MPE Mathematical Problems in Engineering 1563-5147 1024-123X Hindawi Publishing Corporation 175724 10.1155/2013/175724 175724 Research Article Positive Solutions of Nonlinear Elliptic Equations with Nonlinear Boundary Conditions http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6643-5299 Luo Hua Ntouyas Sotiris K. School of Mathematics and Quantitative Economics Dongbei University of Finance and Economics Dalian 116025 China dufe.edu.cn 2013 3 12 2013 2013 15 09 2013 17 11 2013 2013 Copyright © 2013 Hua Luo. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

This paper discusses bifurcation from interval for the elliptic eigenvalue problems with nonlinear boundary conditions and studies the behavior of the bifurcation components.

1. Introduction

In recent years, much effort has been devoted to the study of the nonlinear elliptic boundary value problems, in particular, to problems which arise in numerous applications, for example, in physical problems involving the steady state temperature distribution [1, 2], in problems of chemical reactions [1, 3], in the theory of stellar structures , and in problems of Riemannian geometry . In particular, let  Ω  be a bounded domain of Euclidean space N, N2, with smooth boundary Ω. The nonlinear elliptic boundary value problem is defined as (1)-Δu=λa(x)f(u)in  Ω,un+b(x)g(u)=0on  Ω, stimulated by a problem of chemical reactor theory , where Δ=j=1N(2/xj2), λ>0 is a parameter, and n is the unit exterior normal to Ω. In this paper, we will be devoted to studying the branches of solutions of the problem (1) which bifurcates from infinity.

The asymptotical linear elliptic eigenvalue problems with nonlinear boundary conditions have been studied in . It is worth pointing out that Umezu , by using a different approach based on topological degree and global bifurcation techniques , discusses bifurcation from infinity for (1) with a(·)1. They obtained a unique bifurcation value λ from infinity of (1) and there exists an unbounded, closed, and connected component in (0,)×C(Ω-), consisting of positive solutions of (1) and bifurcating from (λ,u)=(λ,). Moreover, they also proved that all the components bifurcate into the region λ<λ or λ>λ under some proper conditions and f()=limu(f(u)/u), g=limu(g(u)/u)(0,). Note that the asymptotical linear case with linear boundary conditions has been studied in  and the references therein.

Of course the natural question is as follows: what would happen if f() does not exist? Obviously the previous results cannot deal with the case liminfsf(s)<limsupsf(s).

The purpose of this paper is to show the bifurcation from infinity if f() does not exist and obtain the bifurcation of solutions of (1) from an interval not a point. We will make the following assumptions:

aCθ(Ω-) with a(x)>0 in xΩ-; bC1+θ(Ω) with b0 and b0 on Ω;

fC1([0,)) and there exist constants f,f(0,) and functions h1,h2C1([0,)), such that (2)f=liminfsf(s)s,f=limsups+f(s)s,fs+h1(s)f(s)fs+h2(s),s[0,),

with (3)hj(s)=o(|s|)as  s,j=1,2;

gC1([0,)) and there exist constants g(0,) and functions kC([0,)), such that (4)g(s)=gs+k(s),k(s)=o(|s|)  as  s+.

Let X=C(Ω-) be the space of continuous functions on Ω-. Then it is a Banach space with the norm (5)u=max{|u(x)|xΩ-}.

Say a solution uC2(Ω-) of (1) is positive if u>0 on Ω.

Definition 1 (see [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">12</xref>, page 450]).

A solution set 𝒮 of (1) is said to bifurcate from infinity in the interval [a,b], if

the solutions of (1) are, a priori, bounded in X for λ=a and λ=b,

there exists {(λn,un)}𝒮 such that {λn}[a,b] and un.

By a constant λ1 we denote the first eigenvalue of the eigenvalue problem: (6)-Δφ=λa(x)φin  Ω,φn+b(x)gφ=0on  Ω. It is well known (cf. Krasnosel’skii ) that λ1 is positive and simple and that it is a unique eigenvalue with positive eigenfunctions φ1C2+θ(Ω-). In what follows, the positive eigenfunction φ1 is normalized as φ1=1.

Theorem 2.

Assume that (A1)–(A3) hold. Then for any σ(0,λ1/f), [λ1/f-σ,λ1/f+σ] is a bifurcation interval from infinity of (1), and there exists no bifurcation interval from infinity of (1) in the set (0,)[λ1/f-σ,λ1/f+σ]. More precisely, there exists an unbounded, closed, and connected component in (0,)×C(Ω-), consisting of positive solutions of (1) and bifurcating from [λ1/f-σ,λ1/f+σ]×{}.

Theorem 3.

Assume that (A1)–(A3) hold. Suppose that (7)liminfuh1(u)>fglimsupuk(u),(8)(resp.,limsupuh2(u)<fgliminfuk(u)). Then all the components obtained by Theorem 2 bifurcate into the region λ<λ1/f (resp., λ>λ1/f).

2. Bifurcation Theorem from Interval for Compact Operator

Our main tools in the proof of Theorems 2-3 are topological arguments and the global bifurcation theorems for mappings which are not necessary smooth.

Let V be a real Banach space. Let F:×VV be completely continuous. Let us consider the equation (9)u=F(λ,u).

Lemma 4 (see [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">12</xref>, Theorem 1.3.3]).

Let V be a Banach space. Let F:×VV be completely continuous, and let a,b  (a<b) be such that the solutions of (9) are, a priori, bounded in V for λ=a and λ=b. That is, there exists an R>0 such that (10)uF(a,u),uF(b,u),u:uR. Furthermore, assume that (11)d(I-F(a,·),BR(0),0)d(I-F(b,·),BR(0),0) for R>0 large. Then there exists a closed connected set 𝒞 of solutions of (9) that is unbounded in [a,b]×V, and either

𝒞 is unbounded in λ direction or else

there exists an interval [c,d] such that (a,b)(c,d)= and 𝒞 bifurcates from infinity in [c,d]×V.

3. Reduction to a Compact Operator Equation

To establish Theorem 2, we begin with the reduction of (1) to a suitable equation for compact operators. According to Gilbarg and Trudinger , let 𝒦:Cθ(Ω-)C2+θ(Ω-) be the resolvent of the linear boundary value problem: (12)-Δu=ϕin  Ω,un+b(x)gu=0on  Ω. By Amann [15, Theorem 4.2], 𝒦 is uniquely extended to a linear mapping of C(Ω-) compactly into C1(Ω-) and it is strongly positive, meaning that 𝒦ϕ>0 on Ω- for any ϕC(Ω-) with the condition that ϕ0 and ϕ0 on Ω-.

Let :C1+θ(Ω)C2+θ(Ω-) be the resolvent of the linear boundary value problem: (13)-Δu=0in  Ω,un+b(x)gu=ψon  Ω. According to Amann [7, Section 4], is uniquely extended to a linear mapping of C(Ω) compactly into C(Ω-). By the standard regularity argument, problem (1) is equivalent to the operator equation: (14)u=λ𝒦[af(u)]+[bτ(-k(u))]in  C(Ω-). Here τ:C(Ω-)C(Ω) is the usual trace operator.

Proposition 5.

Let (A1), (A2), and (A3) hold. If [α,β] is a bifurcation interval from infinity of the set of nonnegative solutions of (1), then one has (α,β)[λ1/f,λ1/f]. Moreover, there exist constants ϵ>0 small and M>0 large such that any nonnegative solution u of (1) is positive on Ω- whenever dist(λ,[λ1/f,λ1/f])<ϵ and uM.

Proof.

Let (λj,uj) be nonnegative solutions of (1) with λ=λj such that (15)ujas  j,λj[α,β]. If (16)vj=ujuj, then we have (17)vj=λj𝒦[af(uj)uj]+[bτ(-k(uj)uj)]in  C(Ω-). From conditions (3) and (6), for any ϵ>0, there exist constants dϵ,cϵ>0 such that (18)f(s)-fsϵs+dϵ,u0,(19)f(s)-fs-ϵs-dϵ,u0,(20)|k(s)|ϵs+cϵ,u0. This implies that both f(uj)/uj and k(uj)/uj are bounded in C(Ω-). By the compactness of 𝒦 and , it follows from (17) that there exist a function v0C(Ω-) and a subsequence of {vj}, still denoted by {vj}, such that (21)vjv0in  C(Ω-)  as  j. By (15) it follows from (18)–(20) that (22)limsupjmaxxΩ-(f(uj)uj-fvj)ϵ,liminfjminxΩ-(f(uj)uj-fvj)-ϵ,limsupjk(uj)ujϵ. Since ϵ is arbitrary, it follows that (23)limsupjf(uj)ujfv0in  C(Ω-),liminfjf(uj)ujfv0in  C(Ω-). Let λjλ^ and f(uj)/ujw0 as j. Then in view of (17), (24)v0=λ^𝒦[aw0].

We claim that (25)λ^[λ1f,λ1f].

Since (26)fv0w0fv0, it follows from (26) that (27)λ^𝒦[afv0]v0λ^𝒦[afv0], which implies (28)λ^fλ11λ^fλ1. That is, (29)λ1fλ^λ1f.

Since v0=1 and v00, the strong positivity of 𝒦 ensures that v0>0 on Ω-, and accordingly, vj>0 on Ω- for j large enough and so is uj from (16). This leads to the latter part of assertions of this proposition. The proof is complete.

4. Existence of Bifurcation Values from Infinity

This section is devoted to the study of the existence of bifurcation values from infinity for (1). To do this, we associate (1) with a nonlinear mapping Φ(λ,u):(0,)×C(Ω-)C(Ω-): (30)Φ(λ,u):=u-λ𝒦[af(|u|)]+[bτ(k(|u|))]. We note that a nonnegative uC(Ω-) attains (1) if and only if Φ(λ,u)=0.

In this section, we will apply Lemma 4 to show that, for any σ(0,λ1/f), the interval [λ1/f-σ,λ1/f+σ] is a bifurcation interval from infinity for (30) and consequently [λ1/f-σ,λ1/f+σ] is a bifurcation interval from infinity of the nonnegative solutions of (1).

In fact, if [λ1/f-σ,λ1/f+σ] is a bifurcation interval from infinity for (30), then, according to Definition 1, we have that

the solutions of (30) are, a priori, bounded in X for λ=λ1/f-σ and λ=λ1/f+σ,

there exists {(λn,un)}𝒮 such that {λn}[λ1/f-σ,λ1/f+σ] and un.

Let {λnj} be any convergent subsequence of {(λn,un)}, and let (31)limjλnj=λ.

We claim that (32)λ[λ1f,λ1f]  and  unj>0on  Ω-,if  j  is  large  enough.

Indeed, as in the proof of Proposition 5, we have the same conclusion that there exist some w0C(Ω-) and a λ such that (33)v0=λ𝒦(a|w0|). This together with the strong positivity of 𝒦 implies that (34)v0>0,on  Ω-. Since (35)fv0|w0|fv0, it follows from (34) that (36)λ𝒦[afv0]v0λ𝒦[afv0], which implies(37)λfλ11λfλ1. That is, (38)λ1fλλ1f.

From (34), it follows that vj>0 on Ω- for j large enough and so is uj from (16). Therefore, [λ1/f-σ,λ1/f+σ] is actually an interval of bifurcation from infinity for (1).

To prove that [λ1/f-σ,λ1/f+σ] is a bifurcation interval from infinity for (30), two lemmas on the nonexistence of solutions will be first shown.

Let  Φp:(0,)×C(Ω-)C(Ω-)  be defined as (39)Φp(λ,u):=u-λ𝒦[af(|u|)]+p(λ)[bτ(k(|u|))]. Here p:[0,λ1/f][0,1] is a smooth cut-off function such that (40)p(λ)={0near  λ=0,1near  λ=λ1f.

Lemma 6.

Let Λ+ be a compact interval with Λ[λ1/f,λ1/f]=. If (A1)–(A3) hold, then there exists a constant r>0 such that (41)Φp(μ,u)0,μΛ,uC(Ω-):ur.

Proof.

Assume on the contrary that there exist μj0, ujC(Ω-), and μ0Λ such that (42)Φp(μj,uj)=0,μjμ0,uj,as  j. The same argument as that in the proof of Proposition 5 gives a contradiction that λ1/fμ0λ1/f. This is a contradiction. The proof of Lemma 6 is complete.

Lemma 7.

Let any λ>λ1/f be fixed. Assume that (A1)–(A3) hold. Then there exists a constant r>0 such that (43)Φ(λ,u)tφ1,t[0,1],uC(Ω-):ur.

Proof.

Assume on the contrary that there exist λ0(λ1/f,), t0,tj[0,1], and ujC(Ω-) which can be taken such that (44)Φ(λ0,uj)=tjφ1,tjt0,uj,as  j. Using the same argument as that in the proof of Proposition 5, we can obtain a subsequence of {uj}, still denoted by {uj}, which may satisfy that uj>0 on Ω- for all j1. It follows that (45)uj=λ0𝒦[af(uj)]-[bτ(k(uj))]+tjφ1,tjt0[0,1],ujas  j.

For a function φ we let φ={sφ:  s}. The projection theorem derives the orthogonal decomposition of the Lebesgue space L2(Ω) as (46)L2(Ω)=φ1W;u=sφ1+w. Here the eigenfunction φ1 satisfies φ1L2(Ω)=1 within the proof of this lemma, W is the orthogonal complement of φ1 in L2(Ω), and s=Ωuφ1dx. It follows that the orthogonal decomposition of uj is given as (47)uj=sjφ1+wj,sj=Ωujφ1dx>0,wjW. By the regularity argument, (45) gives that ujC2+θ(Ω-), and thus (48)-Δuj=λ0af(uj)+tjλ1aφ1in  Ω,ujn+b(x)guj=-b(x)k(uj)on  Ω. By Green's formula it follows that (49)Ω((λ0af(uj)+tjλ1aφ1)φ1-λ1aujφ1)dx=Ω((-Δuj)φ1+uj(Δφ1))dx=Ωbk(uj)φ1dσ. Here dσ is the surface element of Ω. This implies that (50)Ωbk(uj)φ1dσ(λ0f-λ1)Ωaujφ1dx+λ0Ωah1(uj)φ1dx. Hence assertion (19) gives (51)Ωbk(uj)ujφ1dσf(λ0-λ1+λ0ϵf)×Ωaujφ1dxuj-λ0adϵφ1L1(Ω)uj. Now use again for (48) the same procedure as in the proof of Proposition 5; then we see that some subsequence of {uj/uj}, still denoted by {uj/uj}, tends to a positive function v0 in C(Ω-). Take ϵ>0 so small that λ0-(λ1+λ0ϵ)/f>0. Then combining (51) with (23) leads to a contradiction that (52)0=limjΩbk(uj)ujφ1dσlimj{sjujf(λ0-λ1+λ0ϵf)-λ0adϵφ1L1(Ω)uj}=f(λ0-λ1+λ0ϵf)Ωav0φ1dx>0.

Lemma 8.

Let λn-=λ1/f-1/n, and let λn+=λ1/f+1/n, where n satisfies nf/λ1. Assume that (A1)–(A3) hold. Then there exists constant rn>0 satisfying that rn as n, such that for any n large enough (53)deg(Φ(λn-,·),Brn,0)=1,(54)deg(Φ(λn+,·),Brn,0)=0.

Proof.

First we show assertion (53). From Lemma 6, there exists rn>0 such that rn as n satisfying that (55)Φp(λ,u)0,λ[0,λn-],uC(Ω-):u=rn. Since p(0)=0 and p(λn-)=1 for n large enough from (40), by the homotopy invariance and normalization it follows that for any n large enough (56)deg(Φ(λn-,·),Brn,0)=deg(Φp(λn-,·),Brn,0)=deg(Φp(0,·),Brn,0)=deg(IC(Ω-),Brn,0)=1.

Next, we show assertion (54). We may derive from Lemma 7 that (57)Φ(λn+,u)tφ1,t[0,1],uC(Ω-):urn. So for any n large enough, by the homotopy invariance, it follows that (58)deg(Φ(λn+,·),Brn,0)=deg(Φ(λn+,·)-φ1,Brn,0)=0.

Proof of Theorem <xref ref-type="statement" rid="thm1.1">2</xref>.

For any fixed n with λ1/f-1/n>0, set αn=λ1/f-1/n and βn=λ1/f+1/n. It is easy to verify that, for any fixed n large enough, there exists rn such that rn as n satisfying that, for any rrn, it follows from Lemmas 68 that all conditions of Lemma 4 are satisfied. So there exists a closed connected component 𝒞n of solutions (14) that is unbounded in [αn,βn]×C(Ω-) and either

𝒞n is unbounded in λ direction or else

there exists an interval [c,d] such that (αn,βn)(c,d)= and 𝒞n bifurcates from infinity in [c,d]×C(Ω-).

By Lemma 6, the case (ii) cannot occur. Thus 𝒞n is unbounded bifurcated from [αn,βn]× in ×C(Ω-). Furthermore, we have from Lemma 6 that, for any closed interval I[αn,βn][λ1/f,λ1/f], if u{uC(Ω-)    (λ,u) are solutions of (14), λI}, then u in C(Ω-) is impossible. So 𝒞n must be bifurcated from [λ1/f,λ1/f]×{}.

Proof of Theorem <xref ref-type="statement" rid="thm1.2">3</xref>.

Under condition (7), assume to the contrary that there exist positive solutions uj of (1) with λ=λjλ1/f such that λjλ1/f and uj as j. If vj=uj/uj, then the same argument as that in the proof of Proposition 5 shows that the existence of a positive function v0C(Ω-) such that a subsequence of {vj}, still denoted by {vj}, tends to v0 in C(Ω-). It follows that for any j large enough we have (59)vj(x)>minxΩ-v0(x)2on  Ω-, which implies that (60)minxΩ-ujas  j. Now we set (61)h1*=liminfuh1(u)(-,],k*=limsupuk(u)[-,). We here consider only the case where h1*(-,) and k*(-,). Either the case h2*= or the case k*=- can be dealt with in a similar way with a minor modification. It follows from (60) that, for any ε>0, there exists j1>1 such that, for any jj1, (62)h1*-ε<h1(uj(x))on  Ω-,k(uj(x))<k*+εon  Ω-. From a computation using Green's formula, it follows that, for any jj1, (63)(λ1-λjf)Ωaujφ1dxλjΩah1(uj)φ1dx-Ωbk(uj)φ1dσ>λ1f(h1*-ε)Ωaφ1dx-(k*+ε)Ωbφ1dσ. As an application of Green's formula, it follows that (64)Ωaφ1dx=1λ1Ωbgφ1dσ. From these two assertions combined, we obtain that, for any jj1, (65)(λ1-λjf)Ωaujφ1dx>(λ1(h1*-ε)gfλ1-(k*+ε))Ωbφ1dσ. On the right-hand side, we see from (7) that (66)limε0(λ1(h1*-ε)gfλ1-(k*+ε))=h1*gf-k*>0. This means that, for any j large enough, (67)(λ1-λjf)Ω-aujφ1dx>0, which contradicts the assumption λjλ1/f. So case (7) has been proven, case (8) can be also verified in the same method, and the proof is complete.

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by the NSFC (nos. 11301059 and 71171035), HSSF of Ministry of Education of China (no. 13YJA790078), China, Postdoctoral Science Foundation Funded Project (nos. 201104602 and 20100481239).

Gelfand I. M. Some problems in the theory of quasilinear equations American Mathematical Society Translations 1963 29 295 381 MR0153960 Joseph D. D. Sparrow E. M. Nonlinear diffusion induced by nonlinear sources Quarterly of Applied Mathematics 1970 28 327 342 MR0272272 ZBL0208.13006 Frank-Kamenetskii D. A. Diffusion and Heat Transfer in Chemical Kinetics 1969 New York, NY, USA Plenum Press Chandrasekar S. An Introduction to the Theory of Stellar Structures 1957 New York, NY, USA Dover Kazdan J. L. Warner F. W. Curvature functions for compact 2-manifolds Annals of Mathematics 1974 99 14 47 MR0343205 10.2307/1971012 Boddington T. Gray P. Wake G. C. Criteria for thermal explosions with and without reactant consumption Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 1977 357 1691 403 422 2-s2.0-0017558703 Amann H. Nonlinear elliptic equations with nonlinear boundary conditions New developments in Differential Equations 1976 Amsterdam, The Netherlands North-Holland North-Holland Mathematical Studies MR0509487 ZBL0345.35045 Umezu K. Global positive solution branches of positone problems with nonlinear boundary conditions Differential and Integral Equations 2000 13 4–6 669 686 MR1750045 ZBL0983.35051 Umezu K. Bifurcation from infinity for asymptotically linear elliptic eigenvalue problems Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 2002 267 2 651 664 10.1006/jmaa.2001.7799 MR1888029 ZBL1219.35165 Rabinowitz P. H. Some global results for nonlinear eigenvalue problems Journal of Functional Analysis 1971 7 487 513 MR0301587 ZBL0212.16504 Ambrosetti A. Arcoya D. Buffoni B. Positive solutions for some semi-positone problems via bifurcation theory Differential and Integral Equations 1994 7 3-4 655 663 MR1270096 ZBL0808.35030 Schmitt K. Positive solutions of semilinear elliptic boundary value problems Topological Methods in Differential Equations and Inclusions 1995 472 Dordrecht, The Netherlands Kluwer Academic Publishers 447 500 MR1368678 Krasnosel'skii M. A. Positive Solutions of Operator Equations 1964 Groningen, The Netherlands Noordhoff 381 MR0181881 Gilbarg D. Trudinger N. S. Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order 1983 224 Berlin, Germany Springer xiii+513 MR737190 Amann H. Fixed point equations and nonlinear eigenvalue problems in ordered Banach spaces SIAM Review 1976 18 4 620 709 MR0415432 10.1137/1018114 ZBL0345.47044