Lipschitz continuous cutoff functions \chi,\xi such that \chi=0 in B(\mathcal{K}^\beta,\delta/4), \chi=1 in X^+\setminus B(\mathcal{K}^\beta,\delta/2), \xi=1 in \mathcal{J}_{\beta-\varepsilon}^{\beta+\varepsilon}, and \xi=0 in X^+\setminus U , where U is an open neighbourhood of \mathcal{J}_{\beta-\varepsilon}^{\beta+\varepsilon} with \mathcal{K}\cap U=\mathcal{K}^\beta. Let \widetilde\eta:\mathbb{R}\times X^+\to X^+ be the flow given by

Then \widetilde\eta(t,u)=\eta(t,u) as long as t\ge 0 and \widetilde\eta(t,u)\in \mathcal{J}^{\beta+\varepsilon}_{\beta-\varepsilon}\setminus B(\mathcal{K}^\beta,\delta/2). Using (Proof) we can define the entrance time map e\colon\mathcal{J}^{\beta+\varepsilon}\setminus B(\mathcal{K}^\beta,\delta)\to [0,\infty[ as

Arguing as before we can prove that e is continuous; moreover, e is clearly even. Take any A\in\mathcal{A} such that i^*(A)\geq k and \mathcal{J}(u)\leq \beta+\varepsilon for u\in A. Let T:=\max_{u\in A} e(u)<\infty (A is compact). Set h:=\widetilde\eta(T,\cdot) and note that h\in\mathcal{H} and

Therefore

and

Thus \mathcal{K}^\beta\neq \emptyset and, since \gamma(\mathcal{K}^\beta)\le1, we conclude \gamma(\mathcal{K}^\beta)=1. If \beta_k=\beta_{k+1} for some k\geq 1, then (Proof) implies \gamma(\mathcal{K}^{\beta_k})\geq 2, a contradiction. Hence we get an infinite sequence \beta_1<\beta_2<\cdots of critical values which contradicts our assumption that \mathcal{K} consists of a finite number of distinct orbits.

Suppose T(u)<\infty and let 0\le s<t<T(u). Then

Hence the limit exists and, if it were not a critical point, then \eta(\cdot,u) could be extended for t>T(u).

Suppose now T(u)=\infty and \mathcal{J}\bigl(\eta(\cdot,u)\bigr) is bounded from below. We distinguish three cases:

• (i) t\mapsto \eta(t,u) is bounded,

• (ii) t\mapsto \eta(t,u) is unbounded but \|\eta(t,u)\|\not\to\infty,

• (iii) \|\eta(t,u)\|\to\infty.

(i) We follow an argument in [SzWe]. We will show that for every \varepsilon>0 there exists t_\varepsilon>0 such that \|\eta(t_\varepsilon,u)-\eta(t,u)\|<\varepsilon for all t \ge t_\varepsilon (this implies \lim_{t \to \infty}\eta(t,u) exists and so, as before, it is a critical point). Arguing by contradiction, we can find \varepsilon\in\,]0,m_0^\beta/2[, R>0 and t_n\to\infty such that \|\eta(t_n,u)\|\le R and \|\eta(t_n,u)-\eta(t_{n+1},u)\| = \varepsilon for all n. Let t_n^1 be the smallest t\in\,]t_n,t_{n+1}[ such that \|\eta(t_n,u)-\eta(t_n^1,u)\|= \varepsilon/3 and t_n^2 the largest t\in\,]t_n^1,t_{n+1}[ such that \|\eta(t_{n+1},u)-\eta(t_n^2,u)\|= \varepsilon/3. Set \kappa_n := \min \Set{\lVert\mathcal{J}'\bigl(\eta(t,u)\bigr)\rVert|t\in[t_n,t_n^1]}>0. Then

Since \mathcal{J}(\eta(t_n,u))-\mathcal{J}(\eta(t_n^1,u))\to 0, also \kappa_n\to 0, hence we can choose s_n^1\in[t_n,t_n^1] such that, if u_n:= \eta(s_n^1,u), then \mathcal{J}'(u_n)\to 0. Since \|\eta(s_n^1,u)\| is bounded, u_n is a Cerami sequence. A similar argument shows the existence of v_n:= \eta(s_n^2,u), s_n^2\in[t_n^2,t_{n+1}], such that \mathcal{J}'(v_n)\to 0. Hence

a contradiction to (M)_0^\beta (b).

(ii) Observe that there are no Cerami sequences in X^+\setminus\overline B_{M_0^\beta} at any level \alpha\in[0, \beta] according to (M)_0^\beta (a). Since \eta(t,u) is unbounded but \|\eta(t,u)\|\not\to\infty, there exists R>M_0^\beta such that \eta(t,u)\in B_R for arbitrarily large t>0. Then we can find t_n, t_n^1 so that t_n\to\infty, \|\eta(t_n,u)\| = R+1 and t_n^1 is the smallest t>t_n with \|\eta(t,u)\| = R. We can also assume that \|\eta(s,u)\|\leq R+1 for s\in [t_n,t_n^1]. Let \kappa_n be as above. Then

and hence \kappa_n\to 0. So we see that there exists u_n:= \eta(s_n^1,u), s_n^1\in[t_n,t_n^1], such that R\le \|u_n\|\le R+1 and \mathcal{J}'(u_n)\to 0. Thus we have found a Cerami sequence in X^+\setminus\overline{B}(0,M_0^\beta) which is impossible. This shows that case (ii) can never occur.

(iii) There exist R_0>0 and \delta>0 such that \|\mathcal{J}'(v)\|\ge \delta/\|v\| whenever \|v\|\ge R_0 and v\in \mathcal{J}_0^\beta, because otherwise there exists an unbounded Cerami sequence. Choose t_0>0 so that \|\eta(t,u)\|\ge R_0 and \mathcal{J}\bigl(\eta(t_0,u)\bigr)-\mathcal{J}\bigl(\eta(t,u)\bigr) \le \delta/8 for t\ge t_0. For n\gg1 let t_n\ge t_0 be the smallest t such that \|\eta(t,u)\|=n and let \kappa_n := \min\Set{\lVert\mathcal{J}'\bigl(\eta(t,u)\bigr)\rVert|t\in[t_0,t_n]}. From the choice of t_n,

It follows from the same argument as above that for n\gg1

This is a contradiction and hence also case (iii) can be ruled out.

(i) It follows immediately from the properties of the Krasnosel’skii genus.

(ii) For every h\in\mathcal{H}

where in the last equality we used that h is a homeomorphism. Taking the minimum over all h\in\mathcal{H} on the right-hand side we obtain the conclusion.

(iii) Since \mathcal{J}\bigl(g(u)\bigr)\le\mathcal{J}(u) for all u\in X^+, h\circ g\in\mathcal{H} if h\in\mathcal{H}. Hence \Set{h\circ g|h\in\mathcal{H}}\subset \mathcal{H} and therefore

(iv) Since the statement is obviously true for k=0, we can assume that k\ge1. From Lemma 3.3.2, \mathcal{J}(u)<0 on X_k\setminus B_R if R is sufficiently large. Let D := X_k\cap\overline B_R. Suppose by contradiction that i^*(D)<k and choose h\in\mathcal{H} such that \gamma\bigl(h(D)\cap S_r\bigr)<k.

If k=1, then \gamma\bigl(h(D)\cap S_r\bigr)=0, i.e., h(D)\cap S_r=\emptyset. Therefore either \|h(u)\|<r for every u\in D or \|h(u)\|>r for every u\in D. Since h(0)=0, the latter is ruled out. If u\in\partial D=X_k\cap S_R, recalling that \mathcal{J}(v)\ge 0 for every v\in B_r, we then have 0\le\mathcal{J}\bigl(h(u)\bigr)\le\mathcal{J}(u)<0, a contradiction.

If k\ge2, fix an odd mapping

Let U:= h^{-1}(B_r\cap X^+)\cap X_k. There follows that U\subset D\setminus\partial D and hence U is an open and bounded neighbourhood of 0 in X_k. If u\in \partial U, then h(u)\in S_r and therefore f\circ h|_{\partial U}\colon \partial U \to \mathbb{R}^{k-1}\setminus\{0\}, contradicting the Borsuk-Ulam theorem [Struwe, Proposition II.5.2], [Willem, Theorem D.17].

Let (\bar v,\bar w)\in\mathcal{V}\times\mathcal{W}, \psi\in\mathcal{W}, t\geq 0. We define

and observe that

For fixed x,v,w\in\mathbb{R}^3, define the map \phi\colon[0,\infty[\,\times\,\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{R} as follows:

We prove that \phi(t,\psi)\leq 0 for all t\geq 0 and all \psi\in\mathbb{R}^3. This is clear if v+w=0, thus let v+w\ne 0 and define \zeta := t(v+w)+\psi. From (F4) we have

If A>0 is large enough, then the quadratic form (in t and \zeta) above is negative definite. Moreover, A|\zeta|^2-F(x,\zeta) is bounded from above owing to the superquadraticity of F implied by (F3) and (N3). Hence \phi(t,\psi)\to -\infty as t+|\psi|\to\infty and \phi attains its maximum at some (t,\psi) with t\geq 0. If t=0, then \phi(t,\psi)=\phi(0,\psi)\leq 0. If t>0, then

Using the latter equation in the former, we see that both terms in the former are positive (because f(x,v+w)\cdot(v+w)>0 from (F3 and (F4)) and f(x,v+w)\cdot\psi=0. This and (F5) imply

Note that

and f(x,\mathbf{U}_n-\mathbf{U}+t\mathbf{U}) is bounded in L^{\Psi} owing to (F3) and Lemmas 3.2.2 (iv) and 3.2.5. Thus for every \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^3

From [RaoRen, Definition III.IV.2, Corollary III.IV.5 and Theorem III.IV.14], the space L^\Phi has an absolutely continuous norm (cf. [RaoRen, Definition III.I.13]), so (Proof) yields that for every \varepsilon>0 there exists \delta>0 such that, if |\Omega|<\delta, then

for every n, i.e., f(x,\mathbf{U}_n-\mathbf{U}+t\mathbf{U})\cdot\mathbf{U} is uniformly integrable. Using (Proof) once more we see that for every \varepsilon>0 there exists \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^3 with |\Omega|<\infty such that

As a matter of fact, since \Phi\circ|\mathbf{U}|\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^3), there exists a sequence \Omega_n\subset\mathbb{R}^3 such that each \Omega_n has finite measure and

where in the first equality we used that \Phi(t)=0\Leftrightarrow t=0. In view of (N1) and Lemma 3.2.2 (iii), this yelds \lim_n|\mathbf{U}\chi_{\mathbb{R}^3\setminus\Omega_n}|_\Phi=0. If we take \Omega = \Omega_{\bar{n}} for some sufficiently large \bar{n} such that |\mathbf{U}\chi_{\mathbb{R}^3\setminus\Omega}|_{\Phi} < \varepsilon(\sup_k|f(\cdot,\mathbf{U}_k-\mathbf{U}+t\mathbf{U})|_{\Psi})^{-1}, then (Proof) holds.

Since \mathbf{U}_n\to\mathbf{U} a.e. on \mathbb{R}^3, it follows from Vitali’s convergence theorem that

We show that \mathbf{U}_n\to\mathbf{U} a.e. in \mathbb{R}^3 up to a subsequence. Since \mathfrak{I}(\mathbf{U}_n)\to \mathfrak{I}(\mathbf{U}), we have

Then from (F2) we infer that for every 0<r\leq R

Observe that from (Proof) and (F2) there holds

Therefore, setting

from (Proof) we have

thus |\Omega_n|\to 0 as n\to\infty. Since 0<r\leq R are arbitrarily chosen, we deduce

In view of Lemma 3.4.2, we obtain

and hence

From (F3) and Lemma 3.2.2 (iii), we get |\mathbf{U}_n-\mathbf{U}|_\Phi\to 0.

Setting X:=\mathcal{V}\times\mathcal{W}, X^+:=\mathcal{V}\times\{0\}, and X^-:=\{0\}\times\mathcal{V} we check the assumptions (I1)–(I8) for the functional J\colon X\to\mathbb{R} given by

(cf. (?) and (?)). Recall that \|(v,w)\|^2=\|v\|_{\mathcal{D}}^2+|w|_{\Phi}^2. The convexity and differentiability of I, (F3), and Lemma 3.4.3 yield the following.

• (I1) I|_{\mathcal{V}\times\mathcal{W}}\in \mathcal{C}^1(\mathcal{V}\times\mathcal{W},\mathbb{R}) and I(v,w)\geq I(0,0)=0 for every (v,w)\in \mathcal{V}\times\mathcal{W}.

• (I2) If v_n\to v in \mathcal{V} and w_n\rightharpoonup w in \mathcal{W}, then \displaystyle\liminf_nI(v_n,w_n)\geq I(v,w).

• (I3) If v_n\to v in \mathcal{V}, w_n\rightharpoonup w in \mathcal{W}, and I(v_n,w_n)\to I(v,w), then (v_n,w_n)\to (u,w).

Moreover,

• (I6) There exists r>0 such that \inf_{\|v\|_\mathcal{D}=r}J(v,0)>0.

As a matter of fact, from (F3) and (N2) there exist C>0 (cf. the proof of Lemma 3.2.3) such that for any v\in\mathcal{V}

thus (I6) is satisfied taking r sufficiently small. Note that

• (I4) \|v\|_\mathcal{D}+I(v,w)\to\infty as \|(v,w)\|\to\infty.

To see this, let \|(v_n,w_n)\|\to\infty. If \|v_n\|_\mathcal{D}\to\infty, then we are done; otherwise, up to a subsequence \|v_n\|_\mathcal{D} is bounded and, a fortiori, so is |v_n|_\Phi. This yields |v_n+w_n|_\Phi\ge|w_n|_\Phi-|v_n|_\Phi\to\infty. Using (F3) and Lemma 3.2.2 (iv) we have

This, together with the uniform strict convexity of F, implies

• (I5) If (v,w)\in\mathcal{M}, then I(v,w)<I(v,w+\psi) for every \psi\in \mathcal{W}\setminus\{0\}.

Next, we prove

• (I7) I\bigl(t_n(v_n,w_n)\bigr)/t_n^2\to\infty if t_n\to\infty and v_n\to v for some v\neq 0.

Observe that from (F3)

Take R_0>0 such that v\neq 0 in L^2(B_{R_0}). In view of (N3), there exists C>0 such that

Then, writing

we have

and I\bigl(t_n(v_n,w_n)\bigr)/t_n^2\to\infty (up to a subsequence) if v_n+w_n is unbounded in L^2(B_R,\mathbb{R}^3) for some R\geq R_0. Now, suppose that v_n+w_n is bounded in L^2(B_R,\mathbb{R}^3) for every R\geq R_0. We can assume passing to a subsequence that v_n\to v a.e. and w_n\rightharpoonup w in L^2_\textup{loc}(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3) for some w. Given \varepsilon>0, let

We claim that there exists \varepsilon>0 such that \limsup_n|\Omega_n|>0. Arguing by contradiction, suppose |\Omega_n|\to0 for every \varepsilon. Then v_n+w_n\to 0 in measure, so up to a subsequence v_n+w_n\to 0 a.e., hence w_n\to -v a.e. and w_n\rightharpoonup -v in L^2_\textup{loc}(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3). Since \nabla\times w_n=0 in the distributional sense, the same is true of v, thus there exists \xi\in H^1_\textup{loc}(\mathbb{R}^3) such that v=\nabla \xi due to [Leinfelder, Lemma 1.1 (i)]. As \nabla\cdot(\nabla \xi)=\nabla\cdot v =0, it follows that \xi is harmonic and so is v. Recalling that v\in\mathcal{D}, we obtain v=0 as in the proof of Lemma 3.2.4. This is a contradiction. Taking \varepsilon in (Proof) such that \limsup_n|\Omega_n|>0, we obtain

Finally, Proposition 3.4.1 shows that

• (I8)’ \displaystyle\frac{t^2-1}{2}I'(v,w)(v,w)+tI'(v,w)(0,\psi)+I(v,w)-I(tv,tw+\psi)\leq 0 for every t\geq 0, v\in\mathcal{V}, and w,\psi\in\mathcal{W},

which is a stronger version of (I8).

Applying Theorem 3.3.3 we conclude.

This follows from [MederskiZeroMass, Lemma 1.5] since \Phi satisfies (N2). Note that we can take the supremum over \mathbb{Z}^3 in (3.4.5) because the radius R is greater than the length of the diagonal of the unitary cube in \mathbb{R}^3.

(a) Let v\in L^{\Phi}. Since w\in\mathcal{W}\mapsto I(v,w)\in\mathbb{R} is continuous, strictly convex, and coercive, there exists a unique w(v)\in\mathcal{W} such that (3.4.6) holds. We show that the map w\colon L^{\Phi}\to\mathcal{W} is continuous. Let v_n\to v in L^{\Phi}. Since

w(v_n) is bounded and we may assume w(v_n)\rightharpoonup w_0 for some w_0\in\mathcal{W}. Observe that by the (sequential) lower semicontinuity of I we get

hence w(v)=w_0 from the uniqueness of w(v), and from Lemma 3.4.3 we have v_n+w(v_n)\to v+w(v) in L^{\Phi}, which yields w(v_n)\to w(v) in \mathcal{W}.

(b) This follows from (Proof), (F3), and Lemma 3.2.2 (iv).

Let us write m(v_n)=(v_n,w_n)\in\mathcal{M} and suppose by contradiction \lim_n\|(v_n,w_n)\|=\infty. Since w_n=w(v_n), \|(v_n,w_n)\|\to\infty if and only if \|v_n\|_\mathcal{D}\to\infty. Let \bar{v}_n:=v_n/\|v_n\|_\mathcal{D} and \bar{w}_n:=w_n/\|v_n\|_\mathcal{D}. Assume

for some fixed R>\sqrt{3}. From Lemma 3.4.5, \lim_n\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\Phi(|\bar{v}_n|)\,dx=0 and we obtain a contradiction: recalling that J'(v_n,w_n)(0,w_n)=0, Proposition 3.4.1 with t_n=s/\|v_n\|_\mathcal{D} and \psi_n=-t_nw_n implies that for every s>0

which is impossible. Hence \liminf_n\int_{B(y_n,R)}|\bar{v}_n|^2\,dx>0, where y_n\in\mathbb{Z}^3 maximizes y\in\mathbb{Z}^3\mapsto\int_{B(y,R)}|\bar{v}_n|^2\,dx\in\mathbb{R}. Since \mathcal{M} and J are invariant with respect to \mathbb{Z}^3-translations, we may assume that

for some constant c and every n\gg1. This implies that, up to a subsequence, \bar{v}_n\rightharpoonup\bar v\ne 0 in \mathcal{D}, \bar{v}_n\to\bar{v} in L^2_\textup{loc}(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3) and \bar{v}_n\to\bar v a.e. in \mathbb{R}^3 for some \bar v\in\mathcal{D}. From (F4),

so J(v_n,w_n) is bounded from below and, using (F3),

for some \alpha\in\mathbb{R}. Hence it suffices to show that the integral on the right-hand side above tends to \infty. We can argue as in the proof of (I7) in Proposition 3.4.4. In particular, (Proof) holds with \bar v_n+\bar w_n instead of v_n+w_n and \|v_n\|_\mathcal{D} instead of t_n and, if \Omega_n is as in (Proof) (again, with v_n+w_n replaced with \bar v_n+\bar w_n), then \lim_n|\Omega_n|>0 along a subsequence.

If no finite bound M_\beta exists, for every k there exists a sequence v_n^k\in X satisfying the assumptions above and such that \limsup_n\|v_n^k\|\ge k. In particular, there exists n(k) such that -1/k<J\bigl(m(v_{n(k)}^k)\bigr)<\beta+1/k, which yields 0\le\liminf_kJ\bigl(m(v_{n(k)}^k)\bigr)\le\limsup_kJ\bigl(m(v_{n(k)}^k)\bigr)\le\beta. In the same way we prove \lim_k\bigl(1+\|v_{n(k)}^k\|\bigr)(J\circ m)'\bigl(v_{n(k)}^k\bigr)=0 and \limsup_k\|v_{n(k)}^k\|=\infty, a contradiction with Lemma 3.4.7.

Suppose u_n\rightharpoonup 0 in H^1(\Omega). Then u_n\rightharpoonup 0 in L^6(\Omega) and u_n\to 0 in L^2(\Omega) and, up to a subsequence, a.e. in \Omega. From (N2), for every \varepsilon>0 there exists C_\varepsilon such that \Phi(t)\le \varepsilon t^6 for t>C_\varepsilon, whence

From the dominated convergence theorem and since \varepsilon is arbitrary, we have \int_{\Omega} \Phi(|u_n|)\,dx\to 0 and, due to Lemma 3.2.2 (iii), |u_n|_\Phi\to 0.

It follows from the definition (3.4.6) of w(v) that

Since v_n is bounded, so is w(v_n) from Lemma 3.4.6 (b), hence we can assume w(v_n)\rightharpoonup w_0 for some w_0. In addition, since v_n\to v in L^2_\textup{loc}(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3), v_n\to v a.e. after passing to a subsequence.

Let \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^3 be bounded and let \zeta\in \mathcal{C}_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3), 0\le\zeta\le1, such that \zeta=1 in \Omega. From (F3) and Lemmas 3.2.2 (ii), 3.2.5, and 3.4.9, there exist C>0 such that

Choose R>0 such that \textup{supp}\zeta\subset B_R. In view of (N3), w(v_n) is bounded in L^2(B_R,\mathbb{R}^3). As a matter of fact, w(v_n)\chi_{\{|w(v_n)|<1\}} is of course bounded in L^2(B_R,\mathbb{R}^3), while

for some C>0. From [Leinfelder, Lemma 1.1 (i)], there exists \xi_n\in H^1(B_R) such that w(v_n)=\nabla\xi_n. We can assume \int_{B_R}\xi_n\,dx = 0, so that from the Poincaré inequality

for some C>0. Hence in view of Lemma 3.4.9, up to a subsequence, \xi_n\to \xi in L^\Phi(B_R) for some \xi\in H^1(B_R). Similarly as in (Proof), we have

The limits in (Proof) and (Proof) are 0 also if f\bigl(x,v_n+w(v_n)\bigr) is replaced with f(x,v+\nabla\xi). Combining (Proof)–(Proof) we obtain

where we have taken z = \nabla\bigl((\xi_n-\xi)\zeta\bigr) in (Proof). We prove that v_n+w(v_n) \to v+ \nabla\xi a.e. in \Omega. The convexity of F implies that

and

Summing these inequalities and using (F2), we obtain that for every 0<r\leq R and every |\mathbf{U}_1-\mathbf{U}_2|\ge r, |\mathbf{U}_1|,|\mathbf{U}_2| \le R

where m_{r,R} is defined in (Proof). Since \zeta=1 in \Omega, it follows from (Proof) that v_n+w(v_n) \to v+ \nabla\xi a.e. in \Omega as claimed. Since w(v_n)\rightharpoonup w_0, we have w_0=\nabla\xi and by the usual diagonal procedure we obtain a.e. convergence to v+w_0 in \mathbb{R}^3. Take any w\in\mathcal{W} and observe that by Vitali’s convergence theorem

The uniqueness of w(v) (see Lemma 3.4.6) implies that w_0=w(v).

From Lemma 3.4.6 (a) we get w_n=w(v_n). In view of Proposition 3.4.10, we may assume v_n+w_n\to v_0+w_0 a.e. in \mathbb{R}^3 (where w_0=w(v_0)). For (\phi,\psi)\in\mathcal{V}\times\mathcal{W} we have

Arguing as in the proof of Lemma 3.4.2, we prove that

is uniformly integrable and tight, hence from Vitali’s convergence theorem

Let m(u_n)=(u_n,w^1_n), m(v_n)=(v_n,w^2_n). From Lemma 3.4.7, m(u_n) and m(v_n) are bounded. We first consider the case

and prove that

From (F3) and Lemmas 3.2.2 (ii) and 3.2.5 we have

which gives (Proof).

Suppose now (Proof) does not hold. From Lemmas 3.2.2 (iii) and 3.4.5, for a fixed R>\sqrt{3} there exist \varepsilon>0 and y_n\in\mathbb{Z}^3 such that, up to a subsequence,

(cf. the proof of Lemma 3.4.7). As J is \mathbb{Z}^3-invariant, we can assume y_n=0. Since m(u_n) and m(v_n) are bounded, up to a subsequence

for some (u,w^1),(v,w^2)\in \mathcal{V}\times\mathcal{W}. Since u_n\to u and v_n\to v in L^2_\textup{loc}(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3), u\ne v according to (Proof). From Corollary 3.4.11 and (Proof) we infer that

Thus

which is a contradiction.

Note that \mathcal{N} contains all the nontrivial critical points of J. Applying Theorem 3.3.3 we obtain a Cerami sequence u_n\in X_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}} at the level c:=\inf_\mathcal{N} J>0. Lemma 4.3.5(a) implies that there exists u\in X_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}} such that u_n\rightharpoonup u up to a subsequence, thus J'(u)=0.

If by contradiction \int_{\mathbb{R}^N}f(x,u_n)u_n\,dx\to0, then similarly to the proof of Lemma 4.3.5 (b) we infer that u_n\to0, in contrast with J(u_n)\to c. Hence, again similarly to the proof of Lemma 4.3.5 (b), u\ne0.

Fatou’s Lemma and (F4) imply

Now assume f is odd in u, which implies that J is even. The existence of infinitely many geometrically distinct critical points of J follows directly from Theorem 3.3.5 (b). As for the fact that the ground state solution is nonnegative, since J(v)=J(|v|) and J'(v)v=J'(|v|)|v| for every v\in X_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}}, we obtain that |u| is again a ground state solution.

First we prove that J has the mountain pass geometry. Let w\in X_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}} as in Lemma 4.3.6. From Lemma 4.3.4 (a), there exists 0<\delta<\|w\| such that \inf\Set{J(u)|u\in X_{\mathcal{O}} \text{ and } \|u\|=\delta}>0. Moreover, for every \lambda>0 we have

as \lambda\to 0^+. Consequently, the existence of a Palais–Smale sequence u_n\in X for J|_{X_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}}} at the mountain pass level c>0 follows. Such a sequence is bounded because (F5) holds: for every n\gg1

Now, suppose by contradiction that (4.3.1) holds for every R>0. Fix R>\sqrt{N-K} such that (4.3.1) holds with the supremum being taken over \mathbb{Z}^{N-K}. Since F and (z,u)\mapsto f(z,u)u satisfy (4.3.1) uniformly with respect to z\in\mathbb{R}^{N-K}, from Lemma 4.3.1 and arguing as in Lemma 4.3.3 we obtain

which is a contradiction. Then there exist R>\sqrt{N-K} and \varepsilon>0 such that, up to a subsequence,

where z_n\in\mathbb{Z}^{N-K} maximizes z\mapsto\int_{B((0,z),R)}|u_n|^2\,dx. Since J is invariant with respect to \mathbb{Z}^{N-K} translations, up to replacing u_n with u_n(\cdot-z_n) we can suppose that z_n=0. Since u_n is bounded, there exists u\in X_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}} such that u_n\rightharpoonup u in X, which in turn implies that J'(u)=0 and that u_n\to u in L^2\bigl(B_R\bigr) and a.e. in \mathbb{R}^N; in particular, u\ne 0 because (Proof) holds.

The proof follows from Theorems 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.2.1.

The proof follows from [BadGuiRol, Theorem 1] and Theorem 4.2.1.

Lemma 4.4.1 implies that \mathcal{Y}\subset\mathcal{D}_\mathcal{F}; moreover, \mathcal{Y} is closed in \mathcal{D}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3) and infinite dimensional by Lemma 4.4.4. Since \mathbf{U}\mapsto\frac{\mathbf{U}}{\psi}\circ\pi is a linear isometry between \mathcal{D}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3) and H^1(\mathbb{S}^3,\mathbb{R}^3) and between L^6(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3) and L^6(\mathbb{S}^3,\mathbb{R}^3), one easily checks that E|_{\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{F}}} is invariant under the action of \mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2\times2). Hence every \mathbf{U}\in\mathcal{Y} is a solution to (4.1.4) if and only if it is a critical point of E|_\mathcal{Y} owing to Theorem 1.5.1.

We want to make use of [Rabin, Theorem 9.12]. From the embeddings \mathcal{Y}\subset\mathcal{D}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3)\subset L^6(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3), there exists \delta>0 such that

(cf. the proof of Lemma 4.3.4 (a)). In addition, if Y\subset\mathcal{Y} is a finite dimensional subspace, then the norms |\nabla(\cdot)|_2 and |\cdot|_6 are equivalent in Y, thus there exists R=R(Y)>0 such that E(\mathbf{U})\le0 for every \mathbf{U}\in Y with |\mathbf{U}|_6\ge R. We are only left to prove that E|_\mathcal{Y} satisfies the Palais–Smale condition at every positive level, therefore let \mathbf{U}_n\in\mathcal{Y} be a Palais–Smale sequence for E|_\mathcal{Y} at some c>0. Similarly to the proof of Theorem 4.1.2 we prove that \mathbf{U}_n is bounded, hence there exists \mathbf{U}\in\mathcal{Y} such that, up to a subsequence,

and, in view of Lemma 4.4.2,

Since \lim_nE|_\mathcal{Y}'(\mathbf{U}_n)=0, from (Proof) and (Proof) we obtain

and, since \mathbf{U}_n is bounded,

From (Proof) and (Proof) we have \lim_n|\nabla\mathbf{U}_n|_2=|\nabla\mathbf{U}|_2, which, together with (Proof), yields \lim_n\mathbf{U}_n=\mathbf{U} in \mathcal{D}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3).

It follows from Theorems 4.1.6 and 4.2.1.

The first part follows directly from Lemma 4.2.5. As in [AzzBenDApFor, Proposition 1], we have that \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{F}}=\Set{\mathbf{U}\in\textup{Fix}(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O})|\mathcal{S}\mathbf{U}=\mathbf{U}} and that E(\mathcal{S}\mathbf{U})=E(\mathbf{U}) for every \mathbf{U}\in\textup{Fix}(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}), where \mathcal{S} is defined in (?).

Finally, if \mathbf{V}\in\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{F}} and v\in X_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}} satisfy (?), then arguing as in Lemma 4.2.5 there holds

and

thus the conclusion follows from Theorem 1.5.1.

Since \mathbf{U}\in\mathcal{D}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R}^N), there exists \mathbf{V}_n\in\mathcal{C}_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R}^N) such that \lim_n|\nabla \mathbf{V}_n-\nabla\mathbf{U}|_{2}=0. Let

where \mu is the Haar measure of \mathcal{S}\mathcal{O} (note that \mathcal{S}\mathcal{O} is compact).

For every e\in\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O} we have

i.e., \mathbf{U}_n\in\textup{Fix}(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}). Moreover, \mathbf{U}_n\in\mathcal{C}_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R}^N) because so does \mathbf{V}_n.

First we prove that |\mathbf{U}_n-\mathbf{U}|_{2^*}\to 0. From Jensen’s inequality there holds

Finally, \mathbf{U}_n is a Cauchy sequence in \mathcal{D}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R}^N) because, similarly as before,

hence \mathbf{U}_n\to\mathbf{U} in \mathcal{D}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N.\mathbb{R}^N).

For \mathbf{U}\in\textup{Fix}(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}) we write \mathbf{U}=(\mathbf{U}_1,\dots,\mathbf{U}_N). For x\in\mathbb{R}^N_* let \mathbf{U}_\rho(x), \mathbf{U}_\tau(x), and \mathbf{U}_{\zeta,i}(x) be the orthogonal projections as in the statement. Then

We prove that U_\rho, U_\tau, and U_{\zeta,i} are \mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}-invariant. This is trivial for U_{\zeta,i} because i\ge3; moreover, note that

therefore, exploiting that \mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2) is abelian,

for every g\in\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2) and a.e. x\in\mathbb{R}^N.

Now we prove that \mathbf{U}_\rho,\mathbf{U}_\tau,\mathbf{U}_{\zeta,i}\in\mathcal{D}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R}^N). From their very definition, \mathbf{U}_\rho,\mathbf{U}_\tau,\mathbf{U}_{\zeta,i}\in L^6(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R}^N)\cap H^1_\textup{loc}(\mathbb{R}^N_*,\mathbb{R}^N). In what follows we denote by \partial_j\mathbf{U}_\rho|_{\mathbb{R}^N_*} the partial derivative along x_j of \mathbf{U}_\rho in \mathbb{R}^N_* in the sense of distributions and by \partial_j\mathbf{U}_\rho the function defined a.e. in \mathbb{R}^N that represents it, i.e.

for every \varphi\in\mathcal{C}_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N_*,\mathbb{R}^N); similar notations are used for \mathbf{U}_\tau and \mathbf{U}_{\zeta,i}. With a small abuse of notation, the symbol \cdot will stand for the scalar product both in \mathbb{R}^N and in \mathbb{R}^{N\times N}\simeq\mathbb{R}^{N^2}.

It is obvious that for every i,j\in\{3,\dots,N\} and a.e. x\in\mathbb{R}^N

Moreover, by explicit computations,

where the last equality follows from the fact that the \mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}-invariance of U_\rho implies x_1\partial_2U_\rho=x_2\partial_1U_\rho (and likewise for U_\tau).

This yields

whence for every i\in\{3,\dots,N\} and every j\in\{1,\dots,N\}

hence the proof will be complete once we show that \partial_j\mathbf{U}_\rho|_{\mathbb{R}^N_*} coincide with the distributional derivative (along x_j) of \mathbf{U}_\rho in \mathbb{R}^N, i.e., (Proof) holds for every \varphi\in\mathcal{C}_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R}^N), and likewise for \mathbf{U}_\tau and \mathbf{U}_{\zeta,i}. For \varepsilon>0 consider \eta_\varepsilon\in\mathcal{C}^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R}) such that

Let \varphi\in\mathcal{C}_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R}^N) and set \varphi_\varepsilon:=\eta_\varepsilon\varphi\in\mathcal{C}_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N_*,\mathbb{R}^N). There holds

From the dominated convergence theorem,

Let R>0 such that \varphi(x)=0 for |x|\ge R and set \Omega_\varepsilon:=B_R\cap\{r<\varepsilon\} and observe that |\Omega_\varepsilon|\le C\varepsilon^2 for some C>0 depending only on N and R, thus

as \varepsilon\to0^+. Letting \varepsilon\to0^+ in (Proof) and using (Proof) and (Proof) we have the desired result. Finally, similar computations hold for \mathbf{U}_\tau and \mathbf{U}_{\zeta,i}.

The inclusion ‘\supset’ is obvious since \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{F}} is closed. Now let \mathbf{U}\in\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{F}}. Since \mathbf{U}\in\textup{Fix}(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}), in view of Lemma 4.2.2 there exists \mathbf{U}^n\in\mathcal{C}^\infty_0(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R}^N)\cap\textup{Fix}(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}) such that \mathbf{U}^n=(\mathbf{U}_1^n,\dots,\mathbf{U}_N^n)\to\mathbf{U} in \mathcal{D}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R}^N).

For every n, let \mathbf{U}_\rho^n,\mathbf{U}_\tau^n,\mathbf{U}_{\zeta,i}^n\in\mathcal{D}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R}^N)\cap\textup{Fix}(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}) defined in Lemma 4.2.3 and associated with \mathbf{U}^n, i.e.

• \mathbf{U}_\rho^n(x) is the projection of \mathbf{U}^n(x) onto \textup{span}\{(x_1,x_2,0)\},

• \mathbf{U}_\tau^n(x) is the projection of \mathbf{U}^n(x) onto \textup{span}\{(-x_2,x_1,0)\},

• \mathbf{U}_{\zeta,i}^n(x) is the projection of \mathbf{U}^n(x) onto \textup{span}\{e_i\}.

In particular, \mathbf{U}_\rho^n,\mathbf{U}_\tau^n,\mathbf{U}_{\zeta,i}^n\in\mathcal{C}^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N_*,\mathbb{R}^N), they vanish outside a sufficiently large ball in \mathbb{R}^N (in fact, \mathbf{U}_{\zeta,i}^n\in\mathcal{C}_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R}^N)) and \mathbf{U}_n(x)=\mathbf{U}_\rho^n(x)+\mathbf{U}_\tau^n(x)+\mathbf{U}_{\zeta,i}^n(x) for every x\in\mathbb{R}^N_*. Moreover, \nabla\mathbf{U}_\rho^n(x), \nabla\mathbf{U}_\tau^n(x), \nabla\mathbf{U}_{\zeta,i}^n(x) are pairwise orthogonal in \mathbb{R}^{N\times N}\simeq\mathbb{R}^{N^2} for every x\in\mathbb{R}^N_*.

This implies that \mathbf{U}_\tau^n\to\mathbf{U} in \mathcal{D}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R}^N), hence we are only left to prove that \mathbf{U}_\tau^n\in\mathcal{C}_c(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R}^N)\cap\mathcal{H}.

Since \mathbf{U}^n\in\textup{Fix}(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}), for every g\in\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2) and every z\in\mathbb{R}^{N-2}

which yields \mathbf{U}_1^n(0,0,z)=\mathbf{U}_2^n(0,0,z)=0 (just take g=-I_2). Moreover,

therefore, from the uniform continuity of \mathbf{U}^n,

uniformly with respect to z\in\mathbb{R}^{N-2}. Hence we can extend \mathbf{U}_\rho^n and \mathbf{U}_\tau^n to \mathbb{R}^N by setting them equal to 0 on \{0\}\times\{0\}\times\mathbb{R}^{N-2} and obtain that \mathbf{U}_\rho^n,\mathbf{U}_\tau^n\in\mathcal{C}_c(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R}^N) and \mathbf{U}^n(x)=\mathbf{U}_\rho^n(x)+\mathbf{U}_\tau^n(x)+\sum_{i=3}^N\mathbf{U}_{\zeta,i}^n(x) for every x\in\mathbb{R}^N.

To prove that \mathbf{U}_\rho^n+\mathbf{U}_\tau^n\in\mathcal{H}, first we notice that \mathbf{U}_\rho^n+\mathbf{U}_\tau^n=\mathbf{U}^n-\sum_{i=3}^N\mathbf{U}_{\zeta,i}^n\in\mathcal{C}_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3) and, using Taylor’s expansion,

as y\to 0, thus \mathbf{U}_\rho^n+\mathbf{U}_\tau^n\in\mathcal{H}. Finally, note that |\mathbf{U}_\tau^n|\le|\mathbf{U}_\rho^n+\mathbf{U}_\tau^n|, whence \mathbf{U}_\tau^n\in\mathcal{H}.

Suppose that u\in X_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}}. We show that the pointwise gradient a.e. of \mathbf{U}=(\mathbf{U}_1,\mathbf{U}_2,0) in \mathbb{R}^N is also the distributional gradient of \mathbf{U} in \mathbb{R}^N. As a matter of fact, for \partial_1\mathbf{U}_1 we have

for every \varphi\in\mathcal{C}_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N) because \displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}u(x)\frac{x_1x_2}{(x_1^2+x_2^2)^{3/2}}\varphi(x)\,dx<\infty for u\in X. For \partial_1\mathbf{U}_2 similarly we get

for every \varphi\in\mathcal{C}_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N). The remaining cases are similar.

Now observe that \mathbf{U}\in L^{2^*}(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R}^N)\cap\mathcal{F}. Moreover,

and

because u\in X. Again, the remaining cases are similar and we infer \mathbf{U}\in\mathcal{D}_\mathcal{F}.

Now suppose that \mathbf{U}\in\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{F}} and, due to Proposition 4.2.4, let \mathbf{B}_n\in\mathcal{C}_c(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R}^N)\cap\mathcal{C}^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N_*,\mathbb{R}^N)\cap\mathcal{H}\cap\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{F}} such that \lim_n|\nabla\mathbf{B}_n-\nabla\mathbf{U}|_2=0 and let b_n\colon\mathbb{R}^N\to\mathbb{R} be \mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}-invariant such that \mathbf{B}_n and b_n satisfy (?).

We prove that b_n\in X_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}}. Of course b_n\in\mathcal{C}^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N_*) and, since |\mathbf{B}_n|=|b_n|, b_n\in\mathcal{C}_c(\mathbb{R}^N)\subset L^{2^*}(\mathbb{R}^N) and b_n(x)=O(y) uniformly with respect to z as y\to0, therefore

Moreover, \nabla\mathbf{B}_n\in L^2(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}), where

and the second summand above is square-integrable because

where |\cdot|_{\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}} stands for the matrix norm in \mathbb{R}^{N\times N}. It follows that \nabla b_n\in L^2(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R}^N), thus b_n\in X_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}}.

Since \lim_n|b_n-u|_{2^*}=\lim_n|\mathbf{B}_n-\mathbf{U}|_{2^*}=0, it is enough to prove that b_n is a Cauchy sequence in X, therefore we compute

as n,m\to\infty.

Next, since u\in X_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}}, as in the first part we have that the pointwise divergence a.e. of \mathbf{U} is also the distributional divergence of \mathbf{U}, hence \nabla\cdot\mathbf{U}=0 follows from explicit computations

Finally, observe that if u\in X_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}} and \mathbf{U}\in\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{F}} satisfy (?), then \|u\|^2=|\nabla\mathbf{U}|_2^2=|\nabla\times\mathbf{U}|_2^2 and F\bigl(x,u(x)\bigr)=H\bigl(x,\mathbf{U}(x)\bigr) for a.e. x\in\mathbb{R}^N.

There holds

and

Let 1<p<2^*<q<\infty, define \Phi(t):=\int_0^{|t|}\min\{s^{p-1},s^{q-1}\}\,ds, and note that \Phi satisfies (4.3.1). (F2) implies that for every \varepsilon>0 there exists C_\varepsilon>0 such that for every t\in\mathbb{R} and a.e. x\in\mathbb{R}^N we have |f(x,t)|\le\varepsilon|t|^{2^*-1}+C_\varepsilon|\Phi'(t)|. Moreover

Concerning the first integral A_n, Lemmas 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 imply that, for some C>0,

because \bigl(|v_n|^{q-1}\bigr)^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\chi_{\{|v_n|\le 1\}}\le|v_n|^q\chi_{\{|v_n|\le 1\}}.

Similar computations hold for the second integral B_n, therefore we have

and conclude letting \varepsilon\to0^+.

(a) From (F2) and the embeddings X\hookrightarrow\mathcal{D}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N)\hookrightarrow L^{2^*}(\mathbb{R}^N), there exists C>0 such that for every u\in X_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}}

whence

and the statement holds true for \delta_0\ll1.

(b) Since X_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}} is locally compactly embedded into L^2(\mathbb{R}^N), up to a subsequence u_n\to u_0 a.e. in \mathbb{R}^N. Moreover, there exists \varepsilon>0 such that \limsup_n|\Omega_n|>0, where \Omega_n:=\Set{x\in\mathbb{R}^N|\lVert u_n(x)\rVert\ge\varepsilon}, for otherwise u_n\to0 in measure and consequently, up to a subsequence, a.e. in \mathbb{R}^N. From (F3)

as n\to\infty.

(c) For fixed x\in\mathbb{R}^N and u\in\mathbb{R} we prove that \phi(t)\le0 for every t\ge0, where

This is trivial for u=0, so suppose u\ne0. Note that \phi(1)=0, so it is enough to prove that \phi is nondecreasing on [0,1] and nonincreasing on [1,\infty[. This is the case in view of (F4) and because

for t>0, therefore \phi(t)\le0 for every t\ge0 as \phi\in\mathcal{C}^1([0,\infty[).

(a) Let u_n\in X_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}} as in the assumptions. Suppose that u_n is unbounded and define \bar{u}_n:=u_n/\|u_n\|. Passing to a subsequence we can assume that \lim_n\|u_n\|=\infty. Similarly to the proof of Lemma 4.3.3, for every \varepsilon>0 there exists C_\varepsilon>0 such that

where \Phi is defined therein. If \bar{u}_n satisfies (4.3.1) for every R>0 (hence the same holds for s\bar{u}_n, s\ge0), then in view of Lemma 4.3.1

for every \varepsilon>0, hence \lim_n\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}F(x,s\bar{u}_n)\,dx=0. Then applying Lemma 4.3.4 (c) with u=u_n and t=s/\|u_n\| =: t_n we obtain, up to a subsequence, that for every s\ge0

a contradiction. Hence \lim_n\int_{B((0,z_n),R)}|\bar{u}_n|^2\,dx>0 up to a subsequence for some R>\sqrt{N-K} and z_n\subset\mathbb{Z}^{N-K}, where z_n maximizes z\mapsto\int_{B((0,z),R)}|u_n|^2\,dx. Exploiting the \mathbb{Z}^{N-K}-invariance, we can assume that

for n\gg1 and some c>0.

There follows that there exists \bar{u}\in X_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}}\setminus\{0\} such that, up to a subsequence, \bar{u}_n\rightharpoonup\bar{u} in X and \bar{u}_n\to\bar{u} in L^2_\textup{loc}(\mathbb{R}^N) and a.e. in \mathbb{R}^N.

From (F4), 2J(u_n)-J'(u_n)u_n=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}f(x,u_n)u_n-2F(x,u_n)\,dx\ge0, thus J(u_n) is bounded and due to (F3) we obtain

which is a contradiction. This shows that u_n is indeed bounded. If by contradiction there exists no upper bound M_\beta, then for every k\in\mathbb{N} there exists u_n^k\in X_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}} as in the statement such that \limsup_n\|u_n^k\|>k. Then, as in Corollary 3.4.8, it is easy to build a subsequence u_{n(k)}^k\in X_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}} that is unbounded, again a contradiction.

(b) Assume that there are finitely many critical orbits of J. From (G) we easily see that

Let u_n,v_n be as in the statement. In view of (a), they are bounded. If \int_{\mathbb{R}^N}f(x,u_n)(u_n-v_n)\,dx or \int_{\mathbb{R}^N}f(x,v_n)(u_n-v_n)\,dx do not converge to 0, then in view of Lemma 4.3.3 and the \mathbb{Z}^{N-K}-invariance there exist R>\sqrt{N-K} and \varepsilon>0 such that

We can assume that u_n\rightharpoonup u and v_n\rightharpoonup v in X, so u\ne v. Hence J'(u)=J'(v)=0 and consequently

in contrast with the assumptions.

Therefore it follows that

and, finally,

For every R\ge3 we define a continuous function \phi_R\colon\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R} such that \phi_R(t)=0 for |t|<1 and for |t|>R+1, \phi_R(t)=1 for 2\leq |t|\leq R and \phi_R is affine for 1\le|t|\le2 and for R\le|t|\le R+1. Then let w_R(x):=u_0\phi_R(|y|)\phi_R(|z|). Observe that w_R\in X_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}} and there exist constants C_1,C_2>0 such that

and

Then the statement holds true for R\gg1.

Let g_1\in\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2) and define g:=(g_1,I_2)\in\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2)\times\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2). Note that

for every x\in\mathbb{R}^3, therefore

For every \mathbf{U}\in\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2\times2)} define \mathbf{V}(\xi):=\frac{\mathbf{U}(\pi(\xi))}{\psi(\pi(\xi))} for \xi\in\mathbb{S}^3\setminus\{Q\}. Note that \mathbf{V}\in H^1(\mathbb{S}^3,\mathbb{R}^3) and, similarly as in [ClPis, Lemma 3.1], |\nabla \mathbf{U}|_2=\|\mathbf{V}\|_{H^1(\mathbb{S}^3,\mathbb{R}^3)} and |\mathbf{U}|_{6}=\|\mathbf{V}\|_{L^6(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3)}, where

is the norm in H^1(\mathbb{S}^3,\mathbb{R}^3) and \nabla_\mathfrak{g} is the gradient on \mathbb{S}^3 [Aubin, ONeill]. Therefore \mathbf{U}\mapsto\mathbf{V} is an isometric isomorphism between \mathcal{D}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3) and H^1(\mathbb{S}^3,\mathbb{R}^3) and between L^6(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3) and L^6(\mathbb{S}^3,\mathbb{R}^3). Note that, since \mathbf{U} is \mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2\times2)-symmetric, then \mathbf{V}(g\xi)=\widetilde{g_1}\mathbf{V}(\xi) for every g=(g_1,g_2)\in\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2)\times\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2) and, consequently, |\mathbf{V}| is \mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2)\times\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2)-invariant, or equivalently \mathcal{O}(2)\times\mathcal{O}(2)-invariant.

Let \mathbf{U}_n\in\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2\times2)} such that \mathbf{U}_n\rightharpoonup0 in \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2\times2)}. Then \mathbf{V}_n\rightharpoonup0 in H^1(\mathbb{S}^3,\mathbb{R}^3) and, up to a subsequence, \mathbf{V}\to0 a.e. in \mathbb{S}^3; this implies that |\mathbf{V}_n|\rightharpoonup0 in H^1(\mathbb{S}^3) and so, in view of [Ding, Lemma 5], |\mathbf{V}_n|\to0 in L^6(\mathbb{S}^3). Hence \mathbf{V}_n\to0 in L^6(\mathbb{S}^3,\mathbb{R}^3) and so \mathbf{U}_n\to0 in L^6(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3).

We first prove that \mathbf{U}_\tau\in\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2\times2)}. Let \alpha_i\in\mathbb{R}, g_i= \left(\begin{smallmatrix} \cos\alpha_i & -\sin\alpha_i\\ \sin\alpha_i & \cos\alpha_i \end{smallmatrix}\right) \in\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2), i\in\{1,2\}, and set g= \left(\begin{smallmatrix} g_1 & 0\\ 0 & g_2 \end{smallmatrix}\right). We want to prove that

provided

We compute the two sides of (Proof) separately. We use the convention that \mathbb{R}^3=\mathbb{R}^{3\times1} and treat the scalar product in \mathbb{R}^3 as matrix multiplication.

As for the right-hand side we have

Let us write \pi= \left(\begin{smallmatrix} \pi_1\\ \pi_2\\ \pi_3 \end{smallmatrix}\right). As for the left-hand side we have

Let us compute

and

so for the left-hand side we have

and (Proof) holds.

Similar computations hold for \mathbf{U}_\rho, so \mathbf{U}_\rho\in\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2\times2)}. Finally, \mathbf{U}_\zeta=\mathbf{U}-\mathbf{U}_\rho-\mathbf{U}_\tau\in\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2\times2)}.

Let e= \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 0 & -1\\ 1 & 0 \end{smallmatrix}\bigr) \in\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2) and let \mathcal{X}, resp. \mathcal{Z}, be the subspace of \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2\times2)} consisting in the vector fields \mathbf{U} such that

for some \mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}-invariant u\colon\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{R}. In order to prove that \mathcal{Y} is infinite dimensional, we build an isomorphism between \mathcal{X} and \mathcal{Y} and an isomorphism between \mathcal{X} and \mathcal{Z}. The conclusion will follow from the fact that \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2\times2)} is infinite dimensional and that, in view of Lemmas 4.2.3 and 4.4.3, we get the decomposition \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2\times2)}=\mathcal{X}\oplus\mathcal{Y}\oplus\mathcal{Z}.

For every \mathbf{U}\in\mathcal{X} define \widetilde{\mathbf{U}}(x):=\mathbf{U}(\widetilde{e}x). It is clear that \widetilde{\mathbf{U}}\in\mathcal{Y} and that \mathbf{U}\mapsto\widetilde{\mathbf{U}} is an isomorphism.

Now consider \mathbf{U}\in\mathcal{X} and let u\colon\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{R} be \mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}-invariant such that \mathbf{U}(x)=\frac{u(x)}{r} \left(\begin{smallmatrix} x_1\\ x_2\\ 0 \end{smallmatrix}\right). Define \overline{\mathbf{U}}(x):=u(x) \left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0\\ 0\\ 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right). By similar arguments to those used in the proof of Lemma 4.2.5 it is easy to check that \overline{\mathbf{U}}\in\mathcal{D}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R}^3). Finally, explicit computations show that \overline{\mathbf{U}} is \mathcal{S}\mathcal{O}(2\times2)-symmetric (hence \overline{\mathbf{U}}\in\mathcal{Z}) and trivially \mathbf{U}\mapsto\overline{\mathbf{U}} is an isomorphism.

From [Clarke, Theorem 1, Corollary 1] there exist \tau\ge0, (\lambda_j)_{j=1}^m\in[0,\infty[^m, and (\sigma_k)_{k=1}^n\in\mathbb{R}^n, not all zero, such that

If \tau>0, then we can divide both sides of (Proof) by \tau and, up to relabelling \lambda_j and \sigma_k, conclude the proof, hence assume by contradiction that \tau=0, i.e.

If \phi_j(\bar{x})<0 for some j\in\{1,\dots,m\}, then of course \lambda_j=0, hence, up to considering a (possibly empty) subset of \{1,\dots,m\} in (Proof), we can assume that \phi_1(\bar{x})=\dots=\phi_{m_0}(\bar{x})=0 and \lambda_{m_0+1}=\dots=\lambda_m=0 for some 0\leq m_0\leq m, where m_0=0 denotes that \lambda_j=0 for all j\in \{1,\dots,m\} and m_0=m denotes \phi_j(\bar{x})=0 for all j\in \{1,\dots,m\}. Then the differential

is surjective and so, for every j\in\{1,\dots,m_0\} (resp. k\in\{1,\dots,n\}), there exists y\in\mathcal{H} such that \phi_j'(\bar{x})(y)\ne0, \phi_i'(\bar{x})(y)=0 for every i\in\{1,\dots,m_0\}\setminus\{j\} and \psi_k'(\bar{x})(y)=0 for every k\in\{1,\dots,n\} (resp. \psi_k'(\bar{x})(y)\ne0, \psi_i'(\bar{x})(y)=0 for every i\in\{1,\dots,n\}\setminus\{k\} and \phi_j'(\bar{x})(y)=0 for every j\in\{1,\dots,m_0\}). This and (Proof) imply \lambda_j=0 for every j\in\{1,\dots,m_0\} and \sigma_k=0 for every k\in\{1,\dots,n\}, a contradiction.

(a) In view of Lemmas 6.2.3 and 6.2.5 there exists u\in\mathfrak{D} (if \eta_0<\infty, then necessarily \mathfrak{D}=\mathfrak{D}_\textup{r}) such that J(u)=\inf_{\mathfrak{D}}J<0. In Proposition 5.0.1 (the version without the functions \psi_k’s) we put m=K=1, \mathcal{H}=\mathfrak{H}, f=J, and \phi=\phi_1=|\cdot|_2^2-\rho^2. Then there exists \lambda\ge0 such that

Note that \lambda=0 if u\in\mathring{\mathfrak{D}}. Assume by contradiction that \lambda=0. Since u satisfies the Pohožaev identity

we have 0>J(u)=|\nabla u|_2^2/N, which is impossible, hence (\lambda,u) solves (?).

(b) Since F is even, the argument of the proof of Lemma 6.2.5 yields that the minimizer u of J|_{\mathfrak{D}_\textup{r}} obtained in point (a) is nonnegative and radially nonincreasing and that (\lambda,u) is a ground state solution. Since u\in W_\textup{loc}^{2,p}(\mathbb{R}^N) for every p<\infty (cf. Section ?), we can use the argument of [BerLions, Lemma 1] and obtain u\in\mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R}^N).

The argument is the same as in the proof of Theorem 6.1.1 (a) with \mathfrak{H}=\mathfrak{H}_\textup{n}.

In view of Proposition 6.2.11 we only need to prove that u_j\ne0 for every j\in\{1,\dots,K\} (recall that u_j=0 if \lambda_j=0). Assume by contradiction that it does not hold. Up to changing the order, we can suppose that u_K=0. For every j\in\{1,\dots,K\} define

and

Of course, -\Delta u_j+\lambda_ju_j=F_j'(u_j) and, from Lemmas 6.2.1 and 6.2.3, -\infty<c_j:=\inf_{\mathfrak{D}_\textup{r}(j)}J_j<0 for every j\in\{1,\dots,K\}. Moreover,

Since \widetilde{F}_{j,\ell}\ge0 for every j\in\{1,\dots,K\} and \ell\in\{1,\dots,L\}, we have J(w)\le\sum_{j=1}^KJ_j(w_j) for every w=(w_1,\dots,w_K)\inH^1(\mathbb{R}^N)^K, thus

whence c_K\ge0, a contradiction.

By taking u_j=0 for every j\in\{1,\dots,K\} but one we easily obtain \displaystyle\limsup_{|u|\to\infty}\frac{F(u)}{|u|^{2_\#}}\ge\max_{j=1,\dots,K}\nu_j. Since \displaystyle F(u)\le\max_{j=1,\dots,K}\nu_j\sum_{j=1}^K|u_j|^{2_\#}, it suffices to prove that for every u\in\mathbb{R}^K

To this aim, we will prove that the function \varphi\colon]0,\infty[\to]0,\infty[ is decreasing, where \varphi(t):=(b_1^t+\dots+b_K^t)^{1/t} for some b_1,\dots,b_K>0. From

we have that \varphi'(t)<0 is equivalent to

which is true because \ln is increasing.

Observe that, for u_2\ne0, \displaystyle\frac{F(u)}{|u|^{2_\#}}=\varphi\left(\frac{|u_1|}{|u_2|}\right), with \displaystyle\varphi(t):=\frac{t^{r_1}}{(t^2+1)^{2_\#}}. Since \displaystyle\max\varphi=\varphi\left(\!\sqrt{\frac{r_1}{r_2}}\right)=\sqrt{\frac{r_1^{r_1}r_2^{r_2}}{2_\#^{2_\#}}}, there holds

From (F1) and (F2), for every \varepsilon>0 there exists c_\varepsilon>0 such that F(u)\le c_\varepsilon u^2+(\varepsilon+\eta_\infty)|u|^{2_\#} for every u\in\mathbb{R}. In view of Theorem 5.0.2, for every u\in\mathcal{D} we have

hence the statement holds true for sufficiently small \varepsilon.

Fix u\in\mathfrak{D}\setminus\{0\} and note that

If \eta_0=\infty, then \displaystyle\lim_{s\to0^+}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{F(s^{N/2}u)}{(s^{N/2})^{2_\#}}\,dx=\infty. If \eta_0<\infty, then

hence the statement holds true if u\in\mathfrak{D}_\textup{r} and

Let w\in\mathfrak{H}_\textup{r} be the unique positive radial solution to -\Delta v+\frac2Nv=v^{2_\#-1} in \mathbb{R}^N [Kwong]. Then (cf. [Weinstein]) w is such that

and equality holds in the Gagliardo–Nirenberg interpolation inequality (Theorem 5.0.2). If we define u(x):=w(tx) for some t>0, then u\in\mathfrak{D}_\textup{r} and (Proof) become, respectively,

Now, with the help of the properties of w, it is easy to check by direct computations that (Proof) holds if and only if \displaystyle t\in\left[\frac{\sqrt{1+2/N}}{\rho^{2/N}C_{N,2_\#}^{1+2/N}},\sqrt{2_\#\eta_0}\right[.

Let u_n\in\mathfrak{D} such that \lim_nJ(u_n)=\inf_{\mathfrak{D}}J. In view of Lemma 6.2.1 there exists u\in\mathfrak{D} such that, up to a subsequence, u_n\rightharpoonup u in H^1(\mathbb{R}^N) and u_n\to u a.e. in \mathbb{R}^N as n\to\infty.

(a) Since N\ge2, then u_n\to u in L^{2_\#}(\mathbb{R}^N) and \lim_n\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}F(u_n)\,dx=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}F(u)\,dx due to (F1), (F2) and [BrezisLieb, Theorem 1], whence

(b) Since F is even, choosing \mathfrak{H}=\mathfrak{H}_\textup{r} we can replace u_n with its Schwarz rearrangement u_n^* and we obtain another minimizing sequence for J|_{\mathfrak{D}_\textup{r}} with the additional property that each u_n^* is radially nonincreasing. Then from Theorem 1.1.7 we infer again that u_n\to u in L^{2_\#}(\mathbb{R}^N) and conclude as in point (a). As for the last part, let v_n\in\mathcal{D} such that \lim_nJ(v_n)=\inf_{\mathcal{D}}J. Then, similarly as before,

The first part follows from the maximum principle [Evans, Lemma IX.V.1]. Assume by contradiction that u is constant in the annulus A:=\{r_1<|x|<r_2\} for some r_2>r_1>0. Then 0=-\Delta u=F'(u)-\lambda u in A and so -\Delta u\le0 in \Omega:=\{|x|>r_1\} because u is radially nonincreasing. At the same time u attains its maximum over \overline\Omega at every point of A. This is impossible because u|_\Omega is not constant.

Owing to Remarks 6.2.2 and 6.2.4, Lemmas 6.2.1, 6.2.3, and 6.2.5 (a) still hold for K\ge2. Then we proceed as in the proof of Theorem 6.1.1 (a).

We can assume q>1. If u is a solution to (6.2.9), then there exists C=C(u)>0 such that f\bigl(u(x)\bigr)\ge Cu^q(x) for every x\in\mathbb{R}^N. Then we argue as in [QS, Proof of Theorem 8.4] and obtain u=0.

By linearity, we can suppose L=1 and relabel k(1)=\bar{k}=k and \widetilde{F}_{j,1}=\widetilde{F}_j. Assume preliminarily that each \widetilde{F}_j is increasing. From [LiebLoss, Theorem 1.13] we have

and similarly

because

therefore it suffices to prove that, for every A_1,\dots,A_k\subset\mathbb{R}^N measurable with finite measure,

i.e., |\cap_{j=1}^kA_j|\le|\cap_{j=1}^kA_j^*|.

Up to relabelling the sets, we can assume that |A_1|\le\cdots\le|A_k|, whence A_1^*\subset\cdots\subset A_k^* and so |\cap_{j=1}^kA_j|\le|A_1|=|A_1^*|=|\cap_{j=1}^kA_j^*|.

Now assume that some \widetilde{F}_j’s are continuous with \widetilde{F}_j(0)=0. We want to prove that, as in the previous case, \{\widetilde{F}_j(u_j^*)>t_j\}=\{\widetilde{F}_j(|u_j|)>t_j\}^*. Since \widetilde{F}_j\colon[0,\infty[\to[0,\infty[ is nondecreasing and \widetilde{F}_j(0)=0, following, e.g., [RaoRen, p. 10] we can define the generalized inverse function \widetilde{F}_j^{-1}\colon[0,\infty[\to[0,\infty[ as

Then it suffices to prove that \{\widetilde{F}_j(v)>t\}=\{v>\widetilde{F}_j^{-1}(t)\} for every t>0 and every measurable v\colon\mathbb{R}^N\to[0,\infty[ that vanishes at infinity. Observe that \widetilde{F}_j^{-1}(t)=\infty if t\ge\widetilde{F}_j\bigl(v(x)\bigr) for every x\in\mathbb{R}^N and, in that case, both sets above equal the empty set, hence we can assume that t<\operatorname*{ess\,sup}\widetilde{F}_j\circ v.

Let x\in\mathbb{R}^N such that \widetilde{F}_j\bigl(v(x)\bigr)>t. Since \widetilde{F}_j is continuous and \widetilde{F}_j(0)=0, there exists s>0 such that t<\widetilde{F}_j(s)<\widetilde{F}_j\bigl(v(x)\bigr). Then \widetilde{F}_j^{-1}(t)\le s and, since \widetilde{F}_j is nondecreasing, s<v(x). Now let x\in\mathbb{R}^N such that v(x)>\widetilde{F}_j^{-1}(t). From the properties of infima, there exists s>0 such that \widetilde{F}_j(s)>t and v(x)\ge s. Since \widetilde{F}_j is nondecreasing, \widetilde{F}_j\bigl(v(x)\bigr)\ge\widetilde{F}_j(s).

Owing to Remarks 6.2.2 and 6.2.4 and Lemma 6.2.10, Lemmas 6.2.1, 6.2.3, and 6.2.5 (b) still hold for K\ge2. Moreover, u\in W^{2,p}_\textup{loc}(\mathbb{R}^N)^K for all p < \infty (cf. Section ?), therefore we can argue as in the proof of Theorem 6.1.1 (b) and obtain that there exists (\lambda,u)\in[0,\infty[^K\times\partial\mathfrak{D}_\textup{r} such that \max_{j=1,\dots,K}\lambda_j>0, u\in\mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R}^N)^K, J(u)=\inf_{\mathfrak{D}_\textup{r}}J=\inf_{\mathcal{D}}J<0, and for every j\in\{1,\dots,K\} there holds u_j\ge0, u_j is radially nonincreasing, and

Let j\in\{1,\dots,K\} such that \lambda_j=0 (which, in particular, is the case if |u_j|_2<\rho_j), which yields -\Delta u_j\ge F_j'(u_j)\ge0. If N\in\{3,4\}, then u_j\in L^\frac{N}{N-2}(\mathbb{R}^N) and so u_j=0 from [Ikoma, Theorem A.2]. If N\ge5, then u_j=0 from Lemma 6.2.9. That u_j>0 follows from the maximum principle [Evans, Lemma IX.V.1].

(i) It is obvious from the definition of m.

(ii) Note preliminarily that, under these assumptions, for every \rho\in\mathcal{A} there exists a minimizer of J|_{\mathcal{D}(\rho)}. Let \rho^n,\rho\in\mathcal{A} such that \rho^n\to \rho (note that \mathcal{A} is open). Let u^n\in\mathcal{D}(\rho^n) such that J(u^n)=m(\rho^n)\le m(\rho/2). Up to replacing u^n with (u^n)^*, we can assume u^n\in\mathfrak{H}_\textup{r}. Since u^n\in\mathcal{D}(2\rho), from Lemma 6.2.1 and Remark 6.2.2 there exists u\in\mathcal{D}(\rho) such that u^n\rightharpoonup u up to a subsequence, whence arguing as in Lemma 6.2.5

Next, let v\in\mathcal{D}(\rho) such that J(v)=m(\rho) and define v^n:=(\rho^n_jv_j/\rho_j)_{j=1}^K\in\mathcal{D}(\rho^n). Then v^n\to v and so

The continuity of m follows from (Proof) and (Proof).

(iii) Note that (6.1.1) holds for every sufficiently small \rho. Fix \varepsilon>0. Let \mathcal{A}\ni \rho^n\to0 and u^n\in\mathcal{D}(\rho^n) such that J(u^n)\le m(\rho^n)+\varepsilon. In particular, u^n\to0 in L^2(\mathbb{R}^N)^K and u^n\in\mathcal{D}(\tilde{\rho}) for some \tilde{\rho}\in]0,\infty[^K, therefore u^n is bounded in H^1(\mathbb{R}^N)^K due to Lemma 6.2.1 and Remark 6.2.2. This, together with (F1), (F2), and Theorem 5.0.2, yields \int_{\mathbb{R}^N}F(u^n)\,dx\to0, which implies \liminf_nJ(u^n)=\liminf_n|\nabla u^n|_2^2/2\ge0,

whence, in view also of Lemma 6.2.3 and Remark 6.2.4, 0\ge\limsup_nm(\rho^n)\ge\liminf_nm(\rho^n)\ge-\varepsilon. Letting \varepsilon\to0^+ we conclude.

(iv) Note that (6.1.1) holds for every sufficiently large \rho. Fix \rho\in\mathcal{A}, u\in\mathcal{D}(\rho)\setminus\{0\} and note that \int_{\mathbb{R}^N}F(u)\,dx>0 from (F3). For every j\in\{1,\dots,K\} let \rho_j^n\to\infty and denote a_n:=\max_{j=1,\dots,K}\rho_j/\rho_j^n and u^n(x):=u(a_n^{2/N}x). Then \lim_na_n=0, u^n\in\mathcal{D}(\rho^n), and

(v) Let \rho,\bar{\rho}\in\mathcal{A} as in the statement. Clearly m(\rho)\ge m(\bar{\rho}) from item (i). If m(\rho)=m(\bar{\rho}), then there exists u\in\mathcal{S}(\rho)\subset\mathcal{D}(\bar{\rho})\setminus\mathcal{S}(\bar{\rho}) such that J(u)=m(\rho)=m(\bar{\rho}), which is impossible. The same argument applies to the version of item (v) that involves minimizers with nonnegative components.

Let u\inH^1(\mathbb{R}^N)^K such that M'(u)=0, i.e., u solves -\Delta u=\frac{N}4h(u). Then u satisfies the Pohožaev identity \int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\nabla u|^2-\frac{N^2}{2(N-2)}H(u)\,dx=0. If M(u)=0, then we infer |\nabla u|_2=0.

Point (a) follows from Lemmas 7.2.7 and 7.2.8. Now we prove point (b). From Lemma 7.2.9 (a), u is of class \mathcal{C}^2, while from Proposition 5.0.1 there exist (\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_K)\in[0,\infty[^K and \sigma\in\mathbb{R} such that (Proof) holds and \sigma=0 as in the proof of Lemma 7.2.9 (a).

It follows from Lemma 7.2.9 (b), Theorem 7.1.2 (b), and the maximum principle [Evans, Lemma IX.V.1] (the implication u_j\ne0\Rightarrow\lambda_j>0 is proved as in the proof of Lemma 7.2.9 (b)).

It follows directly from Lemma 7.2.11 and Theorem 7.1.3.

From Theorem 5.0.2, for every \varepsilon>0 there exists c_\varepsilon such that for every u\in\mathcal{M}\cap\mathcal{D}

i.e.

Taking \varepsilon sufficiently small so that

we conclude.

First of all, note that, if u\in\mathcal{M}, then due to (F5)

and so, a fortiori, J is nonegative on \mathcal{M}\cap\mathcal{D}. Let u^n\in\mathcal{M}\cap\mathcal{D} such that \|u^n\|\to\infty, i.e., \lim_n|\nabla u^n|_2=\infty, and define

Note that s_n\to0, |w^n_j|_2=|u^n_j|_2\le\rho_j for j\in\{1,\dots,K\}, and |\nabla w^n|_2=1, in particular w^n is bounded in H^1(\mathbb{R}^N)^K. Suppose by contradiction that

Then there exist y^n\in\mathbb{R}^N and w\in H^1(\mathbb{R}^N)^K such that, up to a subsequence, w^n(\cdot+y^n)\rightharpoonup w\ne0 in H^1(\mathbb{R}^N)^K and w^n(\cdot+y^n)\to w a.e. in \mathbb{R}^N. Thus, owing to (F2),

It follows that

and so, from [Lions84_2, Lemma I.1], w^n\to0 in L^{2_\#}(\mathbb{R}^N)^K. Since

Lemma 7.2.4 yields

for every s>0. Taking into account that

we have that \liminf_nJ(u^n)\ge s^2/2 for every s>0, i.e., \lim_nJ(u^n)=\infty.

We prove that there exists \alpha>0 such that

From Theorem 5.0.2 and (7.1.2), for every \varepsilon>0 there exists c_\varepsilon>0 such that

Choosing

we obtain, provided |\nabla u|_2\le\alpha,

and so \displaystyle J(u)\ge\frac{|\nabla u|_2^2}{2N}. Now take u\in\mathcal{M}\cap\mathcal{D} and \alpha>0 such that (Proof) holds and define

Clearly |w_j|_2=|u_j|_2\le\rho_j for j\in\{1,\dots,K\} and |\nabla w|_2=\alpha, whence in view of Lemma 7.2.4

Let u^n\in\mathcal{M}\cap\mathcal{D} such that \lim_nJ(u^n)=\inf_{\mathcal{M}\cap\mathcal{D}}J. Then u^n is bounded due to Lemma 7.2.5 and, in view of Lemma 7.2.2, we find (\tilde{u}^i)_{i=0}^\infty\subset H^1(\mathbb{R}^N)^K and (y_n^{i,n})_{i=0}^\infty\subset\mathbb{R}^N such that (7.2.2)–(7.2.2) hold. Let

and suppose by contradiction that I=\emptyset. Then, since u^n\in\mathcal{M}\cap\mathcal{D}, there holds

owing to (7.2.2), which contradicts Lemma 7.2.3. Now we prove that

for some i\in I. Assume by contradiction that

for every i\in I. Then from (7.2.2) and (7.2.2) we have

a contradiction. Let \tilde u=\tilde{u}^i satisfy (Proof) for some i\in I. Then there exists R>0 such that \tilde u(R\cdot)\in\mathcal{M} and again from (Proof) we indeed know that R\geq 1, whence \tilde{u}(R\cdot)\in\mathcal{D}. Hence Fatou’s Lemma yields

i.e., R=1 and J(\tilde{u})=\inf_{\mathcal{M}\cap\mathcal{D}}J.

Let \tilde{u}\in\mathcal{M}\cap\mathcal{D} such that J(\tilde{u})=\inf_{\mathcal{M}\cap\mathcal{D}}J be given by Lemma 7.2.7. For simplicity, let us denote, for every j=1,\dots,K, u_j:=\tilde{u}_j^* and u:=(u_1,\dots,u_K). Let a=a(u) be determined by Lemma 7.2.4. Since

in view of Lemma 7.2.4 we have that a\le1 and, consequently, M(a\star\tilde{u})\ge0. Let

Then, from Lemma 6.2.10,

i.e., J(a\star u)=\inf_{\mathcal{M}\cap\mathcal{D}}J.

(a) In Proposition 5.0.1 we put m=K, n=1, \mathcal{H}=H^1(\mathbb{R}^N)^K, f=J, \phi_j=|\cdot|_2^2-\rho_j^2 for all 1\leq j\leq K, and \psi_1=M. Then there exist (\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_K)\in[0,\infty[^K and \sigma\in\mathbb{R} such that

for every i\in\{1,\dots,K\} and u satisfies the Nehari identity

If \sigma=1/2, then (F4,\preceq), (F5), and (Proof) yield

a contradiction. Hence \sigma\ne1/2 and u satisfies also the Pohožaev identity

Combining (Proof) and (Proof) we obtain

and, using the fact that u\in\mathcal{M},

that is,

which together with (F4,\preceq) yields \sigma=0. Since u\in W^{2,p}_\textup{loc}(\mathbb{R}^N)^K for all p < \infty, we can argue as in the proof of [BerLions, Lemma 1] and have that u is of class \mathcal{C}^2.

(b) Suppose by contradiction that \lambda_1=\dots=\lambda_K=0, which is the case when |u_j|<\rho_j for every j. From (Proof) and (Proof) (with \sigma=0) there follows

In view of (F5)

for all x\in\mathbb{R}^N. Since F_j satisfies the scalar variant of (F5), 2^*F_j\bigl(u_j(x)\bigr)\geq f_j\bigl(u_j(x)\bigr)u_j(x) for every j\in\{1,\dots,K\} and note that

hence, from (Proof), the equalities above are actually equalities. On the other hand, for every \ell\in\{1,\dots,L\}, \sum_{j=1}^Kr_{j,\ell}<2^*, which yields \beta_\ell=0 or \prod_{j=1}^K|u_j(x)|^{r_{j,\ell}}=0 for every x\in\mathbb{R}^N, thus

for every j\in\{1,\dots,K\} and every x\in\mathbb{R}^N.

Now fix j\in\{1,\dots,K\} such that u_j\neq 0. Since u_j\inH^1(\mathbb{R}^N), there exists an open interval I\subset \mathbb{R} such that 0 \in\overline{I} and 2^*F_j(s)=f_j(s)s for s\in\overline{I}. Then F_j(s)=c|s|^{2^*} for some c>0, s\in \overline{I}, and u_j\ge0 solves -\Delta u_j=2^*c|u_j|^{2^*-2}u_j. Hence u_j is an Aubin–Talenti instanton, up to scaling and translations, which is not L^2-integrable because N\in\{3,4\}, see [Aubin_fr, Talenti].

Suppose that there exists \nu\in\{1,\dots,K-1\} such that, up to changing the order, |u_j|_2<\rho_j for every j\in\{1,\dots,\nu\} and |u_j|_2=\rho_j for every j\in\{\nu+1,\dots,K\}. Arguing as before, there exist 0=\lambda_1=\dots=\lambda_{\nu}\leq \lambda_{\nu+1},\dots,\lambda_K such that

Since F_j satisfies the scalar variant of (F5), s\in]0,\infty[\mapsto F_j(s)/s^{2_\#}\in\mathbb{R} is nondecreasing, hence F_j is nondecreasing as well for all j. Then, the first \nu equations in the system above yield -\Delta u_j\ge0 for j\in\{1,\dots,\nu\}. Since u\in L^{\frac{N}{N-2}}(\mathbb{R}^N)^K as N\in\{3,4\}, [Ikoma, Lemma A.2] implies u_j=0 for every j\in\{1,\dots,\nu\}. Notice we have proved that \lambda_j=0 implies u_j=0, hence, in particular, \lambda_j>0 for every j\in\{\nu+1,\dots,K\}.

Since L=1, we denote \beta_1, r_{1,1}, r_{2,1} by \beta, r_{1}, r_{2} respectively. Suppose by contradiction that u_1=0 or u_2=0, say u_1=0, which implies that |u_2|_2=\rho_2. We want to find a suitable w\in\mathcal{S} such that

where a=a(w) is defined in Lemma 7.2.4 (note that a(w)=b(w) because (F4,\preceq) holds), which is impossible. First we show that \inf_{\mathcal{M}\cap\mathcal{D}}J does not depend on \beta. Consider the functional

and the sets

Observe that J(0,v)=J_*(v) for v\in H^1(\mathbb{R}^N). Moreover, (0,v)\in\mathcal{D} if and only if v\in\mathcal{D}_*, and (0,v)\in\mathcal{M} if and only if v\in\mathcal{M}_*. In particular,

i.e., \inf_{\mathcal{M}\cap\mathcal{D}}J=\inf_{\mathcal{M}_*\cap\mathcal{D}_*}J_*, and the claim follows because J_*, \mathcal{D}_*, and \mathcal{M}_* do not depend on \beta.

In view of Theorem 7.1.3 for K=1, there exists \bar{v}\in\mathcal{M}_*\cap\partial\mathcal{D}_* such that

Note that \bar{v} does not depend on \beta. Define w=(w_1,w_2):=\bigl(\frac{\rho_1}{\rho_2}\bar{v},\bar{v}\bigr). From Lemma 7.2.4, a=a_\beta is implicitly defined by

hence there exist C>0 not depending on \beta such that

whence

Since a_\beta\star w\in\mathcal{M}, we have from (F5)

therefore (Proof) holds true for sufficiently large \beta owing to (F1), (Proof), and (Proof).

We prove as in Lemma 6.2.1 (see also Remark 6.2.2) that E|_{D_\mathcal{F}\cap\mathfrak{H}_\textup{s}^*} is coercive (and bounded from below) and consider a minimizing sequence \mathbf{U}_n\in D_\mathcal{F}\cap\mathfrak{H}_\textup{s}^* for E|_{D_\mathcal{F}\cap\mathfrak{H}_\textup{s}^*}, which is therefore bounded and, up to a subsequence, \mathbf{U}_n\rightharpoonup\mathbf{U} in H^1(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R}^N) for some \mathbf{U}\in D_\mathcal{F}\cap\mathfrak{H}_\textup{s}^*. Then, as in Lemma 6.2.5, we have that \int_{\mathbb{R}^N}G(\mathbf{U}_n)\,dx\to\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}G(\mathbf{U})\,dx and so E(\mathbf{U})=\inf_{D_\mathcal{F}\cap\mathfrak{H}_\textup{s}^*}E. Moreover, as in Lemma 6.2.3, E(s\star\mathbf{V})<0 for \mathbf{V}\in D_\mathcal{F}\cap\mathfrak{H}_\textup{s}^*\setminus\{0\} and 0<s\ll1, thus E(\mathbf{U})<0. Finally, as in the proof of Theorem 6.1.1, there exists \lambda\ge0 such that \nabla\times\nabla\times\mathbf{U}+\lambda\mathbf{U}=g(\mathbf{U}) in \mathbb{R}^N and, if \lambda=0, then E(\mathbf{U})\ge0, hence \lambda>0 and, consequently, \mathbf{U}\in S_\mathcal{F}\cap\mathfrak{H}_\textup{s}^*, i.e., (\lambda,\mathbf{U}) is a solution to (?).

We prove as in Lemma 7.2.5 that E|_{\mathcal{M}\cap D_\mathcal{F}} is coercive and consider a minimizing sequence \mathbf{U}_n\in\mathcal{M}\cap D_\mathcal{F} for E|_{\mathcal{M}\cap D_\mathcal{F}}, which is therefore bounded. Then, as in Lemma 7.2.7, we have that \mathbf{U}_n\rightharpoonup\mathbf{U} up to subsequences and translations for some \mathbf{U}\in\mathcal{M}\cap D_\mathcal{F} such that E(\mathbf{U})=\inf_{\mathcal{M}\cap D_\mathcal{F}}E. Moreover, E(\mathbf{U})>0 arguing as in Lemma 7.2.6. Next, a similar argument to Lemma 7.2.9 and Remark 7.2.10 yields that \mathbf{U}\in\partial D_\mathcal{F}=S_\mathcal{F} and there exists \lambda>0 such that \nabla\times\nabla\times\mathbf{U}+\lambda\mathbf{U}=g(\mathbf{U}), i.e., (\lambda,\mathbf{U}) is a solution to (?).

It follows from Theorem 8.2.1 and either Theorem 8.1.1 (item (a)) or Theorem 8.1.2 and Proposition 8.2.2 (item (b)).