The first author was partly supported by the National Key Research and Development Program (No.
2022YFA1006900) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 12271027). The second author was partly supported by a Simons grant and a Simons Fellowship from the Simons Foundation.
1. Introduction
The main content of this paper focuses on the quantization property of the solution of the -Laplacian mean field equation and its application to the sharp constant of the Moser-Onofri inequality, as well as the existence and non-existence of extremal functions of the Moser-Onofri inequality. Mean field equations and Moser-Onofri inequalities have significant applications in geometric analysis, harmonic analysis and nonlinear partial differential equations. Let us briefly present the history of the main results in this direction.
Let be a smooth bounded domain of () and denote by the closure of under the Dirichlet norm . The classical Trudinger-Moser inequality (see [21]) states that
(1.1) |
|
|
|
where refers to the sharp constant and denotes the dimensional measure of unit sphere in . The Trudinger-Moser inequality in bounded domain of has also been extended to bounded domain of Heisenberg group and complex sphere (see [6, 7]). An immediate consequence of the Trudinger-Moser inequality is the following Moser-Onofri inequality (see also [2, 23])
(1.2) |
|
|
|
where .
The critical point of the above inequality (1.2) satisfies the following -Laplacian mean field equation
(1.3) |
|
|
|
where .
As , the aforementioned equation reduces to the classical mean field equation:
(1.4) |
|
|
|
which arises in the study of Chern-Simons Higgs theory (see [12, 13]). For , the functional related with equation (1.4) has the compactness and the existence of solutions directly follows from the standard variational method. For , the existence of solutions is non-trivial due to the loss of compactness of the related functional. In fact, many authors have found that the existence of solutions depends on the geometry of in a subtle way. For example, when is a ball, a consequence of the Pohozaev identity implies the non-existence of solutions for the mean field equation (1.4); when is a long and thin domain, the authors of [4] proved that the mean field equation admits a positive solution. For , the existence of solutions of the mean field equation (1.4) is a challenging problem.
The construction of Bahri-Coron [1] makes it possible to obtain the existence of mean field solutions on
domains with non-trivial topology. In fact, Ding-Jost-Li-Wang [9] established the existence of solutions for if is a smooth bounded domain whose complement contains a bounded region.
Furthermore, they also obtained the similar existence result for the following mean field equation on a closed Riemann surface with genus greater than one:
|
|
|
Struwe-Tarantello [25] proved a similar result for on the flat torus. For a general closed surface, Malchiodi [20] utilized the barycenter technique and proved the existence for .
In the study of the existence of solutions for mean field equation (1.4), an important tool is to establish its quantization property. This dates back to Brezis and Merleβs work in [3]. Lately, many authors, including Nagasaki-Suzuki [22], Li-Shafrir[16] and Ma-Wei [19], etc., have also studied extensively the quantization property of mean field equation (1.4). Their results can be stated as follows:
Theorem A:Β Β Let be a sequence of solutions satisfying the mean field equation
|
|
|
with .
(a) If is bounded, then there exists some function such that in .
(b) If is unbounded, then must blow up at some finite points set . Furthermore, there holds
|
|
|
where satisfies the equation
|
|
|
However, to our knowledge, quantization analysis for solutions of -Laplacian mean field equation (1.3) is still unknown. The nonlinearity of -Laplacian operator and the lack of Greenβs representation formula for -Laplacian equation bring significant challenges to the study of the related problem of the -Laplacian mean field equation. In this paper, we address these difficulties and derive the following result:
Theorem 1.1.
Let be two positive constants and be the sharp constant in the Moser-Trudinger inequality. Assume that
satisfies the equation
(1.5) |
|
|
|
Then we have the following:
(a) If , the solution must blow up at some finite points set as . Furthermore, we have
|
|
|
and
(1.6) |
|
|
|
where denotes the equation
(1.7) |
|
|
|
(b) If arises blow-up, then .
An immediate consequence of Theorem 1.1 leads to
Corollary 1.3.
Let be a sequence of solutions satisfying -Laplacian mean field equation
(1.8) |
|
|
|
with . Then we have the following:
(a) If is bounded, then there exists such that in .
(b) If is unbounded, then must blow up at some finite points set . Furthermore, we have
|
|
|
where denotes the equation
|
|
|
Another interesting problem related to -Laplacian mean field equation is to consider the existence of extremals and the sharp constant for the Moser-Onofri inequality in a bounded domain of :
(1.9) |
|
|
|
When is a unit ball of , applying the Pohozaev identity, we can derive the nonexistence of extremals of Moser-Onofri inequality (1.9) (see Lemma 2.8 and Proposition 3.3). Hence, it is plausible to obtain the sharp constant of the Moser-Onofri inequality by computing the accurate lower bound of optimal concentration for the Moser-Onofri inequality. Indeed, we obtain
Theorem 1.4.
|
|
|
where and .
For a general bounded domain , applying Theorem 1.4 and the technique of -harmonic transplantation developed in [11], we obtain the optimal concentration level of the Moser-Onofri inequality.
Theorem 1.6.
Assume that is a smooth bounded domain in and , then
(1.10) |
|
|
|
where is the -harmonic radius at (see Definition 4.2) in Section 4.
|
|
|
Obviously,
|
|
|
Then we can derive the following criterion for the existence of extremals for the Moser-Onofri inequality on a general bounded domain.
Theorem 1.7.
|
|
|
then can be achieved by some function . In other words, if is not achieved, then
|
|
|
2. the Proof of Theorem 1.1
In this section, we will establish the quantization property for positive solutions of the following -Laplacian mean field equation (1.5):
|
|
|
Namely, we shall provide the proof of Theorem 1.1. The proof is divided into three steps. In Step 1, we show that the solution of equation (1.5) must blow up at some finite points set as . In Step 2, we further prove that
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
where satisfies the equation
|
|
|
for .
In Step 3, we explain that is indeed equivalent to blowing up.
The proof of Step 1: We show that must blow up at some finite points set when approaches to zero.
We first prove that is unbounded when approaches to zero. We argue this by contradiction. If not, there
exists some constant such that .
One can easily conclude that
|
|
|
which contradicts with the assumption, of Theorem 1.1.
(2.1) |
|
|
|
Then we will prove by defining a new set ββ and analyzing the relationship between and ββ.
Define , then . Hence, there exists a , the set of all real bounded Borel measures on , such that in the sense of measure.
We also denote by
(2.2) |
|
|
|
We claim
Lemma 2.1.
If , then for some .
The proof of Lemma 2.1 needs the following lemma.
Lemma 2.2.
(see [10])
If is the weak solution of
(2.3) |
|
|
|
where the non-negative function and is a Caratheodory function satisfying the following two conditions:
(2.4) |
|
|
|
(2.5) |
|
|
|
for some and .
Then for any , there holds that
(2.6) |
|
|
|
Now we are in the position to prove that for some when .
The proof of Lemma 2.1: Set , equation (1.5) can be written as
(2.7) |
|
|
|
and
(2.8) |
|
|
|
It is easy to check that
|
|
|
and we can also find that satisfies the two conditions (2.4) and (2.5),
with .
By the definition of , there exists such that
|
|
|
Then it follows from
that
.
Applying this and Lemma 2.2 into equation (2.8),
we deduce that
for some .
Since satisfies equation
|
|
|
from the -boundedness of and Lemma 2.2, we obtain that
for some .
Combining this and for some give
.
Since satisfies the equation (2.7), using Harnack inequality ([26]) we derive
|
|
|
Thus, for some .
By quasilinear elliptic regularity estimate (see [14]),
we conclude that is uniformly bounded in
.
Next, we claim that is a finite points set.
Lemma 2.3.
Set
. Then is a finite value.
Proof.
By the definition of , formula (2.2), we easily deduce that
|
|
|
Thus,
|
|
|
that is,
.
β
Now, we are prepared to prove that the blow-up set is equal to , which implies that must blow up at some finite points set when . Before proving this, we first state a boundary estimate lemma.
Lemma 2.4.
There exists and a constant such that
|
|
|
where .
Proof.
Using the moving-plane technique combining with Kelvin transform (see Proposition 2.1 of [18]), one can show that for all , there exist a measurable set and a positive constant such that
(i) ,
(ii) ,
(iii) for all .
We have already known that for some by Lemma 2.2. This leads to for any . Let be the first eigenfunction of -Laplacian operator with Dirichlet boundary condition, obviously is positive and bounded in . Then for any , there holds
|
|
|
This deduces that there exists a constant such that for any and the proof of Lemma 2.4 is completed.
β
By the above boundary estimate lemma, we immediately deduce that the blow-up set must be included into . Next, we analyze the relationship of the blow-up set and .
Lemma 2.5.
|
|
|
Proof.
This lemma is equivalent to prove and .
We first prove
. One can argue it by contradiction. If not, there exists such that for some . It follows from Lemma 2.1 that
for some , which is a contradiction with the definition of .
Conversely, for the proof of , we also prove it by contradiction. If not, there exists some such that , then for some . Then it follows that
|
|
|
This arrives at a contradiction with assumption . Then we accomplish the proof of Lemma 2.5.
β
The proof of Step 2: We show that as ,
in ,
where satisfies equation (1.7).
From Lemma 2.5, , we get that for , . For , from Lemma 2.1 we know that is -bounded in , this gives
|
|
|
Then it implies that
|
|
|
Lemma 2.6.
in as , where satisfies the equation
(2.9) |
|
|
|
Proof.
Since satisfies the equation
(2.10) |
|
|
|
testing equation (2.10) with ,
we obtain that
|
|
|
Assume , where . Let be the classical rearrangement of and . According to properties of classical rearrangement, we have that
(2.11) |
|
|
|
It is not difficult to check that (see [14]) the infimum on the left-hand side of (2.11) is attained by
|
|
|
Calculating , by (2.11), we get .
Thus,
|
|
|
Using Taylorβs expansion formula, for any ,
|
|
|
which implies that is uniformly bounded in .
Testing equation (2.10) with and applying Youngβs inequality,
for any we deduce that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Namely,
one can derive that is uniformly bounded in for any . Then, there exists such that in , where satisfies
(2.12) |
|
|
|
Due to the definition of , we know that is uniformly bounded in . Applying the regularity estimate for quasilinear differential operator (see [14]),
we deduce that in .
β
Furthermore, we will present an accurate expression of in the following lemma.
Lemma 2.7.
For any , .
To show Lemma 2.7, we state the Pohozaev identity for equation (1.5).
Lemma 2.8.
For any ,
(2.13) |
|
|
|
where .
Proof.
We multiply the equation (1.5) by and integrate over ,
|
|
|
We rewrite this expression as
|
|
|
Via the divergence theorem and direct computation, the term on the left is
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the right-hand side is
|
|
|
Hence, one can obtain equation (2.13).
β
Then, we turn to prove Lemma 2.7.
Proof.
It follows from Lemma 2.8 that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where .
Since strongly converges to in and satisfies equation
|
|
|
then we deduce that in as
, where is the Green function of -Laplacian operator with the singularity at , is continuous at and satisfies (see [14, 15]). Careful calculation gives that
|
|
|
This together with Pohozaev identity (2.8) yields that
|
|
|
On the other hand,
|
|
|
Combining the above estimate, we conclude that
|
|
|
β
The proof of Step 3:
Recalling from Step 1, we have proven that must blow up as . Hence, to accomplish the proof of Step 3, we only need to prove that if blows up, then must approach to zero. Since is bounded, we only need to prove that . By boundary estimate Lemma 2.4,
we know that does not blow up at boundary. If blows up at some point , we claim that
|
|
|
Indeed, suppose not, there exists such that . According to Lemma 2.1, is bounded which is a contradiction.
Using comparison principle for -Laplacian operator, we get
|
|
|
Naturally, we have
|
|
|
The proof of Theorem 1.1 is completed.
3. the Proof of Theorem 1.4
In this section, we will show the non-existence of extremal functions for the Moser-Onofri inequality in the ball of and obtain the accurate value of infimum of the Moser-Onofri inequality in the ball, namely, we shall give the proof of Theorem 1.4.
We first show that the Moser-Onofri inequality in the ball of does not have an extremal, i.e.,
Lemma 3.1.
|
|
|
cannot be achieved in .
Proof.
We argue this by contradiction. Indeed, if the infimum
|
|
|
were achieved, then the extremal function would satisfy the equation
(3.1) |
|
|
|
Applying the Pohozaev identity to equation (3.1), we get
(3.2) |
|
|
|
Since on and using Holderβs inequality, one can calculate that
|
|
|
Thus, by the value of , the above inequality can deduce that
|
|
|
which is a contradiction. This proves that the Moser-Onofri inequality in actually does not admit any extremal.
β
Next, we start to calculate the accurate value of infimum of Moser-Onofri inequality
|
|
|
The proof can be divided into two parts. In Part 1, we will adopt the method of subcritical approximation and capacity estimate to obtain the lower-bound of the infimum of the Moser-Onofri inequality on the ball. In Part 2, we will construct a suitable test function sequence to show that the lower-bound obtained in Part 1 is actually the infimum of the Moser-Onofri inequality on the ball .
Part 1: We start the proof of the lower-bound of the infimum of the Moser-Onofri inequality on the ball. For this purpose, we first show that the subcritical Moser-Onofri inequality
(3.3) |
|
|
|
admits an extremal.
Lemma 3.2.
|
|
|
Then for ,
can be achieved by some function .
Proof.
Let be a minimizing sequence for , i.e.,
|
|
|
On the other hand, through the Moser-Onofri inequality (1.2), we derive that
|
|
|
Combining the above estimates, we obtain that is bounded in ,
which implies that
in for any , where is the weak limit of in .
Then the proof for existence of extremals of for is accomplished.
β
Obviously, satisfies
(3.4) |
|
|
|
By maximum principle and moving-plane method, we know that is a radical decreasing function.
Since is the extremal function of the subcritical Moser-Onofri inequality (3.3),
|
|
|
Letting , then taking the infimum of both sides of the above inequality, it deduces that
|
|
|
Using the definition of infimum,
it is obvious that
|
|
|
Then we obtain
|
|
|
Hence, to obtain the infimum of critical Moser-Onofri inequality, we only need to calculate the limit
|
|
|
Assume .
We claim that is unbounded and argue this by contradiction. In fact, if is bounded, then it follows from the regularity estimate for -Laplacian operator that there exists some such that in and satisfies -Laplacian mean field equation
(3.5) |
|
|
|
which is a contradiction with Lemma 3.1. Thus, is unbounded.
Furthermore, using Corollary 1.3, one can deduce that
in ,
where satisfies the equation
|
|
|
This characterizes the asymptotic behavior of away from the blow-up point . Now we start to study the asymptotic behavior of around the origin.
Set
|
|
|
and
(3.6) |
|
|
|
Careful computation gives the following equation
|
|
|
Obviously, as . Indeed, if , then . This implies is uniformly bounded in . Applying quasilinear elliptic estimate into equation (3.4), we derive that is uniformly bounded in , which is a contradiction.
Since and , according to Harnack inequality [26], we know that
is uniformly bounded near origin.
Using quasilinear elliptic estimate again, one can derive that there exists such that
in .
Then, it follows that
(3.7) |
|
|
|
By the classification of solution for Liouville equation and , we have
|
|
|
In summary, we have obtained the asymptotic behavior of near and away from origin.
Next, we aim to establish the asymptotic behavior of at infinity.
Denote and
(3.8) |
|
|
|
where is a undetermined positive constant. If satisfies the following conditions
(3.9) |
|
|
|
Since and , by direct computation we can choose
such that
|
|
|
Then using the comparison principle, there holds that
|
|
|
Furthermore,
we will show the accurate asymptotic behavior of at infinity. For simplicity, we only provide an outline of the proof. Let us first recall the Kelvin transform of
satisfies
(3.10) |
|
|
|
Obviously, .
Step 1. Decomposing , we fix small , and for , satisfies
(3.11) |
|
|
|
Local Holder estimates about equation (3.11) can be found in [8, 24], we can get . Then
satisfies that
(3.12) |
|
|
|
Step 2. By Lemma 2.2 and Sobolev embedding Theorem, we find that
|
|
|
Applying Ascoli-Arzelaβs Theorem and the description in [8, 24], as , there holds that in , where satisfies that
(3.13) |
|
|
|
and
.
Step 3. By comparison principle, as , we have that in
, where for all .
Using Lemma 2.2 and Sobolev embedding Theorem again,
as ,
|
|
|
Combining Step 1-3, one can easily derive that
(3.14) |
|
|
|
Now, we are in position to use capacity estimate to calculate the value of , and
|
|
|
Proposition 3.3.
(3.15) |
|
|
|
Proof.
In fact, by equation (3.4) for and equality (3.6), we infer to
(3.16) |
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
Hence, we calculate directly that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We will first claim that, for any sufficiently large , there holds that
|
|
|
Then
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One can prove this claim by contradiction. If not, there exists some such that
|
|
|
Consider the following inequality
(3.17) |
|
|
|
Then the left-hand side of inequality (3.17) can be written as
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For , using equality (3.16), one can easily check that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For , recalling Corollary 1.3 in the case of , we have shown that as ,
in ,
where satisfies the equation
|
|
|
By the relationship between the Green function of n-Laplacian operator with the singularity at and the Dirac function ,
one can immediately deduce that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using the definition of , we easily get that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for the right-hand side, supposing
|
|
|
By the following equation
|
|
|
and the definition of can yield that
|
|
|
Hence, one can compute directly
(3.18) |
|
|
|
Thus,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then as , combining with (3.17), (3.18) and the results of , one can obtain the following inequality
(3.19) |
|
|
|
Obviously, .
Hence, we conclude that
|
|
|
Consequently, we can write inequality (3.19) as
|
|
|
which contradicts with previous assumption,
|
|
|
Thus, we accomplish the proof of the claim.
By estimate (3.14), in .
Hence, it is easy to check that
|
|
|
To sum up,
|
|
|
|
Part 2:
In this part, one can modify the standard solution to deduce an upper bound for . Since the previous description about , we easily obtain that satisfies the equation
(3.20) |
|
|
|
We construct a test function sequence . It is easy to check that satisfies
(3.21) |
|
|
|
Simple computations give that,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For , by the expression of , we derive that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For , using the expression of again,
we have
|
|
|
Likewise, for , we directly calculate
|
|
|
Combining the estimate , and , we conclude that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. The Proofs of Theorem 1.6 and 1.7
In this section, we shall establish the accurate lower bound of optimal concentration for the Moser-Onofri inequality on a general domain and give the criterion for the existence of extremals of the Moser-Onofri inequality. Since our methods are based on the -harmonic transplantation, for readerβs convenience, we also need to introduce some basic concepts and properties for -capacity, Robin function and -harmonic radius.
Definition 4.1.
(Chapter 2 in [11]).
The -capacity of a set with respect to is defined as
(4.1) |
|
|
|
We call the -modulus of with respect to . A function which realizes the infimum (4.1) is called a -capacity potential. The -capacity potential satisfies equation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Integration by parts leads to the boundary integral representation
(4.2) |
|
|
|
Definition 4.2.
The Green function of -Laplacian operator with the singularity at on the bounded domain is defined as the singular solution of Dirichlet problem
(4.3) |
|
|
|
The Green function of -Laplacian operator can be decomposed into singular part and a regular part:
|
|
|
The regular part of the Green function of -Laplacian operator on the bounded domain evaluated at singularity :
|
|
|
is called the -Robin function of at .
The -harmonic radius at is defined by the relation
|
|
|
Definition 4.3.
Define by the Green function of -Laplacian operator on with the singularity at . For every positive radial function and , we associate . This transformation is called -harmonic transplantation from to .
Proposition 4.4.
The -harmonic transplantation has the following properties:
(1) It preserves the -Dirichlet-energy,
|
|
|
(2) If , then
|
|
|
(3) If in the sense of measure, then in the sense of measure.
Proposition 4.5.
(Theorem 9.5 of Chapter 9 in [11])
If the sets concentrate at a point in the sense with , then
|
|
|
as .
Now, we are in the position to give the accurate lower bound of optimal concentration for Moser-Onofri inequality on a general domain, namely, we shall provide the proof of Theorem 1.6. We first claim a basic fact that can be inferred from the proof of Theorem 1.4:
|
|
|
Indeed, since
|
|
|
can not be achieved, if we define as the extremal function of
|
|
|
with the , then from the proof of Theorem 1.4, we see that
|
|
|
and
(4.4) |
|
|
|
Recall the Part 2 of the proof of Theorem 1.4, we construct the suitable test function sequences satisfying
|
|
|
such that
|
|
|
Combining the above estimate, we derive that
|
|
|
A simple change of variable: will directly yield .
Now we start the proof of Theorem 1.6. Assume that satisfies
|
|
|
Through Proposition 4.4, we see that
|
|
|
Then we deduce that
(4.5) |
|
|
|
Thus, in order to obtain our desired result, we just need to prove
(4.6) |
|
|
|
Since , one can easily check that
(4.7) |
|
|
|
Combining with
|
|
|
we find that there exists such that is included in .
Then we can replace below level with the -capacity potential of
without changing the limit
of the functional. The resulting function is denoted by . We apply the change
of the domain formula (Proposition 4.5) with
such that . By the logarithmic structure of the fundamental singularity, a change of order in the radius of leads to a change of the same order in the -modulus. Thus, we can achieve that
|
|
|
by increasing the radius of by . Hence, we deduce that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
then we accomplish the proof of Theorem 1.6.
Now, we give the proof of Theorem 1.7. Let denote the extremal of subcritical Moser-Onofri inequality on a general domain :
|
|
|
with . Then it is not difficult to check that
|
|
|
If is unbounded in , arguing as what we did in Theorem 1.4, we can derive that
|
|
|
According to the definition of , we immediately conclude that
|
|
|
In view of Theorem 1.6, this gives
|
|
|
which contradicts with the assumption
|
|
|
Hence is bounded in , it follows from the regular estimate for quasilinear operator that there exists such that in and
|
|
|
Then the proof of Theorem 1.7 is accomplished.