text:
# Existence and multiplicity for perturbations of an equation involving Hardy inequality and critical Sobolev exponent in the whole 𝐼𝑅^𝑁.

## 1. Introduction

In this paper we will consider the following class of problems

(1)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }u=\left(\frac{A+h(x)}{|x|^2}\right)u+k(x)u^{2^{}1},xIR^N,\\ u>0\text{ in }IR^N,\text{ and }u𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N),\end{array}$$

where $`N3`$, $`2^{}=\frac{2N}{N2}`$ and $`h,k`$ are continuous bounded functions, for which we will state appropriate complementary hypotheses. Here $`𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$ denotes the closure space of $`𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}(IR^N)`$ with respect to the norm

$$u_{𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)}:=\left(_{IR^N}|u|^2𝑑x\right)^{1/2}.$$

By the Sobolev inequality we can see that $`𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$ is the class of functions in $`L^2^{}(IR^N)`$ the distributional gradient of which satisfies $`\left(_{IR^N}|u|^2𝑑x\right)^{1/2}<\mathrm{}`$.

For $`h0,k1`$ the problem is studied by S. Terracini in . In  the existence of a positive solution is proved in the case $`h=0`$ by using the perturbative method by Ambrosetti-Badiale in , even for a more general class of differential operators related to the Caffarelli-Kohn-Nirenberg inequalities that contains our operator. By the perturbative nature of the method, the solutions found in  are close to some radial solutions to the unperturbed problem. On the other hand, in  Smets obtains the existence of a positive solution for problem (1) with $`h=0`$, $`k`$ bounded, $`k(0)=\underset{|x|\mathrm{}}{lim}k(x)`$ and dimension $`N=4`$.

In this paper we study the existence of positive solutions in the case in which either $`h0`$ and $`k1`$ or $`k1`$ and $`h0`$ satisfying suitable assumptions. Our results hold in any dimension and are proved using the concentration-compactness arguments by P.L. Lions.

It is known that the general problem has an obstruction provided by a Pohozaev type identity that shows us the particularity of this problem, that is: the existence of a positive solution depends not only on the size of the functions $`h`$ and $`k`$ but also on their shape. More precisely, assume that $`u`$ is a variational solution to our equation with $`h,k𝒞^1`$. Multiplying the equation by $`x,u`$ and with a convenient argument of approximation we get that necessarily

$$\frac{\lambda }{2}h(x),x\frac{u^2}{|x|^2}𝑑x+\frac{1}{2^{}}k(x),x|u|^2^{}𝑑x=0.$$

This behaviour makes the problem more interesting to be analyzed. The existence part of the paper is mainly based on the concentration-compactness arguments by P.L. Lions (see  and ) and involves some qualitative properties of the coefficients that avoids the Pohozaev type obstruction. We also obtain multiplicity of positive solutions by using variational and topological arguments.

The organization of the paper is as follows. Section 2 is devoted to the study of nonexistence and existence for $`k1`$ and $`h`$ satisfying suitable conditions. As pointed out above, we mainly use the concentration-compactness principle by P.L. Lions. The main result in this part is Theorem 2.5. Section 3 deals with the existence and multiplicity results for the case in which $`h0`$ and $`k`$ satisfies some convenient conditions. In this part of the paper we will use techniques that previously had been introduced to study related problems by Tarantello in  and refined by Cao- Chabrowsky in  (see also the references therein).We use this approach in the case that the function $`k`$ achieves its maximum at a finite number of points. The main result in Section 3 is Theorem 3.13. In Section 4 we study a more general class of functions $`k`$, i.e. we treat the case in which $`k`$ can reach its maximum at infinitely many points, but having only accumulation points at finite distance to the origin. To analyze this case we use the Lusternik-Schnirelman category. This point of view is inspired by the study of multiplicity of positive solutions to subcritical problems done by R. Musina in . After several technical lemmas the main result contained in Section 4 is Theorem 4.5.

In a forthcoming paper we will discuss the case of critical equations related to the so called Caffarelli-Kohn-Nirenberg inequalities.

Acknowledgment.- We want to thank Professor A. Ambrosetti for his encouragement and for many helpful suggestions. Part of this work was carried out while the second author was visiting Universidad Autónoma of Madrid; she wishes to express her gratitude to Departamento de Matemáticas of Universidad Autónoma for its warm hospitality.

## 2. Perturbation in the linear term

We will study perturbations of a class of elliptic equations in $`IR^N`$ related to a Hardy inequality interacting with a nonlinear term involving the critical Sobolev exponent . Precisely we will consider the following problem

(2)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }u=\frac{A+h(x)}{|x|^2}u+u^{2^{}1},xIR^N,\\ u>0\text{ in }IR^N,\text{ and }u𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N),\end{array}$$

where $`N3`$ and $`2^{}=\frac{2N}{N2}`$. Hypotheses on $`h`$ will be given below. To be precise we recall the Hardy inequality.

###### Lemma 2.1.

(Hardy inequality) Assume that $`u𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$, then $`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{|x|}}L^2(IR^N)`$ and

$$_{IR^N}\frac{|u|^2}{|x|^2}𝑑xC_N_{IR^N}|u|^2𝑑x,$$

where $`C_N=\left(\frac{2}{N2}\right)^2`$ is optimal and not attained.

Hereafter we will call $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_N:=C_N^1=\frac{(N2)^2}{4}`$. See for instance  for a proof.

The case $`h=0`$ of (2) has been studied by S. Terracini in ; she shows, in particular, that

1. if $`A\mathrm{\Lambda }_N`$, then problem (2) has no positive solution in $`𝒟^{}(IR^N)`$;
2. if $`A(0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)`$ then problem (2) has the one-dimensional $`𝒞^2`$ manifold of positive solutions

(3)
$$Z_A=\left\{w_\mu \right|w_\mu (x)=\mu ^{\frac{N2}{2}}w^{(A)}\left(\frac{x}{\mu }\right),\mu >0\},$$

where

(4)
$$w^{(A)}(x)=\frac{\left(N(N2)\nu _A^2\right)^{\frac{N2}{4}}}{\left(|x|^{1\nu _A}(1+|x|^{2\nu _A})\right)^{\frac{N2}{2}}},\text{ and }\nu _A=\left(1\frac{A}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$

Moreover, if we set $`Q_A(u)={\displaystyle _{IR^N}}|u|^2𝑑xA{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{|x|^2}}𝑑x`$, then we obtain that

(5)
$$\overline{S}\underset{u𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)\backslash \{0\}}{inf}\frac{Q_A(u)}{u_2^{}^2}=\frac{Q_A(w_\mu )}{w_\mu _2^{}^2}=S\left(1\frac{A}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}\right)^{\frac{N1}{N}},$$

where $`S`$ is the best constant in the Sobolev inequality. Notice that $`\overline{S}`$ is attained exactly in the family $`w_\mu `$ defined in (3).

### 2.1. Nonexistence results

We begin by proving some nonexistence results that show the fact that in this kind of problems both the size and the shape of the perturbation are important. Define

(6)
$$Q(u)=_{IR^N}|u|^2𝑑x_{IR^N}\left(\frac{A+h(x)}{|x|^2}\right)u^2𝑑x,$$

$`𝒦=\left\{u𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)\right|_{IR^N}|u|^2^{}𝑑x=1\}`$, and consider $`I_1=inf_{u𝒦}Q(u).`$

###### Lemma 2.2.

Problem (2) has no positive solution in the following cases:

1. If $`A+h(x)0`$ in some ball $`B_\delta (0)`$ and $`I_1<0`$.
2. If $`h`$ is a differentiable function such that $`h^{}(x),x`$ has a fixed sign.

Proof. We begin by proving nonexistence under hypothesis $`(a)`$. Suppose that $`I_1<0`$, and let $`u`$ be a positive solution to (2). By classical regularity results for elliptic equations we obtain that $`u𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(IR^N\backslash \{0\})`$. On the other hand, since $`A+h(x)0`$ in $`B_\delta (0)`$, we obtain that $`\mathrm{\Delta }u0\text{ in }𝒟^{}(B_\delta (0))`$. Therefore, since $`u0`$ and $`u0`$, by the strong maximum principle we obtain that $`u(x)c>0`$ in some ball $`B_\eta (0)B_\delta (0)`$.
Let $`\varphi _n𝒞_0^{\mathrm{}}(IR^N)`$, $`\varphi _n0`$, $`\varphi _n_2=1`$, be a minimizing sequence of $`I_1`$. By using $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _n^2}{u}}`$ as a test function in equation $`(\text{2})`$ we obtain

$$_{IR^N}\left(\frac{\varphi _n^2}{u}\right)u=_{IR^N}\frac{A+h(x)}{|x|^2}\varphi _n^2+_{IR^N}\varphi _n^2u^{2^{}2}.$$

A direct computation gives

(7)
$$2_{IR^N}\frac{\varphi _n}{u}\varphi _nudx_{IR^N}\frac{\varphi _n^2}{u^2}|u|^2𝑑x=_{IR^N}\frac{A+h(x)}{|x|^2}\varphi _n^2+_{IR^N}\varphi _n^2u^{2^{}2},$$

and since

$$2\frac{\varphi _n}{u}\varphi _nu\frac{\varphi _n^2}{u^2}|u|^2|\varphi _n|^2,$$

we conclude that

$$_{IR^N}|\varphi _n|^2𝑑x_{IR^N}\frac{A+h(x)}{|x|^2}\varphi _n^2+_{IR^N}\varphi _n^2u^{2^{}2}.$$

On the other hand, $`I_1<0`$ implies that we can find an integer $`n_0`$ such that if $`nn_0`$,

$$_{IR^N}|\varphi _n|^2_{IR^N}\frac{A+h(x)}{|x|^2}\varphi _n^2<0.$$

As a consequence $`_{IR^N}\varphi _n^2u^{2^{}2}<0`$, for $`nn_0`$, which contradicts the hypothesis $`u>0`$.

Let us now prove $`(b)`$. By using the Pohozaev multiplier $`x,u`$, we obtain that if $`u`$ is a positive solution to (2), then

$$_{IR^N}\frac{h^{}(x),x}{|x|^2}u^2𝑑x=0,$$

which is not possible if $`h^{}(x),x`$ has a fixed sign and $`u0`$.

###### Corollary 2.3.

Assume either

* $`A>\mathrm{\Lambda }_N`$ and $`h0`$, or
* $`A>\mathrm{\Lambda }_N`$ and $`1\frac{4A}{(N2)^2h_{\mathrm{}}}`$,

then problem (2), has no positive solution.

### 2.2. The local Palais-Smale condition: existence results

To prove the existence results we will use a variational approach for the associated functional

(8)
$$J(u)=\frac{1}{2}_{IR^N}|u|^2𝑑x\frac{1}{2}_{IR^N}\frac{A+h(x)}{|x|^2}u^2𝑑x\frac{1}{2^{}}_{IR^N}|u|^2^{}𝑑x.$$

We suppose that $`h`$ verifies the following hypotheses

1. $`A+h(0)>0`$.
2. $`hC(IR^N)L^{\mathrm{}}(IR^N)`$.
3. For some $`c_0>0`$, $`A+h_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_Nc_0`$.

Critical points of $`J`$ in $`𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$ are solutions to equation (2). We begin by proving a local Palais-Smale condition for $`J`$. Precisely we prove the following Theorem.

###### Theorem 2.4.

Suppose that $`(h0),(h1),(h2)`$ hold and denote $`h(\mathrm{})\underset{|x|\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}h(x)`$.
Let $`\{u_n\}𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$ be a Palais-Smale sequence for $`J`$, namely

$$J(u_n)c<\mathrm{},J^{}(u_n)0.$$

If

$$c<c^{}=\frac{1}{N}S^{\frac{N}{2}}\mathrm{min}\{\left(1\frac{A+h(0)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}\right)^{\frac{N1}{2}},\left(1\frac{A+h(\mathrm{})}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}\right)^{\frac{N1}{2}}\},$$

then $`\{u_n\}`$ has a converging subsequence.

Proof. Let $`\{u_n\}`$ be a Palais-Smale sequence for $`J`$, then according to $`(h2)`$, $`\{u_n\}`$ is bounded in $`𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$. Then, up to a subsequence, $`i)u_nu_0\text{ in }𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$, $`ii)u_nu_0`$ a.e., and $`iii)u_nu_0`$ in $`L_{loc}^\alpha `$, $`\alpha [1,2^{})`$. Therefore, by using the concentration compactness principle by P. L. Lions, (see  and ), there exists a subsequence (still denoted by $`\{u_n\}`$) which satisfies

1. $`|u_n|^2d\mu |u_0|^2+_{j𝒥}\mu _j\delta _{x_j}+\mu _0\delta _0,`$
2. $`|u_n|^2^{}d\nu =|u_0|^2^{}+_{j𝒥}\nu _j\delta _{x_j}+\nu _0\delta _0,`$
3. $`S\nu _j^{\frac{2}{2^{}}}\mu _j\text{ for all }j𝒥\{0\}`$, where $`𝒥`$ is at most countable,
4. $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_n^2}{|x|^2}}d\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{u_0^2}{|x|^2}}+\gamma _0\delta _0,`$
5. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_N\gamma _0\mu _0`$.

To study the concentration at infinity of the sequence we will also need to consider the following quantities

$$\nu _{\mathrm{}}=\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}_{|x|>R}|u_n|^2^{}𝑑x,\mu _{\mathrm{}}=\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}_{|x|>R}|u_n|^2^{}𝑑x$$

and

$$\gamma _{\mathrm{}}=\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}_{|x|>R}\frac{u_n^2}{|x|^2}𝑑x.$$

We claim that $`𝒥`$ is finite and for $`j𝒥`$, either $`\nu _j=0`$ or $`\nu _jS^{N/2}`$. We follow closely the arguments in . Let $`\epsilon >0`$ and let $`\varphi `$ be a smooth cut-off function centered at $`x_j`$, $`0\varphi (x)1`$ such that

$$\varphi (x)=\{\begin{array}{c}1,\text{ if }|xx_j|\frac{\epsilon }{2},\hfill \\ 0,\text{ if }|xx_j|\epsilon ,\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`|\varphi |{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\epsilon }}`$. So we get

$$\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & =\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}J^{}(u_n),u_n\varphi \hfill & \\ & & \\ & =\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(_{IR^N}|u_n|^2\varphi +_{IR^N}u_nu_n\varphi _{IR^N}\frac{A+h(x)}{|x|^2}u_n^2\varphi _{IR^N}\varphi |u_n|^2^{}\right).\hfill & \end{array}$$

From 1), 2) and 4) and since $`0\text{supp}(\varphi )`$ we find that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}_{IR^N}|u_n|^2\varphi =_{IR^N}\varphi 𝑑\mu ,\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}_{IR^N}|u_n|^2^{}\varphi =_{IR^N}\varphi 𝑑\nu $$

and

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}_{B_\epsilon (x_j)}\frac{A+h(x)}{|x|^2}u_n^2\varphi =_{B_\epsilon (x_j)}\frac{A+h(x)}{|x|^2}u_0^2\varphi .$$

Taking limits as $`\epsilon 0`$ we obtain,

$$\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\left|_{IR^N}u_nu_n\varphi \right|0.$$

Hence,

$$0=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}J^{}(u_n),u_n\varphi =\mu _j\nu _j.$$

By 3) we have that $`S\nu _j^{\frac{2}{2^{}}}\mu _j`$, then we obtain that either $`\nu _j=0`$ or $`\nu _jS^{N/2}`$, which implies that $`𝒥`$ is finite. The claim is proved.

Let us now study the possibility of concentration at $`x=0`$ and at $`\mathrm{}`$. Let $`\psi `$ be a regular function such that $`0\psi (x)1`$,

$$\psi (x)=\{\begin{array}{c}1,\text{ if }|x|>R+1\hfill \\ 0,\text{ if }|x|<R,\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`|\psi |{\displaystyle \frac{4}{R}}`$. From (5) we obtain that

(9)
$$\frac{{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}|(u_n\psi )|^2𝑑x(A+h(\mathrm{})){\displaystyle _{IR^N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^2u_n^2}{|x|^2}}𝑑x}{\left(_{IR^N}|\psi u_n|^2^{}\right)^{2/2^{}}}S\left(1\frac{A+h(\mathrm{})}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}\right)^{\frac{N1}{N}}.$$

Hence

$$_{IR^N}|(u_n\psi )|^2𝑑x(A+h(\mathrm{}))_{IR^N}\frac{\psi ^2u_n^2}{|x|^2}𝑑xS\left(1\frac{A+h(\mathrm{})}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}\right)^{\frac{N1}{N}}\left(_{IR^N}|\psi u_n|^2^{}\right)^{2/2^{}}.$$

Therefore we conclude that

$`{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}\psi ^2|u_n|^2𝑑x+{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}u_n^2|\psi |^2𝑑x+2{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}u_n\psi u_n\psi dx`$
$`(A+h(\mathrm{})){\displaystyle _{IR^N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^2u_n^2}{|x|^2}}𝑑x+S\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{A+h(\mathrm{})}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}}\right)^{\frac{N1}{N}}\left({\displaystyle _{IR^N}}|\psi u_n|^2^{}\right)^{2/2^{}}.`$
We claim that

$$\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\left\{_{IR^N}u_n^2|\psi |^2𝑑x+2_{IR^N}|u_n|\psi |u_n||\psi |𝑑x\right\}=0.$$

Using Hölder inequality we obtain

$`{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}|u_n|\psi |u_n||\psi |𝑑x`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle _{R<|x|<R+1}}|u_n|^2|\psi |^2𝑑x\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle _{R<|x|<R+1}}|u_n|^2𝑑x\right)^{1/2}.`$
Hence

$`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}|u_n|\psi |u_n||\psi |𝑑x`$ $``$ $`C\left({\displaystyle _{R<|x|<R+1}}|u_0|^2|\psi |^2𝑑x\right)^{1/2}`$
$``$ $`C\left({\displaystyle _{R<|x|<R+1}}|u_0|^2^{}𝑑x\right)^{2/2^{}}\left({\displaystyle _{R<|x|<R+1}}|\psi |^N𝑑x\right)^{2/N}`$
$``$ $`\overline{C}\left({\displaystyle _{R<|x|<R+1}}|u_0|^2^{}𝑑x\right)^{2/2^{}}.`$
Therefore we conclude that

$$\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}_{IR^N}|u_n|\psi |u_n||\psi |𝑑x\overline{C}\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(_{R<|x|<R+1}|u_0|^2^{}𝑑x\right)^{2/2^{}}=0.$$

Using the same argument we can prove that

$$\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}_{IR^N}u_n^2|\psi |^2=0.$$

Then we get

(10)
$$\mu _{\mathrm{}}(A+h(\mathrm{}))\gamma _{\mathrm{}}S\left(1\frac{A+h(\mathrm{})}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}\right)^{\frac{N1}{N}}\nu _{\mathrm{}}^{2/2^{}}.$$

Since $`\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}J^{}(u_n),u_n\psi =0`$, we obtain that $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}(A+h(\mathrm{}))\gamma _{\mathrm{}}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$. Therefore we conclude that either $`\nu _{\mathrm{}}=0`$ or $`\nu _{\mathrm{}}S^{\frac{N}{2}}\left(1\frac{A+h(\mathrm{})}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}\right)^{\frac{N1}{2}}.`$

The same holds for the concentration in $`x_0=0`$, namely that either

$$\nu _0=0\text{ or }\nu _0S^{\frac{N}{2}}\left(1\frac{A+h(0)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}\right)^{\frac{N1}{2}}.$$

As a conclusion we obtain

$`c`$ $`=`$ $`J(u_n){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J^{}(u_n),u_n+o(1)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}|u_n|^2𝑑x+o(1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\left\{{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}|u_0|^2𝑑x+\nu _0+\nu _{\mathrm{}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j𝒥}{}}\nu _j\right\}.`$
If we assume the existence of $`j𝒥\{0,\mathrm{}\}`$ such that $`\nu _j0`$, then we obtain that $`cc^{}`$ a contradiction with the hypothesis, then up to a subsequence $`u_nu_0`$ in $`𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$.

To find solutions requires to consider some path in $`𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$ along which the maximum of $`J(\gamma (t))`$ is less than $`c^{}`$. To do that, for $`H=\mathrm{max}\{h(0),h(\mathrm{})\}`$, we consider $`\{w_\mu \}`$ the one parameter family of minimizer to problem (5) where $`A`$ is replaced by $`A+H`$. Then we have the following result.

###### Theorem 2.5.

Suppose that $`(h0)`$, $`(h1)`$ and $`(h2)`$ hold. Assume the existence of $`\mu _0>0`$ such that

(11)
$$_{IR^N}h(x)\frac{w_{\mu _0}^2(x)}{|x|^2}𝑑x>H_{IR^N}\frac{w_{\mu _0}^2(x)}{|x|^2}𝑑x,$$

then (2) has at least a positive solution.

Proof. Let $`\mu _0`$ be as in the hypothesis, then if we set

$$f(t)=J(tw_{\mu _0})=\frac{t^2}{2}\left(_{IR^N}|w_{\mu _0}|^2𝑑x_{IR^N}\frac{A+h(x)}{|x|^2}w_{\mu _0}^2𝑑x\right)\frac{t^2^{}}{2^{}}_{IR^N}|w_{\mu _0}|^2^{}𝑑x,t0$$

we can see easily that $`f`$ achieves its maximum at some $`t_0>0`$ and we can prove the existence of $`\rho >0`$ such that $`J(tw_{\mu _0})<0`$ if $`tw_{\mu _0}\rho `$. By a simple calculation we obtain that

$$t_0^{2^{}2}=\frac{_{IR^N}|w_{\mu _0}|^2𝑑x_{IR^N}\frac{A+h(x)}{|x|^2}w_{\mu _0}^2𝑑x}{_{IR^N}|w_{\mu _0}|^2^{}𝑑x},$$

and

(12)
$$J(t_0w_{\mu _0})=\underset{t0}{\mathrm{max}}J(tw_{\mu _0})=\frac{1}{N}\left(\frac{_{IR^N}|w_{\mu _0}|^2𝑑x_{IR^N}\frac{A+h(x)}{|x|^2}w_{\mu _0}^2𝑑x}{\left(_{IR^N}|w_{\mu _0}|^2^{}𝑑x\right)^{2/2^{}}}\right)^{N/2}.$$

Using (11) we obtain that

(13)
$$J(t_0w_{\mu _0})<\frac{1}{N}\left(\frac{_{IR^N}|w_{\mu _0}|^2𝑑x(A+H)_{IR^N}\frac{w_{\mu _0}^2}{|x|^2}𝑑x}{\left(_{IR^N}|w_{\mu _0}|^2^{}𝑑x\right)^{2/2^{}}}\right)^{N/2}=\frac{1}{N}S^{\frac{N}{2}}\left(1\frac{A+H}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}\right)^{\frac{N1}{2}}c^{}.$$

We set

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{\gamma C([0,1],𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)):\gamma (0)=0\text{ and }J(\gamma (1))<0\}.$$

Let

$$c=\underset{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}{inf}\underset{t[0,1]}{\mathrm{max}}J(\gamma (t)).$$

Since $`J(t_0w_{\mu _0})<c^{}`$, then we get a mountain pass critical point $`u_0`$. Then we have just to prove that we can choose $`u_00`$. We give two different proofs.

First proof. Consider the Nehari manifold,

$`M`$ $`\{u𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N):u0\text{ and }J^{}(u),u=0\}`$
$`=\{u𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N):u0\text{ and }{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}|u|^2𝑑x={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{A+h(x)}{|x|^2}}u^2𝑑x+{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}|u|^2^{}𝑑x\}.`$
Notice that $`u_0,|u_0|M`$. Since $`u_0`$ is a mountain pass solution to problem (2) then one can prove easily that $`cJ(u_0)=\underset{uM}{\mathrm{min}}J(u)`$ (see ). Moreover as $`J(|u_0|)=\underset{uM}{\mathrm{min}}J(u)`$, then $`|u_0|`$ is also a critical point of $`J`$.

Second proof. Here we use a variation of the deformation lemma. Since $`u_0`$ is a mountain pass critical point of $`J`$, which is even, we have

$$c=J(u_0)=J(|u_0|)=\underset{t>0}{\mathrm{max}}J(t|u_0|).$$

Let $`t_1>0`$ be such that $`J(t_1|u_0|)<0`$. We set $`\gamma _0(t)=t(t_1|u_0|)`$ for $`t[0,1]`$. Notice that $`\gamma _0\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and

$$c=J(|u_0|)=\underset{t[0,1]}{\mathrm{max}}J(\gamma _0(t)).$$

If $`|u_0|`$ is a critical point to $`J`$, then we have done. If not then using Lemma 3.7 of  we obtain that $`\gamma _0`$ can be deformed to a path $`\gamma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`\mathrm{max}_{t[0,1]}J(\gamma _1(t))<c`$, a contradiction with the definition of $`c`$ as a min-max value.

Hence we have nonnegative solution to problem (2). The positivity of the solution $`u_0`$ is an application of the strong maximum principle by using hypotheses $`(h0)`$ and $`(h1)`$.

We give now some sufficient condition on $`h`$ to have hypothesis (11).

###### Lemma 2.6.

Suppose one of the following hypotheses holds

1. $`h(x)h(0)+c_1|x|^{\nu _{A+H}(N2)}`$ for $`|x|`$ small and $`c_1>0`$ if $`h(0)h(\mathrm{})`$, or
2. $`h(x)h(\mathrm{})+c_2|x|^{\nu _{A+H}(N2)}`$ for $`|x|`$ large and $`c_2>0`$ if $`h(\mathrm{})h(0)`$,

then there exists $`\mu _0>0`$ such that (11) holds.

Proof. Let $`\delta >0`$ be small such that if $`|x|<\delta `$ then $`h(x)h(0)+c_1|x|^{\nu _{A+H}(N2)}`$. For simplicity of notation we set $`\nu _{A+H}=\nu `$. Let

$$I_{\delta ,\mu }=_{|x|<\delta }(h(x)H)\frac{dx}{|x|^{(1\nu )N+2\nu }(\mu ^{2\nu }+|x|^{2\nu })^{N2}},$$

then

$$I_{\delta ,\mu }c_1_{|x|<\delta }\frac{|x|^{\nu (N2)}dx}{|x|^{(1\nu )N+2\nu }(\mu ^{2\nu }+|x|^{2\nu })^{N2}}.$$

Since $`\nu (N2)[(1\nu )N+2\nu +2\nu (N2)]=N`$, we conclude that $`I_{\delta ,\mu }\mathrm{}`$ as $`\mu 0`$. On the other hand

$$_{|x|\delta }|h(x)H|\frac{dx}{|x|^{(1\nu )N+2\nu }(\mu ^{2\nu }+|x|^{2\nu })^{N2}}C_{|x|\delta }\frac{dx}{|x|^{(1+\nu )N2\nu }}C(\delta ).$$

Therefore we get the existence of $`\mu _0>0`$ such that

$$_{IR^N}(h(x)H)\frac{w_{\mu _0}^2(x)}{|x|^2}𝑑x_{|x|<\delta }(h(x)H)\frac{w_{\mu _0}^2(x)}{|x|^2}𝑑x_{|x|\delta }|h(x)H|\frac{w_{\mu _0}^2(x)}{|x|^2}𝑑x>0.$$

Then the result follows.

The second case follows by using the same argument near infinity.

## 3. Perturbation of the nonlinear term: Multiplicity of positive solutions

In this section we deal with the following problem

(14)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }u=\frac{\lambda }{|x|^2}u+k(x)u^{2^{}1},xIR^N,\hfill & \\ u>0\text{ in }IR^N,\text{ and }u𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N),\hfill & \end{array}$$

where $`N3`$, $`0<\lambda <\mathrm{\Lambda }_N`$ and $`k`$ is a positive function.

### 3.1. Existence

Assume that $`k`$ verifies the hypothesis

$$(K0)kL^{\mathrm{}}(IR^N)C(IR^N)\text{ and }k_{\mathrm{}}>\mathrm{max}\{k(0),k(\mathrm{})\},\text{ where }k(\mathrm{})\underset{|x|\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}k(x).$$

We associate to problem (14) the following functional

(15)
$$J_\lambda (u)=\frac{1}{2}_{IR^N}|u|^2𝑑x\frac{\lambda }{2}_{IR^N}\frac{u^2}{|x|^2}𝑑x\frac{1}{2^{}}_{IR^N}k(x)|u|^2^{}𝑑x.$$

As in the first section we have the following Lemma.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`\{u_n\}𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$ be a Palais-Smale sequence for $`J_\lambda `$, namely

$$J_\lambda (u_n)c<\mathrm{},J_\lambda ^{}(u_n)0.$$

If

$$c<\stackrel{~}{c}(\lambda )=\frac{1}{N}S^{\frac{N}{2}}\mathrm{min}\{k_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{N2}{2}},(k(0))^{\frac{N2}{2}}\left(1\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}\right)^{\frac{N1}{2}},(k(\mathrm{}))^{\frac{N2}{2}}\left(1\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}\right)^{\frac{N1}{2}}\}$$

then $`\{u_n\}`$ has a converging subsequence.

The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 2.4.

In the case in which $`k`$ is a radial positive function, we can prove the following improved Palais-Smale condition.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Define

$$\stackrel{~}{c}_1(\lambda )=\frac{1}{N}S^{\frac{N}{2}}\left(1\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}\right)^{\frac{N1}{2}}\mathrm{min}\{(k(0))^{\frac{N2}{2}},(k(\mathrm{}))^{\frac{N2}{2}}\}.$$

If $`\{u_n\}𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$ is a Palais-Smale sequence for $`J_\lambda `$, namely

$$J_\lambda (u_n)c,J_\lambda ^{}(u_n)0,$$

and $`c<\stackrel{~}{c}_1`$, then $`\{u_n\}`$ has a converging subsequence.

###### Remark 3.3.

This follows from the fact that the inclusion of $`H_r^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\{uL^2(\mathrm{\Omega }):|u|L^2(\mathrm{\Omega }),u\text{ radial}\}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\{xIR^N:R_1<|x|<R_2\}`$, in $`L^q(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is compact for all $`1q<\mathrm{}`$ and in particular for $`q=2^{}`$, see .

As a consequence we obtain the following existence result.

###### Theorem 3.4.

Let $`k`$ be a positive radial function such that $`(K0)`$ is satisfied. Assume that there exists $`\mu _0>0`$ such that

(16)
$$_{IR^N}k(x)w_{\mu _0}^2^{}(x)𝑑x>\mathrm{max}\{k(0),k(\mathrm{})\}_{IR^N}w_{\mu _0}^2^{}(x)𝑑x,$$

where $`w_{\mu _0}`$ is a solution to problem

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }w=\frac{\lambda }{|x|^2}w+w^{2^{}1},xIR^N,\hfill & \\ w>0\text{ in }IR^N,\text{ and }w𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N).\hfill & \end{array}$$

Then (14) has at least a positive solution.

Proof. Since the proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 2.5, we omit it.

###### Remark 3.5.

Assume that one of the following hypotheses holds

1. $`k(x)k(0)+c_1|x|^{2\nu _\lambda }`$ for $`|x|`$ small and $`c_1>0`$ if $`k(0)k(\mathrm{})`$, or
2. $`k(x)k(\mathrm{})+c_2|x|^{2\nu _\lambda }`$ for $`|x|`$ large and $`c_2>0`$ if $`k(\mathrm{})k(0)`$,

then there exists $`\mu _0>0`$ such that (16) holds.

Let us set

$$b(\lambda )\{\begin{array}{cc}+\mathrm{}\hfill & \text{if }k(0)=k(\mathrm{})=0\hfill \\ \mathrm{min}\{(k(0))^{\frac{N2}{2}}\left(1\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}\right)^{\frac{N1}{2}},(k(\mathrm{}))^{\frac{N2}{2}}\left(1\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}\right)^{\frac{N1}{2}}\}\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Lemma 3.6.

If $`(K0)`$ holds, there exists $`\epsilon _0>0`$ such that $`k_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{N2}{2}}b(\epsilon _0)`$ and

(17)
$$\stackrel{~}{c}(\lambda )=\stackrel{~}{c}\frac{1}{N}S^{N/2}k_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{N2}{2}}$$

for any $`0<\lambda \epsilon _0`$.

Proof. ¿From $`(K0)`$ it follows that if $`\epsilon _0`$ is sufficiently small then $`k_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{N2}{2}}b(\epsilon _0)`$ and hence from the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{c}(\lambda )`$ we obtain the result.

### 3.2. Multiplicity

To find multiplicity results for problem (14) we need the following extra hypotheses on $`k`$:

* the set $`𝒞(k)=\left\{aIR^N\right|k(a)=\underset{xIR^N}{\mathrm{max}}k(x)\}`$ is finite, say $`𝒞(k)=\left\{a_j\right|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}j\text{Card }(𝒞(k))\}`$;
* there exists $`2<\theta <N`$ such that if $`a_j𝒞(k)`$ then $`k(a_j)k(x)=o(|xa_j|)^\theta \text{ as }xa_j`$.

Consider $`0<r_01`$ such that $`B_{r_0}(a_j)B_{r_0}(a_i)=\mathrm{}`$ for $`ij`$, $`1i,j\text{Card }(𝒞(k))`$. Let $`\delta =\frac{r_0}{3}`$ and for any $`1j\text{Card }(𝒞(k))`$ define the following function

(18)
$$T_j(u)=\frac{_{IR^N}\psi _j(x)|u|^2𝑑x}{_{IR^N}|u|^2𝑑x}\text{ where }\psi _j(x)=\mathrm{min}\{1,|xa_j|\}.$$

Notice that if $`u0`$ and $`T_j(u)\delta `$, then

$`r_0{\displaystyle _{IR^N\backslash B_{r_0}(a_j)}}|u|^2𝑑x`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _{IR^N\backslash B_{r_0}(a_j)}}\psi _j(x)|u|^2𝑑x`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}\psi _j(x)|u|^2𝑑x\delta {\displaystyle _{IR^N}}|u|^2𝑑x={\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{3}}{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}|u|^2𝑑x.`$
Hence we have the following property.

###### Lemma 3.7.

Let $`u𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$ be such that $`T_j(u)\delta `$, then

$$_{IR^N}|u|^23_{IR^N\backslash B_{r_0}(a_j)}|u|^2𝑑x.$$

As a consequence we obtain the following separation result.

###### Corollary 3.8.

Consider $`u𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$, $`u0`$, such that $`T_i(u)\delta `$ and $`T_j(u)\delta `$, then $`i=j`$.

Proof. By Lemma 3.7 we obtain that

$$2_{IR^N}|u|^2𝑑x3\left(_{IR^N\backslash B_{r_0}(a_i)}|u|^2𝑑x+_{IR^N\backslash B_{r_0}(a_j)}|u|^2𝑑x\right).$$

If $`ij`$ we find that

$$2_{IR^N}|u|^2𝑑x3_{IR^N}|u|^2𝑑x,$$

a contradiction if $`u0`$.

Consider the Nehari manifold,

(19)
$$M(\lambda )=\{u𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N):u0\text{ and }J_\lambda ^{}(u),u=0\}.$$

Therefore if $`uM(\lambda )`$

$$_{IR^N}|u|^2𝑑x\lambda _{IR^N}\frac{u^2}{|x|^2}𝑑x=_{IR^N}k(x)|u|^2^{}𝑑x.$$

Notice that for all $`u𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$, $`u0`$, there exists $`t>0`$ such that $`tuM(\lambda )`$ and for all $`uM(\lambda )`$ we have

$$_{IR^N}|u|^2𝑑x\lambda _{IR^N}\frac{u^2}{|x|^2}𝑑x<(2^{}1)_{IR^N}k(x)|u|^2^{}𝑑x,$$

hence, there exists $`c_1>0`$ such that

$$uM(\lambda ),u_{𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)}c_1.$$

###### Definition 3.9.

For any $`0<\lambda <\mathrm{\Lambda }_N`$ and $`1j\text{Card }(𝒞(k))`$, let us consider

$$M_j(\lambda )=\{uM(\lambda ):T_j(u)<\delta \}\text{ and its boundary }\mathrm{\Gamma }_j(\lambda )=\{uM(\lambda ):T_j(u)=\delta \}.$$

We define

$$m_j(\lambda )=inf\{J_\lambda (u):uM_j(\lambda )\}\text{ and }\eta _j(\lambda )=inf\{J_\lambda (u):u\mathrm{\Gamma }_j(\lambda )\}.$$

The following two Lemmas give the behaviour of the functional with respect to the critical level $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$.

###### Lemma 3.10.

Suppose that $`(K0)`$, $`(K1)`$, and $`(K2)`$ hold, then $`M_j(\lambda )\mathrm{}`$ and there exists $`\epsilon _1>0`$ such that

(20)
$$m_j(\lambda )<\stackrel{~}{c}\text{ for all }0<\lambda \epsilon _1\text{ and }1j\text{Card }(𝒞(k)).$$

Proof. We set

(21)
$$v_{\mu ,j}(x)=\frac{1}{(\mu ^2+|xa_j|^2)^{\frac{N2}{2}}}\text{ and }u_{\mu ,j}=\frac{v_{\mu ,j}}{v_{\mu ,j}_2^{}},$$

then $`u_{\mu ,j}_2^{}=1`$ and $`_{IR^N}|u_{\mu ,j}|^2𝑑x=S`$. If

$$t_{\mu ,j}(\lambda )=\left(\frac{_{IR^N}|u_{\mu ,j}|^2𝑑x\lambda _{IR^N}|x|^2u_{\mu ,j}^2𝑑x}{_{IR^N}k(x)|u_{\mu ,j}|^2^{}𝑑x}\right)^{\frac{N2}{4}},$$

then $`t_{\mu ,j}(\lambda )u_{\mu ,j}M(\lambda )`$. Making the change of variable $`xa_j=\mu y`$, we obtain

$$T_j(t_{\mu ,j}(\lambda )u_{\mu ,j})=\frac{_{IR^N}\psi _j(x)|u_{\mu ,j}|^2𝑑x}{_{IR^N}|u_{\mu ,j}|^2𝑑x}=\frac{_{IR^N}\psi _j(a_j+\mu y)|u_0(y)|^2𝑑y}{_{IR^N}|u_0(y)|^2𝑑y},$$

where $`u_0(x)`$ is $`u_{\mu ,j}`$ to scale $`\mu =1`$ and concentrated in the origin. Then

$$\underset{\mu 0}{lim}T_j(t_{\mu ,j}(\lambda )u_{\mu ,j})=\frac{_{IR^N}\psi _j(a_j)|u_0(y)|^2𝑑y}{_{IR^N}|u_0(y)|^2𝑑y}=\psi _j(a_j)=0,$$

uniformly in $`\lambda `$. Hence we get the existence of $`\mu _0`$ independent of $`\lambda `$ such that if $`\mu <\mu _0`$, then $`t_{\mu ,j}(\lambda )u_{\mu ,j}M_j(\lambda )`$. Notice that

$$t_{\mu ,j}(\lambda )t_1(\lambda )\left(k_{\mathrm{}}^1\left(1\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}\right)S\right)^{\frac{N2}{4}}.$$

In order to prove (20), it is sufficient to show the existence of $`\mu <\mu _0`$ such that if $`0<\lambda <\epsilon _1`$ then

$$\underset{tt_1(\lambda )}{\mathrm{max}}J_\lambda (tu_{\mu ,j})=J_\lambda (t_{\mu ,j}(\lambda )u_{\mu ,j})<\stackrel{~}{c}.$$

We have

$$\underset{tt_1(\lambda )}{\mathrm{max}}J_\lambda (tu_{\mu ,j})\underset{t>0}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{\frac{t^2}{2}_{IR^N}|u_{\mu ,j}|^2𝑑x\frac{t^2^{}}{2^{}}_{IR^N}k(x)|u_{\mu ,j}|^2^{}𝑑x\right\}\frac{1}{2}\lambda t_1^2(\lambda )_{IR^N}\frac{u_{\mu ,j}^2}{|x|^2}𝑑x$$

and

$$\underset{t>0}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{\frac{t^2}{2}_{IR^N}|u_{\mu ,j}|^2𝑑x\frac{t^2^{}}{2^{}}_{IR^N}k(x)|u_{\mu ,j}|^2^{}𝑑x\right\}=\frac{1}{N}\left(\frac{S}{\left(_{IR^N}k(x)|u_{\mu ,j}|^2^{}𝑑x\right)^{2/2^{}}}\right)^{N/2}.$$

In view of assumption $`(K2)`$ we have that for some positive constants $`\overline{c}_1,\overline{c}_2`$

$`{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}k(x)`$ $`|u_{\mu ,j}|^2^{}dx=k_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}(k(a_j)k(x))|u_{\mu ,j}|^2^{}𝑑x`$
$`=k_{\mathrm{}}\overline{c}_1\mu ^N{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}{\displaystyle \frac{k(a_j)k(x)}{(\mu ^2+|xa_j|^2)^N}}𝑑x`$
$`k_{\mathrm{}}\overline{c}_1\mu ^N\{{\displaystyle _{B_\delta (a_j)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{c}_2|xa_j|^\theta dx}{(\mu ^2+|xa_j|^2)^N}}+2k_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _{IR^N\backslash B_\delta (a_j)}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{(\mu ^2+|xa_j|^2)^N}}\}`$
$`k_{\mathrm{}}\overline{c}_1\mu ^N\{\mu ^{\theta N}\overline{c}_2{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}{\displaystyle \frac{|y|^\theta dy}{(1+|y|^2)^N}}+2k_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _{|y|\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{|y|^{2N}}}\}`$
$`=k_{\mathrm{}}+O(\mu ^\theta ).`$
Then we obtain that

$`\underset{tt_1(\lambda )}{\mathrm{max}}J(tu_{\mu ,j})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{S^{N/2}}{k_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{N2}{2}}+O(\mu ^\theta )}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda t_1^2(\lambda ){\displaystyle _{IR^N}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_{\mu ,j}^2}{|x|^2}}𝑑x`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{S^{N/2}}{k_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{N2}{2}}}}+O(\mu ^\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda t_1^2(\lambda ){\displaystyle _{IR^N}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_{\mu ,j}^2}{|x|^2}}𝑑x.`$
Using estimate A.6 from  we obtain that for some positive constant $`c`$

$$_{IR^N}\frac{u_{\mu ,j}^2}{|x|^2}𝑑xc\mu ^2\text{ as }\mu 0.$$

Therefore we get

$`\underset{tt_1(\lambda )}{\mathrm{max}}J(tu_{\mu ,j})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{S^{N/2}}{k_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{N2}{2}}}}+O(\mu ^\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c\lambda t_1^2(\lambda )\mu ^2`$
$``$ $`\stackrel{~}{c}+\overline{c}_3\mu ^\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c\lambda t_1^2(\lambda )\mu ^2,`$
where $`\overline{c}_3`$ is a positive constant. Since from $`(K2)`$ we have $`2<\theta <N`$, we get the existence of $`\epsilon _1`$ and $`\mu _0`$ such that if $`\mu <\mu _0`$ and $`0<\lambda <\epsilon _1`$, then $`\underset{tt_1(\lambda )}{\mathrm{max}}J(tu_{\mu ,j})<\stackrel{~}{c}`$ and the result follows.

We prove now the next result.

###### Lemma 3.11.

Suppose that $`(K0)`$, $`(K1)`$, and $`(K2)`$ are satisfied, then there exists $`\epsilon _2`$ such that for all $`0<\lambda <\epsilon _2`$ we have

$$\stackrel{~}{c}<\eta _j(\lambda ).$$

Proof. We argue by contradiction. We assume the existence of $`\lambda _n0`$ and $`\{u_n\}`$ such that $`u_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_j(\lambda _n)`$ and $`J_{\lambda _n}(u_n)c\stackrel{~}{c}=\frac{1}{N}S^{N/2}k_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{N2}{2}}`$. We can easily prove that $`\{u_n\}`$ is bounded. Then up to a subsequence we get the existence of $`l>0`$ such that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}_{IR^N}|u_n|^2𝑑x=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}_{IR^N}k(x)|u_n|^2^{}𝑑x=l.$$

Notice that $`lS^{N/2}k_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{N2}{2}}`$. On the other hand, by the definition of $`\{u_n\}`$ we have,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}l+o(1)`$ $`=`$ $`J_{\lambda _n}(u_n)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}|u_n|^2𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _n}{2}}{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_n^2}{|x|^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{}}}{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}k(x)|u_n|^2^{}𝑑x`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}S^{N/2}k_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{N2}{2}}+o(1).`$
Then we conclude that $`l=S^{N/2}k_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{N2}{2}}`$ and therefore,

(22)
$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}_{IR^N}\left(k_{\mathrm{}}k(x)\right)|u_n|^2^{}𝑑x=0.$$

We set $`w_n={\displaystyle \frac{u_n}{u_n_2^{}}}`$, then $`w_n_2^{}=1`$ and

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}_{IR^N}|w_n|^2𝑑x=S.$$

Hence by using the concentration compactness arguments by P.L. Lions (see also Proposition 5.1 and 5.2 in ), we get the existence of $`w_0𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$ such that $`w_n`$ converges to $`w_0`$ weakly in $`𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$ (up to a subsequence) and one of the following alternatives holds

1. $`w_00`$ and $`w_nw_0`$ strongly in the $`𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$.
2. $`w_00`$ and either

* $`|w_n|^2d\mu =S\delta _{x_0}`$ and $`|w_n|^2^{}d\nu =\delta _{x_0}`$

    or
    * $`|w_n|^2d\mu _{\mathrm{}}=S\delta _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`|w_n|^2^{}d\nu _{\mathrm{}}=\delta _{\mathrm{}}`$.

The last case means that

$$\nu _{\mathrm{}}=\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}_{|x|>R}|w_n|^2^{}𝑑x=1\text{ and }\mu _{\mathrm{}}=\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}_{|x|>R}|w_n|^2^{}𝑑x=S.$$

If the first alternative holds, from (22) we obtain that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}_{IR^N}\left(k_{\mathrm{}}k(x)\right)w_n^2^{}𝑑x=_{IR^N}\left(k_{\mathrm{}}k(x)\right)w_0^2^{}𝑑x=0,$$

a contradiction with the fact that $`k`$ is not a constant.

Assume that we have the alternative 2 i), then since $`T_j(w_n)=T_j(u_n)=\delta `$, we conclude that

$$\delta =T_j(w_n)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{_{IR^N}\psi _j(x)|w_n|^2𝑑x}{_{IR^N}|w_n|^2𝑑x}=\psi _j(x_0).$$

Hence the concentration is impossible in any point $`a_j𝒞(k)`$. On the other hand from (22) we obtain that

$$0=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}_{IR^N}\left(k_{\mathrm{}}k(x)\right)w_n^2^{}𝑑x=k_{\mathrm{}}k(x_0),$$

a contradiction.

To analyze concentration at $`\mathrm{}`$, consider a regular function $`\xi `$ satisfying

$$\xi (x)=\{\begin{array}{c}1,\text{ if }|x|>R+1\hfill \\ 0,\text{ if }|x|<R,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`R`$ is chosen in a such way that $`|a_j|<R1`$ for all $`j`$. Then we have

$`\delta =T_j(w_n)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{_{IR^N}\psi _j(x)|w_n|^2𝑑x}{_{IR^N}|w_n|^2𝑑x}}`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{_{IR^N}\xi (x)|w_n|^2𝑑x+_{IR^N}(1\xi (x))\psi _j(x)|w_n|^2𝑑x}{_{IR^N}|w_n|^2𝑑x}}.`$
Since $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}_{IR^N}(1\xi (x))\psi _j(x)|w_n|^2𝑑x=0`$, we conclude that

$$\delta =\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{_{IR^N}\xi (x)|w_n|^2𝑑x}{_{IR^N}|w_n|^2𝑑x}=1,$$

a contradiction if we choose $`\delta <1`$. So we conclude.

We need now the following Lemma that is suggested by the work of Tarantello . See also .

###### Lemma 3.12.

Assume that $`0<\lambda <\mathrm{min}\{\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2\}`$ where $`\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2`$ are given by Lemmas 3.10 and 3.11. Then for all $`uM_j(\lambda )`$ there exists $`\rho _u>0`$ and a differentiable function

$$f:B(0,\rho _u)𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)IR$$

such that $`f(0)=1`$ and for all $`wB(0,\rho _u)`$ we have $`f(w)(uw)M_j(\lambda )`$. Moreover for all $`v𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$ we have

(23)
$$f^{}(0),v=\frac{2{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}uvdx2\lambda {\displaystyle _{IR^N}}{\displaystyle \frac{uv}{|x|^2}}𝑑x2^{}{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}k(x)|u|^{2^{}2}uv𝑑x}{{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}|u|^2𝑑x\lambda {\displaystyle _{IR^N}}{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{|x|^2}}𝑑x(2^{}1){\displaystyle _{IR^N}}k(x)|u|^2^{}𝑑x}.$$

Proof. Let $`uM_j(\lambda )`$ and let $`G:IR\times 𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)IR`$ be the function defined by

$$G(t,w)=t\left(_{IR^N}|(uw)|^2𝑑x\lambda _{IR^N}\frac{(uw)^2}{|x|^2}𝑑x\right)t^{2^{}1}_{IR^N}k(x)|uw|^2^{}𝑑x.$$

Then $`G(1,0)=0`$ and $`G_t(1,0)=_{IR^N}|u|^2𝑑x\lambda _{IR^N}\frac{u^2}{|x|^2}𝑑x(2^{}1)_{IR^N}k(x)|u|^2^{}𝑑x0`$ (since $`uM_j(\lambda )`$). Then by using the Implicit Function Theorem we get the existence of $`\rho _u>0`$ small enough and of a differentiable function $`f`$ satisfying the required property. Moreover, notice that

$$f^{}(0),v=\frac{G_w(1,0),v}{G_t(1,0)}=\frac{2{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}uvdx2\lambda {\displaystyle _{IR^N}}{\displaystyle \frac{uv}{|x|^2}}𝑑x2^{}{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}k(x)|u|^{2^{}2}uv𝑑x}{{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}|u|^2𝑑x\lambda {\displaystyle _{IR^N}}{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{|x|^2}}𝑑x(2^{}1){\displaystyle _{IR^N}}k(x)|u|^2^{}𝑑x}.$$

We are now in position to prove the main result.

###### Theorem 3.13.

Assume that $`(K0)`$, $`(K1)`$, and $`(K2)`$ hold, then there exists $`\epsilon _3`$ small such that for all $`0<\lambda <\epsilon _3`$ equation (14) has $`\text{Card }(𝒞(k))`$ positive solutions $`u_{j,\lambda }`$ such that

(24)
$$|u_{j,\lambda }|^2S^{N/2}k_{\mathrm{}}^{(N2)/2}\delta _{a_j}\text{ and }|u_{j,\lambda }|^2^{}S^{N/2}k_{\mathrm{}}^{N/2}\delta _{a_j}\text{ as }\lambda 0.$$

Proof. Assume that $`0<\lambda <\epsilon _3=\mathrm{min}\{\epsilon _0,\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2\}`$, where $`\epsilon _0`$, $`\epsilon _1`$ and $`\epsilon _2`$ are given by Lemmas 3.6, 3.10 and 3.11. Let $`\{u_n\}`$ be a minimizing sequence to $`J_\lambda `$ in $`M_j(\lambda )`$, that is, $`u_nM_j(\lambda )`$ and $`J_\lambda (u_n)m_j(\lambda )`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. Since $`J_\lambda (u_n)=J_\lambda (|u_n|)`$, we can choose $`u_n0`$. Notice that we can prove the existence of $`c_1,c_2`$ such that $`c_1u_n_{𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)}c_2`$. By the Ekeland variational principle we get the existence of a subsequence denoted also by $`\{u_n\}`$ such that

$$J_\lambda (u_n)m_j(\lambda )+\frac{1}{n}\text{ and }J_\lambda (w)J_\lambda (u_n)\frac{1}{n}wu_n\text{ for all }wM_j(\lambda ).$$

Let $`0<\rho <\rho _n\rho _{u_n}`$ and $`f_nf_{u_n}`$, where $`\rho _{u_n}`$ and $`f_{u_n}`$ are given by Lemma 3.12. We set $`v_\rho =\rho v`$ where $`v_{𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)}=1`$, then $`v_\rho B(0,\rho _n)`$ and we can apply Lemma 3.12 to obtain that $`w_\rho =f_n(v_\rho )(u_nv_\rho )M_j(\lambda )`$.

Therefore we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}w_\rho u_n`$ $``$ $`J_\lambda (u_n)J_\lambda (w_\rho )=J_\lambda ^{}(u_n),u_nw_\rho +o(u_nw_\rho )`$
$``$ $`\rho f_n(\rho v)J_\lambda ^{}(u_n),v+o(u_nw_\rho ).`$
Hence we conclude that

$$J_\lambda ^{}(u_n),v\frac{1}{n}\frac{w_\rho u_n}{\rho f_n(\rho v)}(1+o(1))\text{ as }\rho 0.$$

Since $`|f_n(\rho v)||f_n(0)|c`$ as $`\rho 0`$ and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{w_\rho u_n}{\rho }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_n(0)u_nf_n(\rho v)(u_n\rho v)}{\rho }}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_n|f_n(0)f_n(\rho v)|+|\rho ||f_n(\rho v)|}{\rho }}C|f_n^{}(0)|v+c_3c.`$
Then we conclude that $`J_\lambda ^{}(u_n)0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. Hence $`\{u_n\}`$ is a Palais-Smale sequence for $`J_\lambda `$. Since $`m_j(\lambda )<\stackrel{~}{c}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}=\stackrel{~}{c}(\lambda )`$ for $`\lambda \epsilon _0`$, then from Lemma 3.1 we get the existence result.

To prove (24) we follow the proof of Lemma 3.11. Assume $`\lambda _n0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$ and let $`u_nu_{j_0,\lambda _n}M_{j_0}(\lambda _n)`$ be a solution to problem (14) with $`\lambda =\lambda _n`$. Then up to a subsequence we get the existence of $`l_1>0`$ such that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}_{IR^N}|u_n|^2𝑑x=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}_{IR^N}k(x)|u_n|^2^{}𝑑x=l_1.$$

Therefore as in the proof of Lemma 3.11 we obtain that $`l_1=S^{N/2}k_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{N2}{2}}`$ and

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}_{IR^N}(k_{\mathrm{}}k(x))u_n^2^{}𝑑x=0.$$

We set $`w_n={\displaystyle \frac{u_n}{u_n_2^{}}}`$, then $`w_n_2^{}=1`$ and $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}w_n_{𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)}^2=S`$. Hence we get the existence of $`w_0𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$ such that one of the following alternatives holds

1. $`w_00`$ and $`w_nw_0`$ strongly in the $`𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$.
2. $`w_00`$ and either

* $`|w_n|^2d\mu =S\delta _{x_0}`$ and $`|w_n|^2^{}d\nu =\delta _{x_0}`$

    or
    * $`|w_n|^2d\mu _{\mathrm{}}=S\delta _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`|w_n|^2^{}d\nu _{\mathrm{}}=\delta _{\mathrm{}}`$.

As in Lemma 3.11, the alternative 1 and the alternative 2 ii) do not hold. Then we conclude that the unique possible behaviour is the alternative 2. i), namely, we get the existence of $`x_0IR^N`$ such that

$$|w_n|^2d\mu =S\delta _{x_0}\text{ and }|w_n|^2^{}d\nu =\delta _{x_0}.$$

Since

$`{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}|w_n|^2𝑑x`$ $`=`$ $`S+o(1)=S{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}|w_n|^2^{}𝑑x+o(1)={\displaystyle \frac{S}{k_{\mathrm{}}}}{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}k(x)|w_n|^2^{}𝑑x+o(1)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{k_{\mathrm{}}}}k(x_0)+o(1),`$
then we obtain that $`x_0𝒞(k)`$. Using Corollary 3.8, we conclude that $`x_0=a_{j_0}`$ and the result follows.

###### Remark 3.14.

As in , we can prove the same kind of results under more general condition on $`k`$. For instance, we can assume that $`k`$ changes sign and the following conditions hold,

* $`\underset{xIR^N}{\mathrm{max}}k(x)>0`$ and $`𝒞^{}(k)=\{aIR^N|k(a)=\underset{xIR^N}{\mathrm{max}}k(x)\}`$ is a finite set.
* $`(K2)`$ holds.

In this case the level at which the Palais-Smale conditions fails becomes

$$\widehat{c}(\lambda )=\frac{1}{N}S^{\frac{N}{2}}\mathrm{min}\{k_+_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{N2}{2}},(k_+(0))^{\frac{N2}{2}}\left(1\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}\right)^{\frac{N1}{2}},(k_+(\mathrm{}))^{\frac{N2}{2}}\left(1\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}\right)^{\frac{N1}{2}}\}.$$

## 4. Category setting.

In this section we use the Lusternik-Schnirelman category theory to get multiplicity results for problem (14), we refer to  for a complete discussion. We follow the argument by Musina in . We assume that $`k`$ is a nonnegative function and that $`0<\lambda <\overline{\epsilon }_0`$ where $`\overline{\epsilon }_0`$ is chosen in a such way that $`\left(1\frac{\overline{\epsilon }_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}\right)^{\frac{N1}{2}}>\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\overline{\epsilon }_0\epsilon _0`$, being $`\epsilon _0`$ given in Lemma 3.6. We set for $`\delta >0`$

$$𝒞(k)=\{aIR^N|k(a)=k(x)_{\mathrm{}}\}\text{ and }𝒞_\delta (k)=\{xIR^N:dist(x,𝒞(k))\delta \}.$$

We suppose that $`(K2)`$ holds and

$$(K3)\text{there exist }R_0,d_0>0\text{ such that }\underset{|x|>R_0}{sup}|k(x)|k_{\mathrm{}}d_0.$$

Let $`M(\lambda )`$ be defined by (19). Consider

$$\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )\{uM(\lambda ):J_\lambda (u)<\stackrel{~}{c}\}.$$

Then we have the following local Palais-Smale condition.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`\{v_n\}M(\lambda )`$ be such that

(25)
$$J_\lambda (v_n)c<\stackrel{~}{c}\text{ and }J_{\lambda }^{}{}_{|_{M(\lambda )}}{}^{}(v_n)0,$$

then $`\{v_n\}`$ contains a converging subsequence.

Proof. Assume that $`\{v_n\}`$ satisfies (25), then there exists $`\{\alpha _n\}IR`$ such that

(26)
$$J_\lambda ^{}(v_n)\alpha _nG_\lambda ^{}(v_n)0\text{ as }n\mathrm{}\text{ in }𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)$$

where $`G_\lambda (u)=J_\lambda ^{}(u),u`$. Since $`\{v_n\}M(\lambda )`$ and $`J_\lambda (v_n)\stackrel{~}{c}`$, we have $`r_1v_n_{𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)}r_2`$ for some constants $`r_1,r_2>0`$. Using $`v_n`$ as a test function in (26) we conclude that $`\alpha _n0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. Hence $`\{v_n\}`$ is a Palais-Smale sequence for $`J_\lambda `$ at the level $`c<\stackrel{~}{c}`$ and then the result follows by using Lemma 3.1.

To prove that $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )\mathrm{}`$ we give the next result.

###### Lemma 4.2.

There exists $`\overline{\epsilon }_1>0`$ such that if $`0<\lambda <\lambda _0:=\mathrm{min}\{\overline{\epsilon }_0,\overline{\epsilon }_1\}`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )\mathrm{}`$. Moreover for any $`\{\lambda _n\}IR_+`$ such that $`\lambda _n0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$ and $`\{v_n\}\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda _n)`$, there exist $`\{x_n\}IR^N`$ and $`\{r_n\}IR_+`$ such that $`x_nx_0𝒞(k)`$, $`r_n0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$ and

(27)
$$v_n\left(\frac{S}{k_{\mathrm{}}}\right)^{\frac{N2}{4}}u_{r_n}(x_n)0\text{ in }𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N),$$

where

(28)
$$u_r(x)=\frac{C_r}{(r^2+|x|^2)^{\frac{N2}{2}}}$$

and $`C_r`$ is the normalizing constant to be $`u_r_2^{}=1`$.

Proof. The first assertion follows by using the same argument as in Lemma 3.10 since we have

$$\underset{t>0}{\mathrm{max}}J_\lambda (tw_{\mu ,x})\frac{1}{N}\frac{S^{N/2}}{k_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{N2}{2}}}+O(\mu ^\theta )c\lambda \mu ^2<\stackrel{~}{c}\text{ for }\mu \text{ small and }2<\theta <N,$$

where $`w_{\mu ,x}(y)={\displaystyle \frac{C}{(\mu ^2+|yx|^2)^{\frac{N2}{2}}}}`$, $`x𝒞(k)`$ and $`C`$ is the normalizing constant such that $`w_{\mu ,x}_2^{}=1`$ (see also ). As a consequence, there exists $`\lambda _0`$ such that for all $`0<\lambda <\lambda _0`$ the set $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ is not empty. To prove the second part of the Lemma, eventually passing to a subsequence we set

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}_{IR^N}|v_n|^2𝑑x=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}_{IR^N}k(x)|v_n|^2^{}𝑑x=l.$$

Then as in Lemma 3.11 we can prove that $`l=S^{N/2}k_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{N2}{2}}`$ and

(29)
$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}_{IR^N}(k_{\mathrm{}}k(x))v_n^2^{}𝑑x=0.$$

Consider the normalized function $`w_n={\displaystyle \frac{v_n}{v_n_2^{}}}`$ and

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}_{IR^N}|w_n|^2𝑑x=S.$$

Using the concentration-compactness arguments by P.L. Lions, we obtain the existence of $`\{x_n\}IR^N`$ and $`\{r_n\}IR_+`$ such that

(30)
$$w_nu_{r_n}(x_n)0\text{ in }𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N),$$

and $`w_nw_0𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$. Moreover by the same argument as in the proof of Lemma 3.11 the weak limit is $`w_0=0`$. We will show now that the concentration at infinity is not possible. Indeed if concentration at $`\mathrm{}`$ occurs, by using (29) and $`(K3)`$ we obtain

$`k_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}k(x)w_n^2^{}𝑑x+o(1)={\displaystyle _{IR^N\backslash B_{R_0}(0)}}k(x)w_n^2^{}𝑑x+o(1)`$
$``$ $`\underset{|x|>R_0}{sup}|k(x)|{\displaystyle _{IR^N\backslash B_{R_0}(0)}}w_n^2^{}𝑑x+o(1)(k_{\mathrm{}}d_0)+o(1),`$
which is a contradiction. Then the unique possible concentration is at some point $`x_0IR^N`$. Hence we conclude that, up to a subsequence, $`r_n0`$ and

$$|u_{r_n}(xx_n)|^2S\delta _{x_0}.$$

Using (29) it is easy to obtain that $`x_0𝒞(k)`$.

###### Remark 4.3.

Notice that as a consequence of the above Lemmas we obtain the existence of at least $`cat(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ))`$ solutions that eventually can change sign.

Hereafter we concentrate our study on the analysis of $`cat(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ))`$, the behaviour of the energy, and the positivity of solutions.

If $`R_0`$ is like in hypothesis $`(K3)`$, we define

$$\xi (x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}x\hfill & \text{ if }|x|R_0,\hfill \\ R_0\frac{x}{|x|}\hfill & \text{ if }|x|R_0,\hfill \end{array}$$

and for $`u𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$ such that $`u0`$ we set

(31)
$$\mathrm{\Xi }(u)=\frac{_{IR^N}\xi (x)|u|^2𝑑x}{_{IR^N}|u|^2𝑑x}.$$

We recall that for $`u𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$ such that $`u0`$ we have $`t_\lambda (u)uM(\lambda )`$ where $`t_\lambda (u)`$ is given by

$$t_\lambda (u)=\left(\frac{_{IR^N}|u|^2𝑑x\lambda _{IR^N}\frac{u^2}{|x|^2}𝑑x}{_{IR^N}k(x)|u|^2^{}𝑑x}\right)^{\frac{N2}{4}}.$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda :IR^N𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N)`$ be given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (x)=t_\lambda (u_{\mu _\lambda }(x))u_{\mu _\lambda }(x),$$

where $`u_{\mu _\lambda }`$ is given by (21), $`\mu _\lambda g(\lambda )`$ such that $`g(\lambda )0`$ as $`\lambda 0`$. Notice that if $`x𝒞(k)`$ and $`\lambda `$ is sufficiently small, then

(32)
$$J_\lambda (\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (x))=\underset{t>0}{\mathrm{max}}J_\lambda (tu_{\mu _\lambda }(x))\frac{1}{N}\frac{S^{N/2}}{k_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{N2}{2}}}+O(\mu _\lambda ^\theta )c\lambda \mu _\lambda ^2<\stackrel{~}{c}.$$

Then we can prove the existence of $`\lambda _0,c_1,c_2>0`$ such that for all $`0<\lambda <\lambda _0`$ we have $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (x)\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$, $`J_\lambda (\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (x))=\stackrel{~}{c}+o(1)`$ as $`\lambda 0`$, and $`c_1<t_\lambda (u_{\mu _\lambda }(x))<c_2`$ for all $`x𝒞(k)`$. As a consequence, taking limits for $`\lambda 0`$ we obtain by Lemma 4.2 that for any $`x𝒞(k)`$

(33)
$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (x)|^2d\mu =S^{N/2}k_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{N2}{2}}\delta _x\text{ and }|\mathrm{\Psi }(x)|^2^{}d\nu =(Sk_{\mathrm{}}^1)^{N/2}\delta _x.$$

We prove now the next result.

###### Lemma 4.4.

For $`\lambda 0`$ we have

1. $`\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (x))=x+o(1)`$ uniformly for $`xB_{R_0}(0)`$.
2. $`sup\{dist(\mathrm{\Xi }(u),𝒞(k)):u\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )\}0.`$

Proof. Let $`xB_{R_0}(0)`$, then by (33) we obtain that

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (x))=\frac{_{IR^N}\xi (y)|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (x)|^2𝑑y}{_{IR^N}|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (x)|^2𝑑y}=\frac{_{IR^N}\xi (y)𝑑\mu }{_{IR^N}𝑑\mu }+o(1)=x+o(1)\text{as }\lambda 0.$$

To prove the second assertion we take $`\lambda _n0`$ and let $`v_n\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda _n)`$, then by Lemma 4.2 we get the existence of $`\{x_n\}IR^N`$ and $`\{r_n\}IR_+`$ such that such that $`x_nx_0𝒞(k)`$, $`r_n0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$ and

$$v_n\left(\frac{S}{k_{\mathrm{}}}\right)^{\frac{N2}{4}}u_{r_n}(x_n)0\text{ in }𝒟^{1,2}(IR^N).$$

Since $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is a continuous function we obtain that

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(v_n)=\frac{_{IR^N}\xi (x)|v_n|^2𝑑x}{_{IR^N}|v_n|^2𝑑x}=\frac{_{IR^N}\xi (x)|u_{r_n}(x_n)|^2dx}{_{IR^N}|u_{r_n}(x_n)|^2dx}+o(1)=\xi (x_0)+o(1).$$

Since $`x_0𝒞(k)B_{R_0}(0)`$ we conclude that $`\xi (x_0)=x_0`$ and the result follows.

We are now able to prove the main result.

###### Theorem 4.5.

Assume that hypotheses $`(K0)`$, $`(K2)`$ and $`(K3)`$ hold and let $`\delta >0`$. Then there exists $`\lambda _0>0`$ such that for all $`0<\lambda <\lambda _0`$, equation (14) has at least $`cat_{𝒞_\delta (k)}𝒞(k)`$ solutions.

Proof. Given $`\delta >0`$ there exists $`\lambda _0(\delta )>0`$ such that by Lemma 4.4 and (32), for $`0<\lambda <\lambda _0(\delta )`$ we have that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (x)\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ for any $`x𝒞(k)`$, and

$$|\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (x))x|<\delta \text{ for all }xB_{R_0}(0)\text{ and }\mathrm{\Xi }(u)𝒞_\delta (k)\text{ for all }u\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ).$$

Let $`(t,x)=x+t(\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (x))x)`$ where $`(t,x)[0,1]\times 𝒞(k)`$, then $``$ is a continuous function and $`dist((t,x),𝒞(k))\delta `$ for all $`(t,x)[0,1]\times 𝒞(k)`$. Hence $`([0,1]\times 𝒞(k))𝒞_\delta (k)`$.

Since $`(0,x)=x`$ and $`(1,x)=\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (x))`$, then we conclude that $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda `$ is homotopic to the inclusion $`𝒞(k)𝒞_\delta (k)`$. Since $`J_\lambda `$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition below the level $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$, to prove the Theorem we need just to prove that $`cat(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ))cat_{𝒞_\delta (k)}𝒞(k)`$.

Suppose that $`\{M_i\}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n_0`$, is a closed covering of $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$, then for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},n_0`$ there exists a homotopy

$$_i:[0,1]\times M_i\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )$$

such that

$$_i(0,u)=u\text{ for all }uM_i\text{ and }_i(1,)=\text{constant for }i=1,\mathrm{},n_0.$$

Notice that from (32), we obtain that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (𝒞(k))\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$. We set $`𝒞_i=\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda ^1(M_i)`$, then $`𝒞_i`$ is closed in $`𝒞_\delta (k)`$ and $`𝒞(k)_i𝒞_i𝒞_\delta (k)`$. Then we have just only to show that $`𝒞_i`$ are contractible in $`𝒞_\delta (k)`$. We set $`𝒢_i:[0,1]\times 𝒞_i𝒞_\delta (k)`$ where $`𝒢_i(t,x)=\mathrm{\Xi }(_i(t,\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (x)))`$. Then

$$𝒢_i(0,x)=\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda (x)\text{ for all }x𝒞_i\text{ and }𝒢_i(1,)=\text{ constant for }i=1,\mathrm{},n_0.$$

Since $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda `$ is homotopic to the inclusion $`𝒞(k)𝒞_\delta (k)`$ we have that $`𝒞_i`$ are contractible in $`𝒞_\delta (k)`$. To complete the proof it remains to prove that any solution has a fixed sign. We follow the argument used in . Assume that $`u=u^+u^{}`$ with $`u^+0`$, $`u^{}0`$ and $`u^+0`$, $`u^{}0`$. Then we have

(34)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& _{IR^N}|u^\pm |^2𝑑x\lambda _{IR^N}\frac{|u^\pm |^2}{|x|^2}𝑑xS(1\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N})^{\frac{N1}{N}}\left(_{IR^N}|u^\pm |^2^{}𝑑x\right)^{2/2^{}}\hfill & \\ & S(1\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N})^{\frac{N1}{N}}k_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{2}{2^{}}}\left(_{IR^N}k(x)|u^\pm |^2^{}𝑑x\right)^{2/2^{}}\hfill & \end{array}$$

Since $`u`$ is a solution to problem (14) we obtain that

(35)
$$_{IR^N}|u^\pm |^2𝑑x\lambda _{IR^N}\frac{|u^\pm |^2}{|x|^2}𝑑x=_{IR^N}k(x)|u^\pm |^2^{}𝑑x.$$

Therefore we conclude that

$`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ $`>`$ $`J_\lambda (u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}k(x)|u|^2^{}𝑑x={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\left\{{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}k(x)|u^+|^2^{}𝑑x+{\displaystyle _{IR^N}}k(x)|u^{}|^2^{}𝑑x\right\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2S}{N}}^{\frac{N}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}}\right)^{\frac{N1}{2}}k_{\mathrm{}}^{\frac{N2}{2}}.`$
Hence we obtain $`2(1\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N})^{\frac{N1}{2}}1`$ which contradicts the choice of $`\lambda `$.

###### Remark 4.6.

* If $`𝒞(k)`$ is finite, then for $`\lambda `$ small, equation (14) has at least $`\text{Card}(𝒞(k))`$ solutions.
* We give now a typical example where equation (14) has infinity many solutions. Let $`\eta :IRIR_+`$ such that $`\eta `$ is regular, $`\eta (0)=0`$ and $`\eta (r)=1`$ for $`r\frac{1}{2}`$. We define $`k_1`$ on $`[0,1]IR`$ by

$$k_1(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{ if }r=0,\hfill \\ \eta (r)(1|\mathrm{sin}(\frac{1}{r\frac{1}{2}})|^\theta )\hfill & \text{ if }0<r1,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`2<\theta <N`$. Notice that $`k_1`$ has infinitely many global maximums archived on the set

$$𝒞(k_1)=\left\{r_n=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{n\pi }\text{ for }n1\right\}.$$

Now we define $`k`$ to be any continuous bounded function such that $`k(x)=k_1(|x|)`$ if $`|x|1`$, $`k_{\mathrm{}}1`$ and $`\underset{|x|\mathrm{}}{lim}k(x)=0`$. Since for all $`mIN`$, there exists $`\delta (m)`$ such that $`\text{cat}_{𝒞_\delta (k)}(𝒞(k))=m`$, then we conclude that equation (14) has at least $`m`$ solutions for $`0<\lambda <\lambda (\delta )`$.
* Let us note that if $`\delta `$ becomes larger, then $`\text{cat}_{𝒞_\delta (k)}(𝒞(k))`$ decreases, so that Theorem 4.5 is interesting for $`\delta `$ small.


format: text

text:
# 1 SANS diffraction patterns from the vortex lattice in slightly overdoped LSCO, measured at T=5 K at an applied magnetic field of 𝐵=2 T, 5 T and 9.5 T.

A SMALL ANGLE NEUTRON SCATTERING STUDY

OF THE VORTEX MATTER IN La2-xSrxCuO4 (x=0.17)

R. GILARDI***Corresponding author: raffaele.gilardi@psi.ch, S. STREULE and J. MESOT

Laboratory for Neutron Scattering, ETH Zurich and PSI Villigen

CH-5232 Villigen, Switzerland

A.J. DREW, U. DIVAKAR and S.L. LEE

School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St. Andrews

North Haugh, St Andrews KY16 9SS, United Kingdom

S.P. BROWN and E.M. FORGAN

School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham

Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom

N. MOMONO and M. ODA

Department of Physics, Hokkaido University

Sapporo 060-0810, Japan

The magnetic phase diagram of slightly overdoped La2-xSrxCuO4 (x=0.17) is characterised by a field-induced hexagonal to square transition of the vortex lattice at low fields ($``$0.4 Tesla) \[R. Gilardi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 217003 (2002)\]. Here we report on a small angle neutron scattering study of the vortex lattice at higher fields, that reveals no further change of the coordination of the square vortex lattice up to 10.5 Tesla applied perpendicular to the CuO2 planes. Moreover, it is found that the diffraction signal disappears at temperatures well below $`T_c`$, due to the melting of the vortex lattice.

Keywords: small angle neutron scattering; vortex lattice; La2-xSrxCuO4.

The magnetic phase diagram of the high-temperature superconductors is dominated by the mixed phase, where the magnetic flux can enter the sample in the form of quantised magnetic vortices that interact to form a vortex lattice (VL). Due to a combination of thermal fluctuations and out-of-plane anisotropy effects, the VL can melt into a liquid state above the so-called melting line $`B_m(T)`$. On the other hand a sufficiently large degree of in-plane anisotropy can affect the symmetry of the VL at low temperatures.

In a previous small angle neutron scattering (SANS) experiment on slightly overdoped La2-xSrxCuO4 (LSCO) (x=0.17, $`T_c`$=37 K) we observed a field-induced transition from a hexagonal to a square VL around $`B^{}`$=0.4 Tesla?, which is indicative of the coupling of the VL to a source of anisotropy, such as that provided by the d-wave superconducting gap?,?,? or Fermi surface anisotropies?. In LSCO the position of the gap nodes and of the Fermi velocity minima are rotated 45o with respect to each other. There thus exists the potential for a competition between a square VL oriented in reciprocal space along the node directions ({1,0,0} directions in orthorhombic LSCO) and one oriented along the Cu-O bonds ({1,1,0} directions). For $`B^{}<B<1.2`$ T, the square VL is oriented along the {1,1,0} directions?, but a reorientation (rotation by 45o) of the square VL has been predicted to occur at higher fields?,?. In order to test this possibility, we have extended our measurements to higher magnetic fields. Moreover, we have also investigated the temperature dependence of the VL scattered intensity.

The experiments were carried out using the SANS-I diffractometer at the Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland. The LSCO single crystal was mounted in a horizontal field cryomagnet with the c-axis along the neutron beam. The magnetic field (up to 10.5 Tesla) was aligned parallel to the neutron beam and therefore perpendicular to the CuO2 planes. In Fig.1 we show SANS diffraction patterns obtained at T=5 K after field-cooling in $`B`$=2 T, 5 T and 9.5 T. A background measured at $`T`$=40 K (above $`T_c`$) has been subtracted in order to remove the large signal arising from crystal defect scattering. The diffracted intensity is concentrated in four bright spots forming a perfect square. The square VL is always oriented along the {1,1,0} directions (Cu-O bonds), therefore indicating no reorientation of the VL up to the highest magnetic field applied (10.5 Tesla).

The temperature dependence of the scattered neutron intensity at $`B`$=5 T, summed over all diffraction peaks, is shown in Fig.2a. As a function of temperature, the intensity rapidly decreases and finally vanishes at $`T_m`$ well below $`T_{c2}`$, where the normal state is recovered. $`T_m`$ is usually interpreted as the melting temperature of the VL. Interestingly, the scattered intensity is negligible above $`T_m`$, similarly to what has been observed in Bi2.15Sr1.95CaCu2O8+x? and YBa2Cu3O7-x?.

This is surprising, since in a liquid of straight vortices a ring of intensity is expected. This may indicate that the vortices are entangled (or decoupled) in the liquid phase. The values obtained for $`B_m(T)`$ are plotted in the magnetic phase diagram shown in Fig.2b together with the results of macroscopic measurements?. The upper critical field $`B_{c2}(T)`$, indicating the crossover line to the normal state, has been determined using the Landau-Ott scaling procedure? for magnetization data. The irreversibility line $`B_{irr}(T)`$ has been obtained from the loss peak in the imaginary part of the ac-susceptibility and is associated with the onset of resistivity and reversible magnetization. The nice agreement between the melting line $`B_m(T)`$ as determined by SANS, and the irreversibility line $`B_{irr}(T)`$ should be noted.

Acknowledgements

This work was performed at the spallation neutron source SINQ, Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland. The expert technical assistance by J. Kohlbrecher is gratefully acknowledged. This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council of the U.K., and the Ministry of Education and Science of Japan.

References