2001-Luminy conference on Quasilinear Elliptic and Parabolic Equations and Systems,

Electronic Journal of Differential Equations, Conference 08, 2002, pp 47–52.

[Link] or [Link]
ftp [Link] (login: ftp)

∗
A remark on some nonlinear elliptic problems
Lucio Boccardo

Abstract
We shall prove an existence result of W01,p (Ω) solutions for the bound-
ary value problem

− div a(x, u, ∇u) = F in Ω

(0.1)
u=0 on ∂Ω
0
with right hand side in W −1,p (Ω). The features of the equation are that
no restrictions on the growth of the function a(x, s, ξ) with respect to s are
assumed and that a(x, s, ξ) with respect to ξ is monotone, but not strictly
monotone. We overcome the difficulty of the uncontrolled growth of a
thanks to a suitable definition of solution (similar to the one introduced
in [1] for the study of the Dirichlet problem in L1 ) and the difficulty of the
not strict monotonicity thanks to a technique (the L1 -version of Minty’s
Lemma) similar to the one used in [5].

1 Introduction and assumptions

We deal with boundary value problems with differential operators A defined as

A(v) = − div (a(x, v, ∇v))

where Ω is a bounded domain of RN , N ≥ 2, a : Ω × R × RN → RN is

a Carathéodory function (that is, measurable with respect to x in Ω for every
(s, ξ) in R×RN , and continuous with respect to (s, ξ) in R×RN for almost every
x in Ω). We assume that there exist a real positive constant α, a continuous
0
function β(s) and a nonnegative function k in Lp (Ω), where 1 < p, such that
for almost every x in Ω, for every s in R, for every ξ and η in RN

a(x, s, ξ) · ξ ≥ α|ξ|p , (1.1)

[a(x, s, ξ) − a(x, s, η)] · [ξ − η] ≥ 0 , (1.2)
|a(x, s, ξ)| ≤ k(x) + [β(s)|ξ|]p−1 .


(1.3)
∗ Mathematics Subject Classifications: 35J60, 35J65, 35J70.

Key words: Dirichlet problem in L1 ”, uncontrolled growth.

2002
c Southwest Texas State University.
Published October 21, 2002.

47
48 A remark on some nonlinear elliptic problems

Thus, A is not well defined on the whole W01,p (Ω), but only in W01,p (Ω)∩L∞ (Ω).
Note that if we assume

[a(x, s, ξ) − a(x, s, η)] · [ξ − η] > 0, 6 η,

ξ= (1.4)
p−1 p−1


|a(x, s, ξ)| ≤ k(x) + |s| + |ξ| , (1.5)

instead of (1.2), (1.3), A turns out to be pseudomonotone, coercive and is hence

surjective on W01,p (Ω) (see [6, 7, 8, 10]). A model operator for our setting is
X ∂  ∂v 
− (1 + |v|γi χEi )
i
∂xi ∂xi

where γi ≥ 0 and χEi is the characteristic function of the measurable subset

Ei ⊂ Ω. Concerning the right hand side of (0.1), we assume that
0
F ∈ W −1,p (Ω). (1.6)

The aim of this note is to prove existence of solutions for (0.1) under the weaker
assumption (1.2), without using the almost everywhere convergence of the gra-
dients of the approximate equations, since this is impossible to prove in our
setting. The main tools of our proof are a version of Minty’s Lemma, similar
to that one used in [5] to study nonlinear boundary value problems in L1 , and
a definition of solution, similar to the one introduced in [1] for the Dirichlet
problem in L1 . Other existence results of finite energy solutions, similar to the
one of Theorem 2.2, can be found [3] (see also [9, 13, 2, 4] for existence results
and [12, 14] for uniqueness results).

2 Existence
We recall that, for k > 0 and s in R, the truncating function is defined as

Tk (s) = min k, max{−k, s} .

The composition of functions in W01,p (Ω) with Tk will play an important role in
our approach to the existence of solutions of (0.1). More precisely, we will use
the following definition of solution, which is similar to the one introduced in [1]
for the Dirichlet problem in L1 .

Definition 2.1 A function u ∈ W01,p (Ω) is a T -solution of (0.1) if

u ∈ W01,p (Ω), ∀ϕ ∈ W01,p (Ω) ∩ L∞ (Ω) :

(2.1)
Z
a(x, u, ∇u)∇Tk [u − ϕ] = hF, Tk [u − ϕ]i
Ω

Theorem 2.2 Under the assumptions (1.1), (1.2), (1.3), (1.6) there exists a
T -solution u of (2.1).
Lucio Boccardo 49

Remark 2.3 Note that, even if a(x, s, ξ) is unbounded with respect to s, the
integral in (2.1) is well defined, since ∇Tk [u − ϕ] is not zero on the subset
{x ∈ Ω : |u(x) − ϕ(x)| ≤ k}, that is in subsets where u is bounded.

Remark 2.4 If in (2.1) we take ϕ = 0, we have

Z
a(x, u, ∇u)∇Tk (u) = hF, Tk (u)i,
Ω

so that Lebesgue and Fatou Theorems imply that a(x, u, ∇u)∇u ∈ L1 (Ω), but
we are not able to prove that a(x, u, ∇u) ∈ L1 (Ω), which would imply that u is
a solution in D0 (Ω), that is
Z
1,p
u ∈ W0 (Ω) : a(x, u, ∇u)∇φ = hF, φi, ∀φ ∈ D(Ω).
Ω

Proof of Theorem 2.2. Consider the approximate problems

un ∈ W01,p (Ω) : − div(a(x, Tn (un ), ∇un ) = F. (2.2)

The solutions un exist thanks to the Leray-Lions existence theorem (see [10]).
Moreover, the use of un as test function in (2.2) and the assumption (1.1) imply
that the sequence {un } is bounded in W01,p (Ω). Thus, there exists a function
u ∈ W01,p (Ω) and a subsequence {unj } such that unj converges weakly to u in
W01,p (Ω) and almost everywhere. Now we use an idea of G.J. Minty ([11]), in
the framework of [5]: thanks to the monotonicity of a(x, s, ξ) with respect to ξ,
if ϕ ∈ W01,p (Ω) ∩ L∞ (Ω) and n > k + kϕkL∞ (Ω) , we have that
Z
a(x, unj , ∇ϕ)∇Tk [unj − ϕ] ≤ hF, Tk [unj − ϕ]i.
Ω

The weak convergence of the sequence {unj } in W01,p (Ω) and the remark that
∇Tk [unj − ϕ] is not zero on the subset {x ∈ Ω : |unj (x) − ϕ(x)| ≤ k} (subset of
{x ∈ Ω : |unj (x)| ≤ k + kϕkL∞ (Ω) }) allow to pass to the limit in the previous
inequality, so that
Z
a(x, u, ∇ϕ)∇Tk [u − ϕ] ≤ hF, Tk [u − ϕ]i.
Ω

Let h and k be positive real numbers, let t belong to (−1, 1), and let ψ be a
function in W01,p (Ω) ∩ L∞ (Ω). Choose ϕ = Th (u) + t Tk [u − ψ] in the previous
inequality. Setting Gk (s) = s − Tk (s), we obtain
Z
I = a(x, u, ∇Th (u) + t∇Tk [u − ψ])∇Tk (Gh (u) − t Tk [u − ψ])
Ω
≤ hF, Tk (Gh (u) − t, Tk [u − ψ])i = J .
50 A remark on some nonlinear elliptic problems

We then have
Z
I = a(x, u, ∇Th (u) + t ∇Tk [u − ψ])∇Gh (u)
{|Gh (u)−t Tk [u−ψ]|≤k}
Z
−t a(x, u, ∇Th (u) + t ∇Tk [u − ψ])∇Tk [u − ψ]
{|Gh (u)−t Tk [u−ψ]|≤k}
= H + L.

Choosing h ≥ k + kψkL∞ (Ω) , we have |Tk [u − ψ]| = k on the set {|u| ≥ h}; on
the same set, we have ∇Th (u) = 0. Since ∇Gh (u) is different from zero only on
{|u| ≥ h}, we obtain
Z
H= a(x, u, 0)∇Gh (u) = 0 ,
{|Gh (u)−t Tk [u−ψ]|≤k}

being a(x, s, 0) = 0 as a consequence of (1.1). Since ∇Tk [u − ψ] is different

from zero only on the set {x ∈ Ω : |u(x) − ψ(x)| ≤ k}, and on this set |u| ≤
k + kψkL∞ (Ω) ≤ h, then

{|Gh (u) − t Tk [u − ψ]| ≤ k} ∩ {|u − ψ| ≤ k}

= {| − t Tk [u − ψ]| ≤ k} ∩ {|u − ψ| ≤ k}
= {|u − ψ| ≤ k} ,

where the last passage is due to the fact that |t| < 1. Hence,
Z
L = −t a(x, u, ∇u + t Tk [u − ψ])∇Tk [u − ψ] ,
Ω

and so, for h ≥ k + kψkL∞ (Ω) , we have

Z
I = −t a(x, u, ∇u + t Tk [u − ψ])∇Tk [u − ψ] .
Ω

On the other hand, we have, since |t| < 1, Tk (s) is odd and u ∈ W01,p (Ω),

lim hF, Tk (Gh (u) − t Tk [u − ψ])i = −thF, Tk [u − ψ]i

h→+∞

We thus have proved that

Z
−t a(x, u, ∇u + t Tk [u − ψ])∇Tk [u − ψ] ≤ −thF, Tk [u − ψ]i ,
Ω

for every ψ ∈ W01,p (Ω) ∩ L∞ (Ω), and for every k > 0. Choosing t > 0, dividing
by t, and then letting t tend to zero, we obtain
Z
a(x, u, ∇u)∇Tk [u − ψ] ≥ hF, Tk [u − ψ]i ,
Ω

while the reverse inequality is obtained choosing t < 0, dividing by −t, and then
letting t tend to zero. This completes the proof of Theorem 2.2. 
Lucio Boccardo 51

References
[1] P. Bénilan, L. Boccardo, T. Gallouet, R. Gariepy, M. Pierre, J.L. Vazquez:
An L1 theory of existence and uniqueness of solutions of nonlinear elliptic
equations, Annali Sc. Norm. Sup. Pisa, 22 (1995), 241-273.

[2] L. Boccardo: Some nonlinear Dirichlet problems in L1 involving lower order

terms in divergence form. Progress in elliptic and parabolic partial differ-
ential equations (Capri, 1994), 43–57, Pitman Res. Notes Math. Ser., 350,
Longman, Harlow, 1996.

[3] L. Boccardo: Positive solutions for some quasilinear elliptic equations with
natural growths, Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei 11 (2000), 31–39.

[4] L. Boccardo: T –minima: An approach to minimization problems in L1 .

Contributi dedicati alla memoria di Ennio De Giorgi, Ricerche di Matem-
atica, 49 (2000), 135–154.

[5] L. Boccardo, L. Orsina: Existence results for Dirichlet problems in L1 via

Minty’s lemma, Appl. Anal. 76 (2000), 309–317.

[6] H. Brezis: Equations et inquations non linaires dans les espaces vectoriels
en dualit, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 18 (1968), 115–175.

[7] F.E. Browder: Problèmes non lináires, Les Presses de l’Université de

Montréal, 1966.

[8] P. Hartman, G. Stampacchia: On some nonlinear elliptic differential–

functional equations, Acta Math. 115 (1966), 271–310.

[9] C. Leone, A. Porretta: Entropy solutions for nonlinear elliptic equations in

L1 , Nonlinear Anal., 32 (1998), 325–334.

[10] J. Leray, J.L. Lions: Quelques résultats de Višik sur les problèmes elliptiques
semi-linéaires par les méthodes de Minty et Browder, Bull. Soc. Math.
France, 93 (1965) 97–107.

[11] G.J. Minty: On a monotonicity method for the solution of non-linear equa-
tions in Banach spaces. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 50 (1963), 1038–1041.

[12] A. Porretta: Uniqueness and homogenization for a class of non coercive

operators in divergence form, Atti Sem. Mat. Fis. Univ. Modena, XLVI
(1998), 915–936.

[13] A. Porretta: Some remarks on the regularity of solutions for a class of

elliptic equations with measure data, Houston Journ. of Math. 26 (2000),
183–213.

[14] A. Porretta: Uniqueness of solutions for some nonlinear Dirichlet problems,

NODEA, to appear.
52 A remark on some nonlinear elliptic problems

Lucio Boccardo
Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Roma I,
Piazza A. Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italia
e-mail: boccardo@[Link]