Singular $p$-biharmonic problem with the Hardy potential

Abstract.

The aim of this paper is to study existence results for a singular problem involving the $p$-biharmonic operator and the Hardy potential. More precisely, by combining monotonicity arguments with the variational method, the existence of solutions is established. By using the Nehari manifold method, the multiplicity of solutions is proved. An example is also given, to illustrate the importance of these results.

1. Introduction

The aim of this work is to study the following $p$-biharmonic problem with singular nonlinearity and Hardy potential

$$\Delta_{p}^{2}\varphi-\lambda\frac{|\varphi|^{p-2}\varphi}{|z|^{2p}}+\Delta_{p}\varphi=\frac{a(z)}{\varphi^{\theta}}+\mu g(z,\varphi),\;\;\hbox{for all}\ \varphi\in W^{2,p}(\mathbb{R}^{N}),$$ (1)

where $1<p<\frac{N}{2},0<\theta<1,$ and $\lambda$, $\mu$ are positive constants. The operators $\Delta_{p}$ and $\Delta_{p}^{2}$ are the $p$-Laplacian operator and the $p$-biharmonic operator, respectively, defined by

$$\Delta_{p}\varphi=\mbox{div}(|\nabla\varphi|^{p-2}\nabla\varphi)\;\;\mbox{and }\;\;\Delta^{2}_{p}\varphi=\Delta(|\Delta\varphi|^{p-2}\Delta\varphi).$$

Nonlinear elliptic equations with singularities can model several phenomena like non-Newtonian fluids, and chemical heterogeneity, for more details and other applications, see for example, Alsaedi et al. [8], Callegari and Nachman [4], Candito et al. [5, 6], Molica Bisci and Rǎdulescu [14], Nachman and Callegari [16] Papageorgiou [17], Papageorgiou et al. [19], and Pimenta and Servadei [20]. In recent years, problems involving $p$-biharmonic operator have been extensively studied, see for instance Bhakta [2], Dhifli and Alsaedi [1], Huang and Liu [12], Molica Bisci and Repovš [15], Sun et al. [23], Wang and Zhao [26], and Yang et al. [27]. In particular, Dhifli and Alsaedi [1] considered the analysis of the fibering map on the Nehari manifold sets to prove the existence of multiple solutions for the following system

$$\Delta_{p}^{2}\varphi-\Delta_{p}\varphi+V(z)|\varphi|^{p-2}\varphi=\lambda f(z)|\varphi|^{q-2}\varphi+a(z)|\varphi|^{m-2}\varphi,\ \hbox{for all}\ \varphi\in W^{2,p}(\mathbb{R}^{N}).$$

Very recently, several researchers have concentrated on the study of singular $p$-biharmonic equations, see Sun et al. [23] and Sun and Wu [24, 25], whereas singular problem involving $p$-biharmonic operator and Hardy potential has not received that much attention - we refer the reader to Drissi et al. [10] and Huang and Liu [12] for related work.
Ferrara and Molica Bisci [11] used the variational principle of Ricceri [22] to prove the multiplicity of solutions for the following problem

$$\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}-\Delta_{p}\varphi=\mu\frac{|\varphi|^{p-2}\varphi}{|z|^{2p}}+\lambda f(z,\varphi)\quad\mbox{ in }\Omega,\\ \varphi=\Delta\varphi=0\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\mbox{ on }\partial\Omega.\end{array}\right.$$

Motivated by [11], Huang and Liu [12] considered the following $p$-biharmonic problem

$$\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}-\Delta_{p}^{2}\varphi-\mu\frac{|\varphi|^{p-2}\varphi}{|z|^{2p}}=\mu h(z,\varphi)\quad\mbox{ in }\Omega,\\ \varphi=\Delta\varphi=0\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\mbox{ on }\partial\Omega.\end{array}\right.$$

More precisely, they used the invariant sets of descending flows method and proved that under suitable conditions on the parameter $\mu$ and the nonlinearity $h$, such a problem admits a nontrivial solution that changes sign.

In the present paper, we shall combine variational methods with monotonicity arguments to prove the existence of a nontrivial solution for problem (1). Next, we shall use the Nehari manifold method to prove the multiplicity of solutions. We note that this problem is very important since it involves the $p$-biharmonic operator, the $p$-Laplacian operator, a singular nonlinearity, and the Hardy potential.
In the first main result of this paper, we shall assume that

$$g(z,\varphi)=f(z)h(\varphi),\mbox{ for all }(z,\varphi)\in\mathbb{R}^{N}\times\mathbb{R},$$

and that the functions $f$, $h$ are measurable and satisfy the following hypotheses:

$(H_{1})$ There exist $c_{1}>0$, $1<r<p<\frac{N}{2}$ and $s\in(\frac{p^{\ast}}{p^{\ast}-r},\frac{p}{p-r})$, such that

$$f\in L^{\frac{p^{\ast}}{p^{\ast}-r}}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\cap L^{s}_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\hbox{ and }h(\varphi)\leq c_{1}|\varphi|^{r-1},\mbox{ for all }\varphi\in\mathbb{R}.$$

$(H_{2})$ There exists $M>0$ such that for all $(z,\varphi)\in\mathbb{R}^{N}\times\mathbb{R}$, we have

$$0<rf(z)H(\varphi)\leq f(z)h(\varphi)\varphi,\text{ for all }\left|\varphi\right|\geq M,\hbox{ where }H(t)=\int_{0}^{t}h(s)ds.$$

$(H_{3})$ $a\in L^{\frac{p^{\ast}}{p^{\ast}+\theta-1}}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\cap L^{\beta}_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$, for some $\beta\in(\frac{p^{\ast}}{p^{\ast}+\theta-1},\frac{p}{\theta+p-1})$ .

The first main result of this paper is the following theorem.

Theorem 1.

Suppose that hypotheses $(H_{1})$-$(H_{3})$ hold. Then for all $\delta,\mu>0$, problem (1) admits at least one nontrivial weak solution $\varphi_{\mu}$, provided that $\lambda>0$ is small enough.

In the second main result of this paper, we shall assume the following hypotheses:

$(H_{4})$ $G:\mathbb{R}^{N}\times\mathbb{R}\longrightarrow\mathbb{R},$ defined by $G(z,\varphi)=\int_{0}^{\varphi}g(z,s)ds$, is a $C^{1}$ function such that

$$G(z,t\varphi)=t^{r}G(z,\varphi),\mbox{ for all }(z,\varphi)\in\mathbb{R}^{N}\times\mathbb{R},t>0.$$

Moreover, if $\varphi\neq 0$, then $G(z,\varphi)>0$, where $0<1-\theta<1<p<r.$

$(H_{5})\;$ $a:\mathbb{R}^{N}\longrightarrow(0,\infty)$ satisfies

$$a\in L^{\frac{p}{\theta+p-1}}(\mathbb{R}^{N}).$$

We note that by hypothesis $(H_{4})$, we can find $M>0$ such that

$$\varphi g(z,\varphi)=rG(z,\varphi)\mbox{ and }\left|G(z,\varphi)\right|\leq M|\varphi|^{r},\;\;\mbox{for all }\;(z,\varphi)\in\mathbb{R}^{N}\times\mathbb{R}.$$ (2)

The second main result of this paper is the following theorem.

Theorem 2.

Assume that hypotheses $(H_{4})$ and $(H_{5})$ hold. Then there exists $\mu^{*}>0$ such that for all $\mu\in(0,\mu^{*})$, problem (1) admits two nontrivial solutions.

The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we shall present some preliminary material needed in the paper. In Section 3 we shall prove the first main result of this paper, i.e. the existence of solutions (Theorem 1). In Section 4 we shall study fibering maps on Nehari manifold sets. In Section 5, we shall prove the second main result of this paper, i.e. the multiplicity of solutions (Theorem 2). In Section 6 we shall give an illustrative example.

2. Preliminaries

In this section we shall present some preliminary material needed in the paper. For other necessary background facts we recommend the comprehensive monograph Papageorgiou et al. [18].

The Hardy potential is related to the following Rellich inequality

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\frac{|\varphi(z)|^{p}}{|z|^{2p}}\,dz\leq\left(\frac{p^{2}}{N(p-1)(N-2p)}\right)^{p}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\Delta\varphi(z)|^{p}\,dz,\;\mbox{for all }\;\varphi\in E,$$ (3)

where $E:=W^{2,p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$ is the Sobolev space which is defined as follows

$$W^{2,p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})=\left\{\varphi\in L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N}):\Delta\varphi,\;|\nabla\varphi|\in L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\right\}.$$

For the interested reader, properties of these spaces can be found in Davies and Hinz [7], Mitidieri [13], and Rellich [21]. According to the Rellich inequality (3), if $\lambda$ satisfies

$$0<\lambda<\left(\frac{N(p-1)(N-2p)}{p^{2}}\right)^{p},$$ (4)

then $\|.\|:E\to\mathbb{R},$ defined by

$$\|\varphi\|=\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\Delta\varphi(z)|^{p}-\lambda\frac{|\varphi(z)|^{p}}{|z|^{2p}}+|\nabla\varphi(z)|^{p}\,dz\right)^{\frac{1}{p}},$$

is a norm in $E$.

For every $r\in[p,p^{\ast}],$ there exists a continuous embedding from $E$ into $L^{r}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$. On the other hand, if $r\in(p,p^{\ast})$, then there exists a compact embedding from $E$ into $L^{r}_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$. Moreover, we have

$$S_{r}|\varphi|^{p}_{r}\leq\|\varphi\|^{p},\ \mbox{for all }\varphi\in E\;\mbox{and }\;r\in[p,p^{\ast}],$$ (5)

where $p^{\ast}=\frac{Np}{N-2p},$ $|\varphi|_{r}$ denotes the usual $L^{r}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$-norm and $S_{r}$ is the best Sobolev constant given by

$$S_{r}=\displaystyle\inf_{\varphi\in W^{2,p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\backslash\{0\}}\frac{\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\Delta\varphi(z)|^{p}-\lambda\frac{|\varphi(z)|^{p}}{|z|^{2p}}+|\nabla\varphi(z)|^{p}\,dz}{\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\varphi(z)|^{r}\,dz\right)^{\frac{p}{r}}}.$$

If $\psi$ is a positive function on $\mathbb{R}^{N}$ and $1\leq\sigma<\infty$, then we can define the weighted Lebesgue space $L^{\sigma}(\mathbb{R^{N}},\psi)$ by

$$L^{\sigma}(\mathbb{R^{N}},\psi)=\left\{\varphi:\mathbb{R}^{N}\to\mathbb{R}\;\;\mbox{measurable }:\;\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\psi(z)|\varphi(z)|^{\sigma}\,dz<\infty\right\},$$

endowed with the norm

$$\|\varphi\|_{\sigma,\psi}=\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\psi(z)|\varphi(z)|^{\sigma}\,dz\right)^{\frac{1}{\sigma}}.$$

Then $L^{\sigma}(\mathbb{R^{N}},\psi)$ is a uniformly convex Banach space. Dhifli and Alsaedi [1] have proved that if $\psi\in L^{\frac{p^{\ast}}{p^{\ast}-r}}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\cap L^{s}_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$, for some $s\in(\frac{p^{\ast}}{p^{\ast}-r},\frac{p}{p-r})$, then the embedding $W^{2,p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\hookrightarrow L^{r}(\mathbb{R}^{N},\psi)$ is continuous and compact. Moreover, we have the following estimate

$$\|\varphi\|^{r}_{r,\psi}\leq S_{p^{*}}^{-\frac{r}{p}}|f|_{\frac{p^{\ast}}{p^{\ast}-r}}\|\varphi\|^{r},\;\;\mbox{for all}\;\;\varphi\in E.$$ (6)

Remark 1.

We get an inequality similar to (6) if we replace $r$ by $1-\theta$ and $f$ by $a$. More precisely, we have

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)|\varphi(z)|^{1-\theta}\,dz\leq S_{p^{*}}^{-\frac{1-\theta}{p}}|f|_{\frac{p^{\ast}}{p^{\ast}+\theta-1}}\|\varphi\|^{1-\theta}.$$

Indeed, from equation (5) and the Hölder inequality, we obtain

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)|\varphi(z)|^{1-\theta}\,dz \leq \left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|a(z)|^{\frac{p^{\ast}}{p^{\ast}+\theta-1}}\right)^{\frac{p^{\ast}+\theta-1}{p^{\ast}}}\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|u(z)|^{p^{\ast}}\right)^{\frac{1-\theta}{p^{\ast}}}$$

$$\leq S_{p^{*}}^{-\frac{1-\theta}{p}}|f|_{\frac{p^{\ast}}{p^{\ast}+\theta-1}}\|\varphi\|^{1-\theta}.$$

3. The proof of Theorem 1

We recall that a function $\varphi\in E$ is called a weak solution for problem (1), if for all $v\in E$, one has

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\Delta\varphi|^{p-2}\Delta\varphi\Delta v-\lambda\frac{|\varphi|^{p-2}\varphi v}{|z|^{2p}}+|\nabla\varphi|^{p-2}\nabla\varphi\nabla v\;dz$$

$$=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi^{-\theta}v\,dz+\mu\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}g(z,\varphi)v\,dz.$$

Associated to problem (1), we define the energy functional $J_{\mu}:E\to\mathbb{R}$ by

$$J_{\mu}(\varphi)=\frac{1}{p}\|\varphi\|^{p}-\frac{1}{1-\theta}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi^{1-\theta}\,dz-\mu\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}G(z,\varphi(z))\,dz.$$ (7)

Several lemmas will be needed for the proof of Theorem 1.

Lemma 1.

Under hypotheses $(H_{1})$-$(H_{3})$, the functional $J_{\mu}$ is coercive and bounded from below on $E$.

Proof.

Let $\varphi\in E$. Assume that the hypotheses $(H_{1})$-$(H_{3})$ hold. Then it follows by (6) and Remark 1 that

$$J_{\mu}(\varphi) = \frac{1}{p}\|\varphi\|^{p}-\frac{1}{1-\theta}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi^{1-\theta}\,dz-\mu\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}f(z)H(\varphi)\,dz$$

$$\geq \frac{1}{p}\|\varphi\|^{p}-\frac{S_{p^{\ast}}^{-\frac{1-\theta}{p}}}{1-\theta}|a|_{\frac{p^{\ast}}{p^{\ast}+\theta-1}}\|\varphi\|^{1-\theta}-\frac{\mu}{r}\|\varphi\|_{r,h}^{r}$$

$$\geq \frac{1}{p}\|\varphi\|^{p}-\frac{S_{p^{\ast}}^{-\frac{1-\theta}{p}}}{1-\theta}|a|_{\frac{p^{\ast}}{p^{\ast}+\theta-1}}\|\varphi\|^{1-\theta}-\frac{\mu S_{p^{\ast}}^{-\frac{r}{p}}}{r}|f|_{\frac{p^{\ast}}{p^{\ast}-r}}\|\varphi\|^{r}.$$

Since $0<1-\theta<r<p$, we can infer that

$$\lim_{\|\varphi\|\to\infty}J_{\mu}(\varphi)=\infty.$$

In other words, $J_{\mu}$ is indeed coercive and bounded from below on $E$. This completes the proof of Lemma 1. ∎

Lemma 2.

Assume that hypotheses $(H_{1})$-$(H_{3})$ hold. Then there exists a nonnegative nontrivial function $\phi\in E$ such that $J_{\mu}(t\phi)<0$, provided that $t>0$ is small enough.

Proof.

Let $t>0$ and $\phi\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$. Assume that for some bounded subsets $\Omega_{0}$ and $\Omega_{1}$, we have $\Omega_{0}\subset\mbox{supp}(\phi)\subset\Omega_{1}\subset\mathbb{R}^{N},$ $0\leq\phi\leq 1$ on $\Omega_{1}$, and $\phi=1$ on $\Omega_{0}$. Then by $(H_{2})$, we can find $K>0$, such that for all $(z,t)\in\mathbb{R}^{N}\times\mathbb{R}$, we have

$$f(z)H(t)\geq Kf(z)|t|^{r}.$$

Invoking $(H_{1})$-$(H_{3})$ and equation (6), we get

$$J_{\mu}(t\phi) = \frac{t^{p}}{p}\|\phi\|^{p}-\frac{t^{1-\theta}}{1-\theta}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\phi^{1-\theta}\,dz-\mu\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}f(z)H(t\phi)\,dz$$

$$\leq \frac{t^{p}}{p}\|\phi\|^{p}-\frac{t^{1-\theta}}{1-\theta}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\phi^{1-\theta}\,dz-\mu Kt^{r}\|\phi\|_{r,f}^{r}$$

$$\leq t^{r}\left(\frac{1}{p}\|\phi\|^{p}+\mu K\|\phi\|_{r,f}^{r}\right)-\frac{t^{1-\theta}}{1-\theta}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\phi^{1-\theta}\,dz$$

$$\leq t^{1-\theta}\left[t^{r+\theta-1}\left(\frac{1}{p}\|\phi\|^{p}+\mu K\|\phi\|_{r,f}^{r}\right)-\frac{1}{1-\theta}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\phi^{1-\theta}\,dz\right]$$

$$< 0,\;\;\;\mbox{ for all }\;t\in(0,\xi^{\frac{1}{r+\theta-1}}),$$

where

$$\xi=\min\left(1,\frac{\frac{t^{1-\theta}}{1-\theta}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\phi^{1-\theta}\,dz}{\frac{1}{p}\|\phi\|^{p}+\mu K\|\phi\|_{r,f}^{r}}\right).$$

This completes the proof of Lemma 2. ∎

We note that according to Lemma 1, we can define the following

$$m_{\mu}=\displaystyle\inf_{\varphi\in E}J_{\mu}(\varphi)$$

and by Lemma 2, we have $m_{\mu}<0$.

Lemma 3.

The functional $J_{\mu}$ attains its global minimizer on $E$. That is, there exists $\varphi_{\mu}\in E$ such that

$$J_{\mu}(\varphi_{\mu})=m_{\mu}<0.$$

Proof.

Let $\{\varphi_{n}\}$ be a minimizing sequence for $J_{\mu}$, which means that $J_{\mu}(\varphi_{n})\to m_{\mu}$, as $n\to\infty$. Since $J_{\mu}$ is coercive, it follows that $\{\varphi_{n}\}$ is bounded on $E$. Indeed, if not, then up to a subsequence, we can assume that $\|\varphi_{n}\|\to\infty$. Therefore, the coercivity of $J_{\mu}$, implies that $J_{\mu}(\varphi_{n})\to\infty$, which is a contradiction. Hence $\{\varphi_{n}\}$ is bounded. Therefore, there exist $\varphi_{\mu}\in E$ and a subsequence still denoted by $\{\varphi_{n}\}$, such that, as $n$ tends to infinity, we have

$$\begin{array}[]{ll}\varphi_{n}\hookrightarrow\varphi_{\mu},\mbox{ weakly in }\;\;E,\\ \varphi_{n}\to\varphi_{\mu},\mbox{ strongly in }\;\;L^{r}(\mathbb{R}^{N},f),\\ \varphi_{n}\to\varphi_{\mu},\mbox{ a.e. in }\;\;\mathbb{R}^{N}.\end{array}$$ (8)

Since $\{\varphi_{n}\}$ is bounded on $E$, it follows by the Sobolev embedding theorem, that $\{\varphi_{n}\}$ is bounded on $L^{p^{\ast}}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$. On the other hand, by Remark 1, we have

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)|\varphi_{n}|^{1-\theta}\,dz\leq S_{p^{\ast}}^{-\frac{1-\theta}{p}}|a|_{\frac{p^{\ast}}{p^{\ast}+\theta-1}}\|\varphi_{n}\|^{1-\theta}.$$

So, by absolute continuity of $|a|_{\frac{p^{\ast}}{p^{\ast}+\theta-1}}$, we can deduce that

$$\left\{\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)|\varphi_{n}|^{1-\theta}\,dz,\;n\in\mathbb{N}\right\}$$

is equi-absolutely continuous. Therefore, by the Vitali theorem $($see Brooks [3]$)$, one has

$$\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)|\varphi_{n}|^{1-\theta}\,dz=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)|\varphi_{\mu}|^{1-\theta}\,dz.$$ (9)

Finally, by (8) and weak lower semi-continuity of the norm, we obtain

$$m_{\mu}\leq J_{\mu}(\varphi_{\mu})\leq\displaystyle\lim_{n\to\infty}J_{\mu}(\varphi_{n})=m_{\mu},$$

hence

$$J_{\mu}(\varphi_{\mu})=m_{\mu}<0.$$ (10)

This completes the proof of Lemma 3. ∎

Now we are ready to present the proof of Theorem 1.

Proof of Theorem 1. From Lemma 3, we see that $\varphi_{\mu}$ is a global minimizer for $J_{\mu}$, hence $\varphi_{\mu}$ satisfies

$$0\leq J_{\mu}(\varphi_{\mu}+t\varphi)-J_{\mu}(\varphi_{\mu}),\mbox{ for all }(t,\varphi)\in(0,\infty)\times E.$$

Dividing the above inequality by $t>0$ and letting $t$ tend to zero, we obtain

$$0 \leq \int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\Delta\varphi_{\mu}|^{p-2}\Delta\varphi_{\mu}\Delta\varphi-\lambda\frac{|\varphi_{\mu}|^{p-2}\varphi_{\mu}\varphi}{|z|^{2p}}+|\nabla\varphi_{\mu}|^{p-2}\nabla\varphi_{\mu}\nabla\varphi\;dz$$

$$-\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi_{\mu}^{-\theta}\varphi\,dz-\mu\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}f(z)h(\varphi_{\mu})\varphi\,dz.$$

The fact that $\varphi$ is arbitrary in $E$, implies that in the last inequality we can replace $\varphi$ by $-\varphi$, so for any $\varphi\in E$ we get

$$0 = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\Delta\varphi_{\mu}|^{p-2}\Delta\varphi_{\mu}\Delta\varphi-\lambda\frac{|\varphi_{\mu}|^{p-2}\varphi_{\mu}\varphi}{|z|^{2p}}+|\nabla\varphi_{\mu}|^{p-2}\nabla\varphi_{\mu}\nabla\varphi\;dz$$

$$-\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi_{\mu}^{-\theta}\varphi\,dz-\mu\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}f(z)h(\varphi_{\mu})\varphi\,dz.$$

That is, $\varphi_{\mu}$ is a weak solution for problem (1). Moreover, from equation (10) we see that $\varphi_{\mu}$ is nontrivial. This completes the proof of Theorem 1. ∎

4. Fibering maps on Nehari manifold sets

In order to prove Theorem 2, we first need to study the fibering maps on Nehari manifold sets. First, let us mention that the functional $J_{\mu}$ defined in equation (7) is Fréchet differentiable. Moreover, for all $(\varphi,\psi)\in E\times E,$ we have

$$J^{\prime}_{\mu}(\varphi)\psi = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\Delta\varphi|^{p-2}\Delta\varphi\Delta\psi-\lambda\frac{|\varphi|^{p-2}\varphi\psi}{|z|^{2p}}+|\nabla\varphi|^{p-2}\nabla\varphi\nabla\psi\,dz$$

$$-\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi^{-\theta}\psi\,dz-\frac{\mu}{r}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}g(z,\varphi)\psi\,dz.$$

It is obvious that $J_{\mu}$ is not bounded from below on $E$. We introduce the following set

$$N_{\mu}=\left\{\varphi\in E;\;J_{\mu}^{\prime}(\varphi)\varphi=0\right\}.$$

Note that a function $\varphi\in E$ is a weak solution for problem (1), if it satisfies $J^{\prime}_{\mu}(\varphi)=0$, that is, $\varphi$ is a critical value for $J_{\mu}$. Clearly, $\varphi\in N_{\mu}$ if and only if

$$\|\varphi\|^{p}-\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi^{1-\theta}\,dz-{\mu}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}G(z,\varphi(z))\,dz=0.$$ (11)

Lemma 4.

The functional $J_{\mu}$ is coercive and bounded from below on $N_{\mu}$.

Proof.

Let $\varphi\in N_{\mu}$. Then, by equations (5), (11) and the Hölder inequality, we obtain

$$J_{\mu}(\varphi) = \frac{1}{p}\|\varphi\|^{p}-\frac{1}{1-\theta}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi^{1-\theta}\,dz-\frac{\mu}{r}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}G(z,\varphi(z))\,dz$$ (12)

$$\geq \frac{r-p}{pr}\|\varphi\|^{p}-\frac{\theta+r-1}{r(1-\theta)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)|\varphi|^{1-\theta}\,dz$$

$$\geq \frac{r-p}{pr}\|\varphi\|^{p}-\frac{\theta+r-1}{r(1-\theta)}S_{p}^{\frac{\theta-1}{p}}\|a\|_{\frac{p}{\theta+p-1}}\|\varphi\|^{1-\theta}$$

Since $0<1-\theta<1<p<r$, it follows that $J_{\mu}$ is coercive and bounded from below on $N_{\mu}$. This completes the proof of Lemma 4. ∎

Next, we define a function $\phi_{\mu,\varphi}$ on $[0,+\infty),$ introduced in Drǎbek and Pohožaev [9], as follows

$$\phi_{\mu,\varphi}(t):=J_{\mu}(t\varphi)=\frac{t^{p}}{p}\|\varphi\|^{p}-\frac{t^{1-\theta}}{1-\theta}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi^{1-\theta}\,dz-\frac{\mu t^{r}}{r}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}G(z,\varphi(z))\,dz.$$

A simple calculation shows that

$$\phi^{\prime}_{\mu,\varphi}(t)=t^{p-1}\|\varphi\|^{p}-{t^{-\theta}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi^{1-\theta}\,dz-{\mu t^{r-1}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}G(z,\varphi(z))\,dz,$$

and

$$\phi^{\prime\prime}_{\mu,\varphi}(t)=(p-1)t^{p-2}\|\varphi\|^{p}+{\theta t^{-\theta-1}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi^{1-\theta}\,dz-{\mu(r-1)t^{r-2}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}G(z,\varphi(z))\,dz.$$

Since $t\phi^{\prime}_{\mu,\varphi}(t)=<J_{\mu}^{\prime}(t\varphi),t\varphi>$, it follows that for $t>0$ and $\varphi\in E\setminus\{0\}$, we have

$$\phi^{\prime}_{\mu,\varphi}(t)=0\mbox{ if and only if }t\varphi\in N_{\mu}.$$

In particular, $\varphi\in N_{\mu}$ if and only if $\phi^{\prime}_{\mu,\varphi}(1)=0$. On the other hand, it follows by equation (11), that for all $\varphi\in N_{\mu},$ one has

$$\phi^{\prime\prime}_{\mu,\varphi}(1) = (p-r)\|\varphi\|^{p}+{(\theta+r-1)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi^{1-\theta}\,dz$$ (13)

$$= (\theta+p-1)\|\varphi\|^{p}-\mu{(\theta+r-1)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}G(z,\varphi(z))\,dz.$$ (14)

Now, in order to obtain the multiplicity of solutions, we split $N_{\mu}$ into three parts

$$N_{\mu}^{+}=\left\{\varphi\in N_{\mu}\backslash\{0\};\phi_{\mu,\varphi}^{\prime\prime}(1)>0\right\},$$

$$N_{\mu}^{-}=\left\{\varphi\in N_{\mu}\backslash\{0\};\phi_{\mu,\varphi}^{\prime\prime}(1)<0\right\},$$

and

$$N_{\mu}^{0}=\left\{\varphi\in N_{\mu}\backslash\{0\};\phi_{\mu,\varphi}^{\prime\prime}(1)=0\right\}.$$

In the following lemmas we shall present some important properties related to the subsets introduced above.

Lemma 5.

If $u\not\in N^{0}_{\mu}$ is a local mimimizer for $J_{\mu}$ on $N_{\mu}$, then $J^{\prime}_{\mu}(\varphi)=0$.

Proof.

Since $\varphi$ is a minimizer for $J_{\mu}$ under the following constraint

$$I_{\mu}(\varphi):=J^{\prime}_{\mu}(\varphi)\varphi=0,$$

the Lagrange multipliers theory implies the existence of $\xi\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $J^{\prime}_{\mu}(\varphi)=I^{\prime}_{\mu}(\varphi)\xi$. Thus

$$J^{\prime}_{\mu}(\varphi)\varphi=(I^{\prime}_{\mu}(\varphi)\varphi)\xi=\phi^{\prime\prime}_{\mu,\varphi}(1)\xi=0.$$

The fact that $\varphi\not\in N^{0}_{\mu}$, implies that $\phi^{\prime\prime}_{\mu,\varphi}(1)\neq 0$. So, $\xi=0$, which completes the proof of Lemma 5. ∎

Lemma 6.

There exists $\mu_{0}$ such that if $\mu\in(0,\mu_{0})$ then the set $N^{0}_{\mu}$ is empty.

Proof.

Put

$$\mu_{0}=\frac{(\theta+p-1)S_{r}^{\frac{r}{p}}}{(\theta+r-1)M}\left(\frac{r-p}{(\theta+r-1)\|a\|_{\frac{p}{\theta+p-1}}S_{p}^{\frac{1-\theta}{p}}}\right)^{\frac{r-p}{\theta+p-1}},$$

where $M$ is defined as in equation (2), and let $\mu\in(0,\mu_{0})$. We shall prove that $N^{0}_{\mu}=\varnothing$. Suppose to the contrary and let $\varphi\in N^{0}_{\mu}$. Then we have

$$0=\phi^{\prime\prime}_{\mu,\varphi}(1)=(p-1)\|\varphi\|^{p}+{\theta}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi^{1-\theta}(z)\,dz-{\mu(r-1)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}G(z,\varphi(z))\,dz.$$

So, it follows from (13) and (14) that

$$(\theta+p-1)\|\varphi\|^{p}=\mu{(\theta+r-1)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}G(z,\varphi(z))\,dz,$$ (15)

and

$$(r-p)\|\varphi\|^{p}={(\theta+r-1)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi^{1-\theta}(z)\,dz.$$ (16)

On the other hand, from (5) and the Hölder inequality, we get

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi^{1-\theta}(z)\,dz \leq \left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\varphi(z)|^{p}\,dz\right)^{\frac{1-\theta}{p}}\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|a(z)|^{\frac{p}{\theta+p-1}}\,dz\right)^{\frac{\theta+p-1}{p}}$$

$$\leq |\varphi|_{p}^{1-\theta}\|a\|_{\frac{p}{\theta+p-1}}\leq S_{p}^{\frac{1-\theta}{p}}\|a\|_{\frac{p}{\theta+p-1}}\|\varphi\|^{1-\theta}.$$

So, it follows from (16) that

$$\|\varphi\|^{p} = \frac{\theta+r-1}{r-p}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)u^{1-\theta}(z)\,dz\leq\frac{\theta+r-1}{r-p}S_{p}^{\frac{1-\theta}{p}}\|a\|_{\frac{p}{\theta+p-1}}\|\varphi\|^{1-\theta},$$

that is,

$$\|\varphi\|\leq\left(\frac{\theta+r-1}{r-p}S_{p}^{\frac{\theta-1}{p}}\|a\|_{\frac{p}{\theta+p-1}}\right)^{\frac{1}{\theta+p-1}}.$$ (17)

From (5), (2), and (15), we have

$$\|\varphi\|^{p} = \mu\frac{{(\theta+r-1)}}{\theta+p-1}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}G(z,\varphi(z))\,dz$$

$$\leq \mu M\frac{{(\theta+r-1)}}{\theta+p-1}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\varphi(z)|^{r}\,dz\leq\mu M\frac{{(\theta+r-1)}}{\theta+p-1}S_{r}^{-\frac{r}{p}}\|\varphi\|^{r},$$

hence,

$$\|\varphi\|\geq\left(\frac{(\theta+p-1)S_{p}^{\frac{r}{p}}}{(\theta+r-1)M\mu}\right)^{\frac{1}{r-p}}.$$ (18)

By combining (17) with (18), we obtain $\mu\geq\mu_{0}$, which gives us the desired contradiction. This completes the proof of Lemma 6. ∎

Lemma 7.

Let $\varphi\in E\setminus\{0\}$. Then there exists $\mu_{1}>0$ such that for all  $0<\mu<\mu_{1},$  $\phi_{\varphi}$ has exactly a local minimum at $t_{1}$ and a local maximum at $t_{2}$. That is, $t_{1}u\in N^{+}_{\mu}$ and $t_{2}u\in N^{-}_{\mu}$.

Proof.

Let $\varphi\in E$ be such that

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}g(z,\varphi)dz>0\hbox{ and }\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi^{1-\theta}dz>0.$$

It is easy to see that for all $t>0$, we have

$$\phi^{\prime}_{\mu,\varphi}(t)=t^{-\theta}\left(m_{\varphi}(t)-\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi^{1-\theta}dz\right),$$ (19)

where $m_{\varphi}:[0,\infty)\to\mathbb{R}$ is defined by

$$m_{\varphi}(t)=t^{\theta+p-1}\|\varphi\|^{p}-t^{\theta+r-1}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}g(z,\varphi)dz.$$

It is not difficult to show that $m^{\prime}_{\varphi}(t)=0$ if and only if $t=0$ or $t=t_{0}$, where

$$t_{0}=\left(\frac{(\theta+p-1)\|\varphi\|^{p}}{(\theta+r-1)\mu\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}g(z,\varphi)dz}\right)^{\frac{1}{r-p}}.$$ (20)

Moreover,

$$m_{\varphi}(t_{0})=\left(\mu\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}g(z,\varphi)dz\right)^{-\frac{\theta+p-1}{r-p}}\left(\left(\frac{\theta+p-1}{\theta+r-1}\right)^{\frac{\theta+p-1}{r-p}}-\left(\frac{\theta+p-1}{\theta+r-1}\right)^{\frac{\theta+r-1}{r-p}}\right)>0.$$ (21)

On the other hand, the table of variation of the function $m_{\varphi}$ is given by

$$\small{\begin{array}[]{|c|ccccr|}\hline\cr t&0&&t_{0}&&\infty\\ \hline\cr m_{\varphi}^{\prime}(t)&&+&0&-&\\ \hline\cr&&&m_{\varphi}(t_{0})&&\\ m_{\varphi}(t)&&\nearrow&&\searrow&\\ &0&&&&-\infty\\ \hline\cr\end{array}}$$

Now, since

$$0<\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi^{1-\theta}\,dz\leq\frac{\theta+r-1}{r-p}S_{p}^{\frac{\theta-1}{p}}\|a\|_{\frac{p}{\theta+p-1}}\|\varphi\|^{1-\theta},$$

it follows by (21) that we can choose $\mu_{1}>0$ small enough, so that for all $\mu\in(0,\mu_{1})$ we have

$$\frac{\theta+r-1}{r-p}S_{p}^{\frac{\theta-1}{p}}\|a\|_{\frac{p}{\theta+p-1}}\|\varphi\|^{1-\theta}<m_{\varphi}(t_{0}).$$

Therefore for $\mu\in(0,\mu_{1})$ we have,

$$0<\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi^{1-\theta}\,dz<m_{\varphi}(t_{0}).$$

Hence, from the table of variation of $m_{\varphi}$, we can deduce the existence of unique $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$ such that $0<t_{1}<t_{0}<t_{2}$ and

$$m_{\varphi}(t_{1})=m_{\varphi}(t_{2})=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi^{1-\theta}\,dz.$$

Finally, from (19) and the table of variation of function $m_{\varphi}$, we can see that $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$ are the unique critical points of function $\phi_{\mu,u}$. More precisely, $t_{1}$ is a local minimum point and $t_{2}$ is a local maximum point. Thus $t_{1}u\in N^{+}_{\mu}$ and $t_{2}u\in N^{-}_{\mu}$. This completes the proof of Lemma 7. ∎

Remark 2.

It follows from Lemma 7 that $N^{+}_{\mu}\neq\varnothing$ and $N^{-}_{\mu}\neq\varnothing$, provided that $0<\mu<\mu_{1}$. Moreover, by Lemma 6, for every $0<\mu<\mu_{0}$, we have

$$N_{\mu}=N^{+}_{\mu}\cup N^{-}_{\mu}.$$

For the rest of the paper we shall set

$$\mu^{*}=\min(\mu_{0},\mu_{1},\mu_{2}),$$

and define

$$\theta_{\mu}=\inf_{\varphi\in N_{\mu}}J_{\mu}(\varphi),\theta^{+}_{\mu}=\inf_{\varphi\in N^{+}_{\mu}}J_{\mu}(\varphi)\mbox{ and }\theta^{-}_{\mu}=\inf_{\varphi\in N^{-}_{\mu}}J_{\mu}(\varphi),$$

where

$$\mu_{2}=\frac{(\theta+p-1)S_{r}^{\frac{r}{p}}}{(\theta+r-1)M}\left(\frac{(\theta+r-1)p}{(1-\theta)(r-p)}S_{p}^{\frac{\theta-1}{p}}\|a\|_{\frac{p}{\theta+p-1}}\right)^{\frac{r-p}{\theta+p-1}}.$$

Lemma 8.

If  $0<\mu<\mu^{*}$, then the following statments hold

1. $$\theta_{\mu}\leq\theta^{+}_{\mu}<0.$$

2. There exists $C>0$ such that

   $$\theta^{-}_{\mu}\geq C>0.$$

Proof.

1. Let $\varphi\in N^{+}_{\mu}$. Then, from (13), we get

   $$\frac{r-p}{\theta+r-1}\|\varphi\|^{p}<\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi^{1-\theta}dz.$$

   So combining the last inequality with (11), we obtain

   $$J_{\mu}(\varphi) = \frac{r-p}{pr}\|\varphi\|^{p}-\frac{\theta+r-1}{r(1-\theta)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi^{1-\theta}dz$$

   $$\leq -\frac{(r-p)(\theta+p-1)}{pr(1-\theta)}\|\varphi\|^{p}<0,$$

   so we conclude that $\theta_{\mu}\leq\theta^{+}_{\mu}<0$.

2. Let $\varphi\in N^{-}_{\mu}$. Then by (5) and (14) we get

   $$\|\varphi\|>\left(\frac{(\theta+p-1)S_{r}^{\frac{r}{p}}}{(\theta+r-1)\mu M}\right)^{\frac{1}{r-p}},$$

   where $M$ is the positive constant given by equation (2).
   Now, using the last inequality and (12) we get

   $$J_{\mu}(\varphi) \geq \frac{r-p}{pr}\|\varphi\|^{p}-\frac{\theta+r-1}{r(1-\theta)}S_{p}^{\frac{1-\theta}{p}}\|a\|_{\frac{p}{\theta+p-1}}\|\varphi\|^{1-\theta}$$

   $$\geq \|\varphi\|^{1-\theta}\left(\frac{r-p}{pr}\|\varphi\|^{\theta+p-1}-\frac{\theta+r-1}{r(1-\theta)}S_{p}^{\frac{1-\theta}{p}}\|a\|_{\frac{p}{\theta+p-1}}\right)$$

   $$> \left(\frac{(\theta+p-1)S_{r}^{\frac{r}{p}}}{(\theta+r-1)\mu M}\right)^{\frac{1-\theta}{r-p}}$$

   $$\left(\frac{r-p}{pr}\left(\frac{(\theta+p-1)S_{r}^{\frac{r}{p}}}{(\theta+r-1)\mu M}\right)^{\frac{\theta+p-1}{r-p}}-\frac{\theta+r-1}{r(1-\theta)}S_{p}^{\frac{\theta-1}{p}}\|a\|_{\frac{p}{\theta+p-1}}\right).$$

   Since $0<\mu<\mu^{*}\leq\mu_{2}$ and $0<1-\theta\leq p<r$, it follows that $J_{\mu}>C,$ for some $C>0$.

This completes the proof of Lemma 8. ∎

Next, we have the following results on the existence of minimizers in $N^{+}_{\mu}$ and $N^{-}_{\mu}$ for $\mu\in(0,\mu^{*})$.

Lemma 9.

If  $0<\mu<\mu^{*}$, then there exists $\varphi_{\mu}\in N^{+}_{\mu}$ such that

$$\theta^{+}_{\mu}=J_{\mu}(\varphi_{\mu}).$$

That is, $J_{\mu}$ attains its minimum on $N^{+}_{\mu}$.

Proof.

Since $J_{\mu}$ is bounded from below on $N_{\mu}$ and hence also on $N^{+}_{\mu}$, there exists $\{\varphi_{k}\}\subset N^{+}_{\mu}$ such that

$$\lim_{k\to\infty}J_{\mu}(\varphi_{k})=\inf_{\varphi\in N^{+}_{\mu}}J_{\mu}(\varphi).$$

Since $J_{\mu}$ is coercive on $N_{\mu}$, it follows that $\{\varphi_{k}\}$ is bounded on $E$. So, there exist $\varphi_{\mu}$ and a subsequence, again denoted by $\{\varphi_{k}\},$ such that as $k$ tends to infinity, we have

$$\begin{cases}\varphi_{k}\rightharpoonup\varphi_{\mu}\mbox{ weakly in }E\\ \varphi_{k}\longrightarrow\varphi_{\mu}\mbox{ strongly in }L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{N}),\mbox{for all}\;\;p<q<p^{*},\\ \varphi_{k}\longrightarrow\varphi_{\mu}\mbox{ a.e }\mathbb{R}^{N}.\end{cases}$$

From Lemma 8 we know that $\displaystyle\inf_{u\in N^{+}_{\mu}}J_{\mu}(\varphi)<0$. On the other hand, since $\{\varphi_{k}\}\subset N_{\mu}$ we have

$$J_{\mu}(\varphi_{k})=\frac{r-p}{pr}\|\varphi_{k}\|^{p}-\frac{\theta+r-1}{r(1-\theta)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi_{k}^{1-\theta}(z)dz,$$

so we get

$$\frac{\theta+r-1}{r(1-\theta)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi_{k}^{1-\theta}(z)dz=\frac{r-p}{pr}\|\varphi_{k}\|^{p}-J_{\mu}(\varphi_{k}).$$

From (9), by letting $k\to\infty$ in the last equation, we obtain

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi_{\mu}^{1-\theta}(z)dz>0.$$

We now claim that $\varphi_{k}$ converges strongly to $\varphi_{\mu}$ in $E$. If this were not true, then we would have

$$\|\varphi_{\mu}\|^{p}<\liminf_{k\to\infty}\|\varphi_{k}\|^{p}.$$

Since $\phi^{\prime}_{\varphi_{\mu}}(t_{1})=0,$ it would follow that $\phi^{\prime}_{\varphi_{k}}(t_{1})>0$ for sufficiently large $k$. So, we must have $t_{1}>1$. However, $t_{1}\varphi_{\mu}\in N^{+}_{\mu}$ and therefore

$$J_{\mu}(t_{1}\varphi_{\mu})<J_{\mu}(\varphi_{\mu})\leq\lim_{k\to\infty}J_{\mu}(\varphi_{k})=\inf_{u\in N^{+}_{\mu}}J_{\mu}(\varphi),$$

which is a contradiction, that is $\varphi_{k}\underset{k\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}\varphi_{\mu}$.

Since $N^{0}_{\mu}=\varnothing$, it follows that $\varphi_{\mu}\in N^{+}_{\mu}$. Finally, $\varphi_{\mu}$ is a minimizer for $J_{\mu}$ on $N^{+}_{\mu}$. This completes the proof of Lemma 9. ∎

Lemma 10.

If  $0<\mu<\mu^{*}$, then there exists $\psi_{\mu}\in N^{-}_{\mu}$ such that

$$\theta^{-}_{\mu}=J_{\mu}(\psi_{\mu}).$$

That is, $J_{\mu}$ achieves its minimum on $N^{-}_{\mu}$.

Proof.

By Lemma 8, there exists $C>0$ such that for all $\varphi\in N^{-}_{\mu}$, we have $J_{\mu}(\varphi)>C$. So, there exists a minimizing sequence $\{\varphi_{k}\}\subset N^{-}_{\mu}$ such that

$$\lim_{k\to\infty}J_{\mu}(\varphi_{k})=\inf_{\varphi\in N^{-}_{\mu}}J_{\mu}(\varphi)>0.$$

Since $J_{\mu}$ is coercive, we can deduce that $\{\varphi_{k}\}$ is bounded. So, for all $p\leq r<p^{*}$, there is a subsequence still denoted by $\{\varphi_{k}\}$, and $\psi_{\mu}\in E$ such that if $k$ tends to infinity we get

$$\begin{cases}\varphi_{k}\rightharpoonup\psi_{\mu}\mbox{ weakly in }E\\ \varphi_{k}\longrightarrow\psi_{\mu}\mbox{ strongly in }L^{r}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\\ \varphi_{k}\longrightarrow\psi_{\mu}\mbox{ a.e. }\mathbb{R}^{N}.\end{cases}$$

On the other hand, since $\{\varphi_{k}\}\subset N_{\mu}$ we have

$$J_{\mu}(\varphi_{k})=\mu\frac{r+\theta-1}{r(1-\theta)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}G(z,\varphi_{k}(z))dz-\frac{\theta+p-1}{p(1-\theta)}\|\varphi_{k}\|^{p},$$

which implies

$$\mu\frac{r+\theta-1}{r(1-\theta)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}G(z,\varphi_{k})dz=J_{\mu}(\varphi_{k})+\frac{\theta+p-1}{p(1-\theta)}\|\varphi_{k}\|^{p}.$$

By letting $k\to\infty$ in last equation, we obtain

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}G(z,\psi_{\mu})dz>0.$$

Hence, by Lemma 7 $\phi_{\mu,\varphi}$ has a maximum at some point $t_{2}$ and $t_{2}\psi_{\mu}\in N^{-}_{\mu}$. On the other hand, $\psi_{k}\in N^{-}_{\mu}$ implies that $1$ is a global maximum point for $\phi_{\mu,\varphi_{k}}$, so we get

$$J_{\mu}(t\varphi_{k})=\phi_{\mu,\varphi_{k}}(t)\leq\phi_{\mu,\varphi_{k}}(1)=J_{\mu}(\varphi_{k}),\;\mbox{for all }\;t>0.$$ (22)

Now, we claim that $\varphi_{k}\underset{k\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}\psi_{\mu}$. Suppose that this is were not true, then we would get

$$\|\psi_{\mu}\|^{p}<\liminf_{k\to\infty}\|\varphi_{k}\|^{p}.$$

So, from equation (22) and the Fatou lemma we would obtain

$$J_{\mu}(t_{2}\psi_{\mu}) = \frac{t_{2}^{p}}{p}\|\psi_{\mu}\|^{p}-\frac{t_{2}^{1-\theta}}{1-\theta}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\psi_{\mu}^{1-\theta}\,dz-\frac{\mu t_{2}^{r}}{r}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}G(z,\psi_{\mu}(z))\,dz$$

$$< \liminf_{k\to\infty}\left(\frac{t_{2}^{p}}{p}\|\varphi_{k}\|^{p}-\frac{t_{2}^{1-\theta}}{1-\theta}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi_{k}^{1-\theta}\,dz-\frac{\mu t_{2}^{r}}{r}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}G(z,\varphi_{k}(z))\,dz\right)$$

$$\leq \lim_{k\to\infty}J_{\mu}(t_{2}\varphi_{k})$$

$$\leq \lim_{k\to\infty}J_{\mu}(\varphi_{k})=\inf_{\varphi\in N^{-}_{\mu}}J_{\mu}(\varphi),$$

which is a contradiction. Hence, $\varphi_{k}\longrightarrow\psi_{\mu}$ as $k\to\infty$.

Since $N^{0}_{\mu}=\varnothing$, it follows that $\psi_{\mu}\in N^{-}_{\mu}$. Finally, $\psi_{\mu}$ is a minimizer for $J_{\mu}$ on $N^{-}_{\mu}$. This completes the proof of Lemma 10. ∎

5. The proof of Theorem 2

We shall need the following two auxiliary lemmas to prove that the local minimum of the functional energy is a weak solution for problem (1).

Lemma 11.

Assume that hypotheses of Theorem 2 are satisfied and $\mu\in(0,\mu^{\star})$. Then the following statments hold:

1. There exist $r_{1}>0$ and a continuous function $\rho_{1}:B(0,r_{1})\to(0,\infty)$ such that

   $$\rho_{1}(0)=1\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;\rho_{1}(\varphi)(\varphi_{\mu}+\varphi)\in N^{+}_{\mu},\;\mbox{for all}\;\varphi\in B(0,r_{1}).$$

2. There exist $r_{2}>0$ and a continuous function $\rho_{2}:B(0,r_{2})\to(0,\infty)$ such that

   $$\rho_{2}(0)=1\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;\rho_{2}(\varphi)(\psi_{\mu}+\varphi)\in N^{-}_{\mu},\;\mbox{for all}\;\varphi\in B(0,r_{2}).$$

Proof.

We give the proof only for assertion $(i)$, since the proof for assertion $(ii)$ is similar. So, let $\Phi:E\times(0,\infty)$ be a function defined by

$$\Phi(\varphi,t)=t^{\theta+p-1}\|\varphi_{\mu}+\varphi\|^{p}-t^{\theta+r-1}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}G(z,\varphi_{\mu}+\varphi)dz-\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)|\varphi_{\mu}+\varphi|^{1-\theta}dz.$$

Since $\varphi_{\mu}\in N^{+}_{\mu}\subset N_{\mu}$, we have $\Phi(0,1)=0$. On the other hand, $\varphi_{\mu}\in N^{+}_{\mu}$ implies that

$$\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial t}(0,1)=(\theta+p-1)\|\varphi_{\mu}\|^{p}-(\theta+r-1)\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}G(z,\varphi_{\mu})dz>0.$$

So by the Implicit function theorem, there exist $r_{1}>0$ and a continuous function $\rho_{1}:B(0,r_{1})\to(0,\infty)$ such that

$$\rho_{1}(0)=1\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;\rho_{1}(\varphi)(\varphi_{\mu}+\varphi)\in N^{+}_{\mu},\;\mbox{for all}\;\varphi\in B(0,r_{1}).$$

This completes the proof of Lemma 11. ∎

Lemma 12.

Assume that hypotheses of Theorem 2 are satisfied and $\mu\in(0,\mu^{\star})$. Then for every $\varphi\in E$ the following statments hold:

1. There exists $T_{1}>0$ such that

   $$J_{\mu}(\varphi_{\mu})\leq J_{\mu}(\varphi_{\mu}+t\varphi),\;\mbox{for all}\;t\in(0,T_{1}).$$

2. There exists $T_{2}>0$ such that

   $$J_{\mu}(\psi_{\mu})\leq J_{\mu}(\psi_{\mu}+t\varphi),\;\mbox{for all}\;t\in(0,T_{2}).$$

Proof.

We shall give the proof only for assertion $(i)$, since the proof for assertion $(ii)$ is similar. So, let $\varphi\in E$ and $\delta_{\varphi}:[0,\infty)\to\mathbb{R}$ be a function defined by

$$\delta_{\varphi}(t)=(p-1)\|\varphi_{\mu}+t\varphi\|^{p}+\theta\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)|\varphi_{\mu}+t\varphi|^{1-\theta}dz-(r-1)\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}G(z,\varphi_{\mu}+t\varphi)dz.$$

Since $\varphi_{\mu}\in N^{+}_{\mu}\subset N_{\mu}$, we obtain

$$\theta\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)|\varphi_{\mu}|^{1-\theta}dz=\theta\|\varphi_{\mu}\|^{p}+(r-1)\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}G(z,\varphi_{\mu})dz,$$ (23)

and

$$(\theta+p-1)\|\varphi_{\mu}\|^{p}-(\theta+r-1)\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}G(z,\varphi_{\mu}+t\varphi)dz>0.$$ (24)

By combining equations (23) and (24) with the definition of the function $\delta_{\varphi}$, we get $\delta_{\varphi}(0)>0.$ So the continuity of the function $\delta_{\varphi}$ implies the existence of $T_{0}>0$ such that

$$\delta_{\varphi}(t)>0,\mbox{ for all }t\in[0,T_{0}].$$

On the other hand, by Lemma 11, for every $t\in[0,r_{1}]$, there exists $\overline{\rho_{1}}(t)$ such that

$$\overline{\rho_{1}}(t)(\varphi_{\mu}+t\varphi)\in N^{+}_{\mu}\mbox{ and }\displaystyle\lim_{t\to 0^{+}}\overline{\rho_{1}}(t)=1.$$ (25)

Moreover, by Lemma 9, we have

$$\theta_{\mu}^{+}=J_{\mu}(\varphi_{\mu})\leq J_{\mu}(\overline{\rho_{1}}(t)(\varphi_{\mu}+t\varphi)),\;\mbox{for all}\;t\in(0,T_{0}).$$

Now, from that fact that $\Phi_{\mu,\varphi_{\mu}}^{\prime\prime}(1)>0$ and the continuity in $t$ we get

$$\Phi_{\mu,\varphi_{\mu}+t\varphi}^{\prime\prime}(1)>0,\hbox{ for all }t\in[0,T_{1}]\hbox{ and for some small enough }T_{1}\in(0,T_{0}).$$

So using equation (25), we can get small enough $T_{1}\in(0,T_{0})$ such that

$$\theta_{\mu}^{+}=J_{\mu}(\varphi_{\mu})\leq J_{\mu}(\varphi_{\mu}+t\varphi)),\;\mbox{for all}\;t\in[0,T_{1}).$$

This completes the proof of Lemma 12. ∎

Now we are ready to present the proof of Theorem 2.

Proof of Theorem 2.
As a direct consequence of Lemma 9 and Lemma 10, we can deduce that $J_{\mu}$ has minimizers $\varphi_{\mu}\in N^{+}_{\mu}$ and $\psi_{\mu}\in N^{-}_{\mu}$. Moreover, $N^{+}_{\mu}\cap N^{-}_{\mu}=\varnothing$ implies that $\varphi_{\mu}$ and $\psi_{\mu}$ are distinct.

Next, we shall prove that $\varphi_{\mu}$ and $\psi_{\mu}$ are weak solutions for problem (1). To this end, let $\varphi\in E$. Then by the assertion $(i)$ of Lemmas 11, 12, we obtain

$$0\leq J_{\mu}(\varphi_{\mu}+t\varphi)-J_{\mu}(\varphi_{\mu}),\;\mbox{for all}\;t\in(0,T_{1}).$$

Dividing the last inequality by $t$ and letting $t$ tend to zero, we get

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\Delta\varphi_{\mu}|^{p-2}\Delta\varphi_{\mu}\Delta\varphi-\lambda\frac{|\varphi_{\mu}|^{p-2}\varphi_{\mu}\varphi}{|z|^{2p}}+|\nabla\varphi_{\mu}|^{p-2}\nabla\varphi_{\mu}\nabla\varphi\;dz$$

$$-\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi_{\mu}^{-\theta}\varphi\,dz-\mu\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}f(z)h(\varphi_{\mu})\varphi\,dz\geq 0.$$

Since $\varphi$ is arbitrary in $E$, it follows that in the last inequality we can replace $\varphi$ by $-\varphi$. So for all $\varphi\in E$ we get

$$0 = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\Delta\varphi_{\mu}|^{p-2}\Delta\varphi_{\mu}\Delta\varphi-\lambda\frac{|\varphi_{\mu}|^{p-2}\varphi_{\mu}\varphi}{|z|^{2p}}+|\nabla\varphi_{\mu}|^{p-2}\nabla\varphi_{\mu}\nabla\varphi\;dz$$

$$- \int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}a(z)\varphi_{\mu}^{-\theta}\varphi\,dz-\mu\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}f(z)h(\varphi_{\mu})\varphi\,dz.$$

That is, $\varphi_{\mu}$ is a weak solution of problem (1). Moreover, from equation (10) we see that $\varphi_{\mu}$ is nontrivial.

Finally, if we proceed as above using assertion $(ii)$ of Lemmas 11 and 12, we can prove that $\psi_{\mu}$ is also a nontrivial weak solution of problem (1). This completes the proof of Theorem 2.∎

6. An application

As an application of our main results, we shall consider the following problem

$$\Delta_{p}^{2}\varphi-\lambda\frac{|\varphi|^{p-2}\varphi}{|z|^{2p}}+\Delta_{p}\varphi=\frac{a(z)}{\varphi^{\theta}}+\mu f(z)|\varphi|^{r-2}\varphi\quad\mbox{ in }\mathbb{R}^{N},$$ (26)

where $\mu>0$, $1<p<\frac{N}{2}$, $0<\theta<1,$ and $\lambda$ satisfies equation (4).
We note that problems of type (26) describe e.g., the deformations of an elastic beam. Also, they give a model for studying traveling waves in suspension bridges.

First, let us assume that $1<r<p$, $f$ is a positive function in

$$L^{\frac{p^{\ast}}{p^{\ast}-r}}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\cap L^{s}_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^{N}),\ \hbox{ for some}\ s\in(\frac{p^{\ast}}{p^{\ast}-r},\frac{p}{p^{\ast}-r}),$$

which implies that the first part of hypothesis $(H_{1})$ is satisfied.

On the other hand, it is easy that the function $h(z)=|\varphi|^{r-2}\varphi$ satisfies the second part of hypothesis $(H_{1})$. Moreover, a simple calculation shows that

$$0<rf(z)H(\varphi)=f(z)h(\varphi)\varphi,$$

so hypothesis $(H_{2})$ is also satisfied.

Finally, if

$$a\in L^{\frac{p^{\ast}}{p^{\ast}+\theta-1}}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\cap L^{\beta}_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^{N}),\ \hbox{ for some}\ \beta\in(\frac{p^{\ast}}{p^{\ast}+\theta-1},\frac{p}{\theta+p-1}),$$

then Theorem 1 ensures the existence of nontrivial solution for problem (26).

Next, we assume that $p<r<p^{\ast}$ and $a$ is a positive function in $L^{\frac{p}{\theta+p-1}}(\mathbb{R}^{N}),$ that is, hypothesis $(H_{5})$ is satisfied. It is not difficult to see that if

$$g(z,\varphi)=f(z)|\varphi|^{r-2}\varphi,$$

then

$$G(z,\varphi)=f(z)|\varphi|^{r},$$

so hypothesis $(H_{4})$ is also satisfied. Hence, Theorem 2 now ensures the existence of two nontrivial solutions for problem (26).

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgment.

We thank the referees for their comments and suggestions.