Abstract
We study the nonlocal nonlinear problem
where \(\Omega \) is a bounded smooth domain in \(\mathbb {R}^N\), \(N>2s\), \(0<s<1\); \(f:\mathbb {R}\rightarrow [0,\infty )\) is a nonlinear continuous function such that \(f(0)=f(1)=0\) and \(f(t)\sim t^{p1}t\) as \(t\rightarrow 0^+\), with \(2<p+1<2^*_s\); and \(\lambda \) is a positive parameter. We prove the existence of two nontrivial solutions \(u_{\lambda }\) and \(v_{\lambda }\) to (\(P_{\lambda }\)) such that \(0\le u_{\lambda }< v_{\lambda }\le 1\) for all sufficiently large \(\lambda \). The first solution \(u_{\lambda }\) is obtained by applying the Mountain Pass Theorem, whereas the second, \(v_{\lambda }\), via the sub and supersolution method. We point out that our results hold regardless of the behavior of the nonlinearity f at infinity. In addition, we obtain that these solutions belong to \(L^{\infty }(\Omega )\).
Introduction
This paper concerns with the existence of nonnegative solutions of the following nonlocal nonlinear elliptic problem
where \(\Omega \) is a bounded smooth domain in \(\mathbb {R}^N\), \(N>2s\), \(0<s<1\); \(f:\mathbb {R}\rightarrow [0,\infty )\) is a nonlinear continuous function such that \(f(0)=f(1)=0\) and \(f(t)\sim t^{p1}t\) as \(t\rightarrow 0^+\), with \(1<p<\frac{N+2s}{N2s}=2_s^*1\); and \(\lambda \) is a positive parameter.
In the case \(s=1\), the local version of (1.1) is reduced to the problem
where f is a nonnegative continuous function.
When f is positive, it is known that its behavior at zero and/or infinity can get to play a crucial role in the existence question of solutions. This situation can be clearly observed for the choice \(f(t) = t^p\), \(p>1\), in starshape domains, on which we know that there exist positive solutions in \(C^2(\Omega )\cap C(\overline{\Omega })\) to (1.2) if and only if \( p < \frac{N+2}{N2}\). For fairly general nonlinearities, and using different approaches, many other authors have also studied the influence of the behavior at zero and/or infinity of f in the existence question, see for example [2, 3, 7, 8] among other research papers.
When f is nonnegative and has one zero, the existence issue of solutions to (1.2) is different, as was noted in [16]. This study has been extended to problems where the Laplacian was replaced by the pLaplacian [13, 14] or Pucci’s operators [1, 20]. In all these works, it was shown that there exist two positive solutions for sufficiently large \(\lambda \) and by assuming some additional conditions on f. We also know two interesting contributions which have arisen recently. Firstly, by considering f nonnegative and having r zeros, in [11], it was proved that (1.2) has 2r positive solutions provided only that f verifies a suitable nonintegrability condition near each of its zeros. Secondly, in [4] was proved existence of positive solutions independently of the behavior of f near zero or infinity, for f Lipschitz having an isolated positive zero and verifying an additional growth hypothesis around such zero.
In the case \(0<s<1\), the existence of nonnegative solutions to (1.1) also has been studied. Indeed, such as the local problem, the behavior at zero and/or infinity of f also can get to exert an influence on the existence of nonnegative solutions. Again the choice \(f(t) = t^p\), \(p>1\), in starshape domains, leads to nonexistence of bounded positive solutions, see [19]. We also know some recent research involving the fractional Laplacian, where some nonlinearities were considered. Based on a variational principle, in [15], it was proved multiplicity result when the nonlinearity leads to the well known convexconcave problem; whereas in [5], nonlinearities exhibiting semilinear and superlinear growth were considered and by using analytic and probabilistic tools, some AmbrosettiProdi type results were stablished. However, as far as our knowledge is concerned, there is no results in literature that addresses nonlinearities with zeros when \(0<s <1\). Therefore, this is an interesting topic to investigate, which is the main objective of this paper.
To put into perspective our result, throughout this paper we consider \(f:\mathbb {R} \rightarrow [0, \infty )\) being a continuous function that verifies the following conditions:
 (\(F_1\)):

\(\displaystyle \lim _{t\rightarrow 0^+}\frac{f(t)}{t^{p1}t}=1\) for some \(1<p<\frac{N+2s}{N2s}\),
 (\(F_2\)):

\(f(1)=0\) and \(f(t)>0\) for \(t\in (0,1)\cup (1,2)\),
 (\(F_3\)):

there exists \(M_0>0\) such that the map \(t\mapsto f(t)+M_0t\) is increasing for \(t\in \mathbb {R}\).
Our main result is the following.
Theorem 1.1
Let \(f:\mathbb {R} \rightarrow [0,\infty )\) be a continuous function verifying \((F_1)(F_3)\). Then, there exists \(\bar{\lambda }>0\) such that for \(\lambda >\bar{\lambda }\) the problem \((P_{\lambda })\) admits two nonnegative solutions \(u_{\lambda }, v_{\lambda } \in X^s_0(\Omega )\). Moreover, \(0\le u_\lambda < v_{\lambda }\le 1\).
The main ideas behind of the proof relies on known arguments for solving this type of problems. However, this issue is nontrivial, by which we need to treat the problem under an appropriate approach that allows to apply such arguments and, in this way, to save several technical difficulties that arise in the nonlocal case.
Specifically, we obtain the first solution \(u _{\lambda }\) by truncating the nonlinearity and taking \(\lambda \) large enough, where we have assumed only the local condition at zero (\(F_1\)). The behavior of the norms, according to the parameter \(\lambda \) of the possible solutions, is based on the De GiorgiNashMoser theory, precisely on Moser’s iterative scheme. Such procedure was introduced in the mid 1950s and early 1960s, we refer to [9, 18]. An important fact in the proof is that the functional energy associated with the truncated problem has the Mountain Pass (MP) geometry. Thus, we can control, in terms of the parameter \(\lambda \), the MP level and the norm of the MP solution.
Respect to the second solution, we impose the conditions (\(F_2\)) and (\(F_3\)) on f, which are widely known when applying the sub and supersolution method in problems like (1.1) with \(s=1\). Here we show that this idea still remains hold by defining properly sub and supersolutions in our nonlocal context, it is when \(0<s<1\).
The document is organized as follows: in Sect. 2 we offer a brief review of the fractional spaces of Sobolev in the context of our problem and recall some useful results. In Sect. 3 we look for the first solution, while in Sect. 4 we find the second solution, which ends the proof of Theorem 1.1
Functional framework and preliminaries
In this section, we offer a brief review of the fractional Sobolev spaces in the context of our problem. Let \(\mathscr {S}(\mathbb {R}^N)\) be the Schwartz space of rapidly decaying smooth functions, i.e.,
Here, we are considering the fractional Laplacian \((\Delta )^s\), with \(s\in (0,1)\), of a function \(\vartheta \in \mathscr {S}(\mathbb {R}^N)\) defined in the principalvalue sense as
where \(c(N,s){:}{=} \big ( \int _{\mathbb {R^N}} \frac{1\cos \zeta _1}{\zeta ^{N+2s}}d\zeta \big )^{1}\) is a normalization constant. We remark that the fractional Laplacian also can be viewed as a pseudodifferential operator of symbol \(\xi ^{2s}\) defined for any function \(\vartheta \) in \(\mathscr {S}(\mathbb {R}^N)\) as
where \(\mathscr {F}\) denotes Fourier transform, i.e.,
and \(\mathscr {F}^{1}\) its inverse, i.e.,
where \(\widehat{\vartheta }{:}{=}\mathscr {F}(\vartheta )\), that verifies \(\widehat{\vartheta }\in \mathscr {S}(\mathbb {R}^N)\). See [10, Proposition 3.3].
We consider now the fractional Sobolev space \(H^s(\Omega )\) defined as
endowed with the norm
where the term
is the socalled Gagliardo seminorm of h. Denote by \(H_0^s(\Omega )\) the closure of \(C_0^\infty (\Omega )\) with respect to the norm \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{H^s(\Omega )}\).
In order to correctly encode the homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions in the variational formulation, we need to work in a suitable functional analytical setting. In this way, it is convenient to introduce the set
where
and consider the function \(K:\mathbb {R}^N{\setminus }\{0\}\rightarrow (0,\infty )\) that is defined as
We also consider the set \(X^s(\Omega )\) being the linear space of all Lebesgue measurable functions from \(\mathbb {R}^N\) to \(\mathbb {R}\) such that the restriction to \(\Omega \) of any function u belongs to \(L^2(\Omega )\), and the map \((x,y)\mapsto (u(x)u(y))\sqrt{K(xy)}\) belongs to \(L^2(Q)\). The space \(X^s(\Omega )\) endowed with the norm
We remark that \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{H_0^s(\Omega )}\) and \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{X^s(\Omega )}\) are not the same space because \(\Omega \times \Omega \) is strictly contained in Q, so that this makes the classical fractional Sobolev space approach not sufficient for studying the nonlocal problem.
Now, we introduce the space
endowed with the norm induced by the norm of \(X^s(\Omega )\); that is,
Note that \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{X^s_0(\Omega )}\) is truly a norm in \(X_0^s(\Omega )\), since for every \(u\in X_0^s(\Omega )\), one has that \(u=0\) a.e. in \(\Omega ^c\).
Before continuous we recall some properties of the fractional Sobolev space that we will use in next sections (see for example [17]).
Lemma 2.1
Let \(s\in (0,1)\), \(N>2s\), and \(\Omega \) an open bounded domain in \(\mathbb {R}^N\) with \(C^{0,1}\)boundary. Then, the following assertions hold:

(i)
There exists a positive constant C, depending only on N and s, such that for any \(u\in X_0^s(\Omega )\),
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert u\Vert _{L^{2^*_s}(\Omega )}^2=\Vert u\Vert _{L^{2^*_s}(\mathbb {R}^N)}^2\le C\int _{\mathbb {R}^N\times \mathbb {R}^N} u(x)u(y)^2K(xy)\,dx\,dy. \end{aligned}$$ 
(ii)
There exists a constant \(C>1\), depending only on N, s and \(\Omega \), such that for any \(u\in X_0^s(\Omega )\),
$$\begin{aligned} \int _Q u(x)u(y)^2K(xy)\,dx\,dy&\le \Vert u\Vert _{X^s(\Omega )}^2\\&\le C\int _Q u(x)u(y)^2K(xy)\,dx\,dy, \end{aligned}$$that is,
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert u\Vert _{X^s_0}(\Omega )=\left( \int _{\mathbb {R}^N\times \mathbb {R}^N} u(x)u(y)^2K(xy)\,dx\,dy\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}} \end{aligned}$$is a norm in \(X_0^s(\Omega )\) equivalent to the usual norm.

(iii)
The embedding \(X_0^s(\Omega )\hookrightarrow L^r(\Omega )\) is continuous for any \(r\in [1, 2^*_s]\), and compact for any \(r\in [1, 2^*_s)\).
For convenience, from now on the space \(X_0^s(\Omega )\) is endowed with the equivalent norm
Finally, we give the notion of weak solution that we use throughout this paper. We say that \(u\in X^s_0(\Omega )\) is a weak solution to (1.1) if
for every \(v\in X^s_0(\Omega )\).
The first solution
Let \(f: \mathbb {R} \rightarrow [0,\infty )\) be a continuous function. Throughout this section, we only assume hypothesis \((F_1)\) on f. The principal outcome of this section is the next theorem.
Theorem 3.1
Let \(f: \mathbb {R} \rightarrow [0,\infty )\) be a continuous function such that \((F_1)\) is verified. Then, there exists \(\lambda ^*>0\) such that for any \(\lambda >\lambda ^*\) the problem (1.1) admits a nonnegative solution \(u_\lambda \). Moreover,
To prove Theorem 3.1, we first introduce an auxiliary problem. Since we are looking for solutions \(u_{\lambda }\) close to zero in the \(L^{\infty }\)norm, we truncate the problem (1.1) as follows.
For \(R\in (0,1)\), we consider the truncated problem
where
and \(t^+=\max \{0, t \}\). Note now that problem (3.1) has a variational structure. Indeed, its weak formulation is given by
and its associated energy functional \(J_{R,\lambda }:X_0^s(\Omega )\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) is given by
where \(F_R\) is the primitive of \(f_R\), that is, \(F_R(t)=\int _0^t f_R(\tau )\,d\tau \).
Next lemma shows that if (3.1) has a solution, then it is nonnegative.
Lemma 3.2
Let \(R \in (0, 1)\). Assume that problem (3.1) admits a solution \(u_{\lambda ,R}\in X_0^s(\Omega )\), then \(u_{\lambda ,R}\ge 0\) a.e. in \(\Omega \).
Proof
If \(u_{\lambda ,R}\in X_0^s(\Omega )\), then \(u_{\lambda ,R}\in X^s(\Omega )\) and \(u_{\lambda ,R}=0\) a.e. \(\Omega ^c\). To simplify notation, let us denote \(v= u_{\lambda ,R}\). Then \(v^+, v^ \in X^s_0(\Omega )\). Taking \(v^\) as a test function in the weak formulation of (3.1) and, since
then we get
which implies that \(\Vert v^\Vert _{X_0^s(\Omega )}=0\), because \(v^+(y)v^(x)+v^+(x)v^(y)\ge 0\) for a.e. \((x,y)\in \mathbb {R}^N\times \mathbb {R}^N\), that leads to \(v\ge 0\) a.e. in \(\Omega \). \(\square \)
In the sequel, we verify that the energy functional \(J_{R,\lambda }\) given by (3.2) has the Mountain Pass geometry for all R sufficiently small.
Lemma 3.3
Let \(\lambda >0\), and \(J_{\lambda ,R}\) be given by (3.2). Then, for each sufficiently small R, there exist positive numbers \(\rho _\lambda \) and \(\beta _\lambda \) such that

(i)
\(J_{R,\lambda }(u)\ge \beta _\lambda \) for any \(\Vert u\Vert _{X_0^s(\Omega )}=\rho _\lambda \). Moreover,
$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{\lambda \rightarrow +\infty }\rho _\lambda = 0 = \lim _{\lambda \rightarrow +\infty } \beta _{\lambda }. \end{aligned}$$ 
(ii)
There exists a function \(e\in X_0^s(\Omega )\) such that \(\Vert e\Vert _{X_0^s(\Omega )}>\rho _\lambda \) and \(J_{R,\lambda }(e)<0\).
Proof

(i)
From \((F_1)\), there exists a constant \(\alpha _1>0\) such that \(F_R(t)\le \alpha _1t^{p+1}\), for all sufficiently small R. Then, by (iii) of Lemma 2.1, we get
$$\begin{aligned} J_{R,\lambda }(u)&=\frac{1}{4}\int _{\mathbb {R}^N\times \mathbb {R}^N} u(x)u(y)^2 K(xy)\,dx\,dy\lambda \int _{\Omega }F_R(u(x))\,dx\\&\ge \frac{1}{4}\int _{\mathbb {R}^N\times \mathbb {R}^N} u(x)u(y)^2 K(xy)\,dx\,dy\alpha _1\lambda \int _{\Omega }u(x)^{p+1}\,dx\\&\ge \frac{1}{4}\Vert u\Vert _{X_0^s(\Omega )}^2\lambda C\Vert u\Vert _{X_0^s(\Omega )}^{p+1}\\&=\Vert u\Vert _{X_0^s(\Omega )}^2\left( \frac{1}{4}\lambda C\Vert u\Vert _{X_0^s(\Omega )}^{p1}\right) . \end{aligned}$$Hence, by taking \(\rho _\lambda =(8\lambda C)^{\frac{1}{p1}}\) and \(\beta _\lambda =\frac{\rho ^2_\lambda }{8}\), we conclude the proof of assertion (i).

(ii)
Take \(u\in X_0^s(\Omega ){\setminus }\{0\}\), \(u\ge 0\), and consider \(\varphi (t)=J_{R,\lambda }(tu)\), for \(t\in \mathbb {R}\). It follows that
$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{t\rightarrow +\infty }\varphi (t)= \infty . \end{aligned}$$Then by choosing \(t_0>0\) sufficiently large so that \(\varphi (t_0)<0\) and \(e=t_0u\notin B_{\rho _\lambda }(0)\), assertion (ii) holds.
\(\square \)
As already mentioned, the energy functional \(J_{R,\lambda }\) of the truncated problem (3.1) has the geometry of the Mountain Pass Theorem for all sufficiently small R. Since \(f_R\) is a purely power for large values, it is not difficult to prove that \(J_{R,\lambda }\) is a \(C^1\)functional which satisfy the PalaisSmale condition. Consequently, we get the next existence result.
Lemma 3.4
Let \(\lambda >0\). Then, for each sufficiently small R the problem (3.1) admits a nontrivial nonnegative solution \(u_{\lambda ,R}\in X_0^s(\Omega )\).
Note that the function \(u_{\lambda ,R} \in X_0^s(\Omega )\) in Lemma 3.4 satisfies
where \(c_{\lambda ,R}\) corresponds to the Mountain Pass level, that is,
Lemma 3.5
Let \(\lambda >0\). If \(R>0\) is sufficiently small, then
Proof
From \((F_1)\), we have that there exists a constant \(d>0\) such that
Consider now the positive constant \(\beta _{\lambda }\) and the function \(e\in X_0^s(\Omega )\) given in Lemma 3.3. Since \(0<\beta _\lambda \le c_{\lambda ,R}\), from Lemma 3.3 (ii), we get
where \(t_{\lambda }^{p1}=\frac{\Vert e\Vert ^2_{X_0^s(\Omega )}}{2\lambda \Vert e\Vert _{L^{p+1}(\Omega )}^{p+1} (p+1)d}\). Since \(t_{\lambda }\rightarrow 0\) as \(\lambda \rightarrow +\infty \), we immediately deduce that (3.4) holds, which completes the proof. \(\square \)
We now are interested in establishing the convergence rate of the solution \(u_{\lambda ,R}\) of (3.1) in terms of the Mountain Pass level \(c_{\lambda ,R}\). The following lemma points in that direction.
Lemma 3.6
Let \(\lambda >0\) and \(u_{\lambda ,R}\in X_0^s(\Omega )\) the function obtained in (3.3). Then, there exists \(0<\bar{R}<1\) such that \(\Vert u_{\lambda ,R}\Vert _{X_0^s(\Omega )}={O}(c_{\lambda ,R}^\frac{1}{2})\) for any \(0<R\le \bar{R}\). In particular, if \(0<R\le \bar{R}\), then
Proof
Thanks to \((F_1)\), we have that there exists \(0<\bar{R}<1\) such that for any \(0<R\le \bar{R}\), there are positive constants \(\alpha _0\) and \(\alpha _1\) such that \((p+1){\alpha }_0>4\alpha _1\), and
Notice that since \(u_{\lambda ,R}\) is a weak solution of (3.1), then
for every \(v\in X_0^s(\Omega )\), and
Then by taking \(v=u_{\lambda ,R}\) and by combining the two previous equalities, for any \(\frac{\alpha _1}{\alpha _0(p+1)}\le \theta <\frac{1}{4}\) we get
which finishes the proof. \(\square \)
Next lemma follows the arguments given in [6] (see also [12]), and it gives us the boundedness in the \(L^{\infty }\)norm of any solution in \(X_0^s(\Omega )\) of the problem (3.1).
Lemma 3.7
If \(u\in X_0^s(\Omega )\) is a nonnegative solution of (3.1), then the u belongs to \(L^{\infty }(\Omega )\). Moreover, there exists a constant \(L>0\) such that
Proof
Since \((F_1)\) is verified, it is easy to check that there exists \(\rho >0\) such that \(f_R(t)\le \rho t^p\) for all \(t\in \mathbb {R}\).
Let \(M>0\) given and consider \(u_M{:}{=}\min \{u,M\}\). Note that \(u_M\) belongs to \(X_0^s(\Omega )\) because it is just the composition of u with a Lipschitz function. Consider now the function
which is Lipschitz as well. Therefore, \(\varphi _{k,M}(u_M)= u_M^{2k+1} \in X_0^s(\Omega )\). We use it as a test function in the equation that corresponds to the weak formulation to problem (3.1) verified by u. Then,
where we have used that \(u_M\le u\). By using inequality (C.2) of [6], we obtain
and by Hölder’s inequality, we get
where \(l=\frac{2_s^*}{2_s^*(p1)}\). Taking the limit as M goes to \(+\infty \), we obtain
Defining \(k_1\in \mathbb {R}\) such a way that \(2 l(k_1+1)=2_s^*\), that is,
it follows that
Now, we proceed by induction as \(2l(k_n+1)=2_s^*(k_{n1}+1)\), then \(k_n+1=\left( \frac{2_s^*}{2l}\right) ^n\) and
Setting
and letting \(n\rightarrow \infty \) in (3.5) we obtain
\(\square \)
Now, we have all the ingredients to conclude the existence of the first solution to the problem (1.1) if \(\lambda \) is chosen to be sufficiently large.
Proof of Theorem 3.1
By combining Lemmas 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 we get that for each sufficiently small R,
where \(u_{\lambda ,R}\) verifies (3.3), and C is a positive constant independent of both R and \( \lambda \). Indeed, recalling that \(c_{\lambda ,R}\sim \lambda ^{\frac{2}{p1}}\), we have that
This means that there exists \(\lambda ^*>0\) such that \(0\le u_{\lambda ,R}\le R<1\) for any \(\lambda \ge \lambda ^*\). Hence, according to Lemma 3.4, \(u_{\lambda }{:}{=}u_{\lambda ,R}\) becomes a nontrivial nonnegative solution of the original problem (1.1) since \(f(u_{\lambda })=f_R(u_{\lambda ,R})\) when \(0\le u_{\lambda }\le R\). Therefore, the proof is completed. \(\square \)
The second solution
The aim of this section is to prove that if \(\lambda >0\) is sufficiently large, then there exists a second solution to problem (1.1). We will reach the goal by means of the sub and supersolution method.
For convenience, we start by considering an auxiliary problem. Let \(g:\Omega \times \mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) de a function. In what follows we will assume on g the following,
 \((G_1)\):

g(x, t) is a Carathéodory function (i.e. \(g(\cdot ,t)\) is measurable for all \(t\in \mathbb {R}\) and \(g(x,\cdot )\) is continuous for a.e. \(x\in \Omega \)), and \(g(\cdot ,t)\) is bounded if t belongs to bounded sets.
 \((G_2)\):

There exists \(M>0\) such that the map \(t\mapsto g(x,t)+Mt\) is nondecreasing for a.e. \(x\in \Omega \).
For dealing with (4.1), it is convenient to introduce a precise definition of sub and supersolution in our context, which we do with the help of the following lemma.
Lemma 4.1
[17, Lemma 1.26] Let \(\varphi \in C_0^2(\Omega )\) and \(u\in X^s(\Omega )\cap L^\infty (\Omega ^c)\). Then, the following equalities hold true:
According the previous lemma, and since
we can see that for any \(u\in X^s(\Omega )\cap L^\infty (\Omega ^c)\) and \(\varphi \in C_0^2(\Omega )\) it is verified
Now, we introduce the notion of sub and supersolution associated to (4.1) that we use here.
Definition 4.2
Let \(g:\Omega \times \mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) a Carathéodory function. We say that functions \(\underline{u}\in L^1(\Omega )\) and \(\overline{u}\in L^1(\Omega )\) are respectively a subsolution and a supersolution of (4.1) if is respectively satisfied
and
for all \(\phi \in C_0^2(\Omega )\), \(\phi \ge 0\) in \(\Omega \).
Other important tool to prove the existence of a second nontrivial solution to (1.1) is a weak comparison principle for a related problem. Despite the proof is straightforward, we include it for the reader convenience.
Lemma 4.3
(Weak comparison principle) Let \(\psi :\Omega \times \mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) be a Carathéodory function, such that \(\psi (x,0)=0\) in \(\Omega \), \(\psi (x,\cdot )\) is nondecreasing, and \(0\le \psi (x,t)\le C(1+t)\) for all \((x,t)\in \Omega \times \mathbb {R}\), for some \(C>0\). If \(u_1,u_2\in X^s(\Omega )\cap L^\infty (\Omega ^c)\) are such that
for all \(\varphi \in X_0^s(\Omega )\) with \(\varphi \ge 0\), and
then
Proof
Let us choose \(\varphi =(u_2u_1)^+\in X_0^s(\Omega )\). It follows that
Since every term in the last expression is nonnegative, we obtain that \((u_2u_1)^+=0\) a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^N\), which leads to \(u_2\le u_1\) a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^N\). Therefore the proof is completed. \(\square \)
Consider now the auxiliary problem (4.1) with the particular choice
where \(\psi \) verifies the hypotheses of Lemma 4.3, and h is a function that belongs to \(L^2(\Omega )\). Under these assumptions on \(\psi \) and h, we will are able to prove existence of a solution for the associated equation for this g, which is the content of next lemma.
Lemma 4.4
Let \(\psi \) be a Carathéodory function satisfying the hypotheses of Lemma 4.3. Then, for every \(h\in L^2(\Omega )\), the problem
admits a unique weak solution \(u\in X_0^s(\Omega )\). Moreover, the associated operator \(T:L^2(\Omega )\rightarrow X_0^s(\Omega )\), \(h\mapsto u\) is nondecreasing, and strongstrong continuous, that is, if \(h_k \rightarrow h\) strongly in \(L^2(\Omega )\), then \(T h_k \rightarrow Th\) strongly in \(X^s_0(\Omega )\).
Proof
Let \(u\in X_0^s(\Omega )\) and define
where \(\Psi (x,t)=\int _0^t\psi (x,\tau )\,d\tau \ge 0\). It is not difficult to show that the functional I is coercive and weak lower semicontinuous. Indeed, by Hölder’s inequality, Lemma 2.1, and Young’s inequality, we get
for all sufficiently small \(\varepsilon >0\). Note that we can fix a nonnegative constants B and a positive constant C such that for every \(\varepsilon >0\) sufficiently small
Therefore, I is coercive.
The lower semicontinuity follows from the lower semicontinuity of the \({X_0^s(\Omega )}\)norm, (iii) of Lemma 2.1, and the fact that
if \(u_k\rightharpoonup u\) in \(X_0^s(\Omega )\), thanks to Fatou’s Lemma. Notice that again by (iii) Lemma 2.1, we get the strongly \(L^2(\Omega )\) convergence by taking a subsequence.
Consequently, by the direct method of calculus of variations, there exists a unique \(u\in X_0^s(\Omega )\) such that
The fact that T is nondecreasing follows from Lemma 4.3. Let us see T is strongstrong continuous.
Let \(\{h_k\}_{k\in \mathbb {N} } \subset L^2(\Omega )\) be such that \(h_k \rightarrow h\) strongly in \(L^2(\Omega )\). Denote \(u_k=Th_k\), \(u=Th\). Since \(\psi \ge 0\) and \(u_k\) satisfies the equation in (4.2), from Hölder’s inequality and Lemma 2.1 we deduce that
Then, \(\{u_k\}_{k\in \mathbb {N}} \subset X_0^s(\Omega )\) is a bounded sequence. Thus, there exists a subsequence \(\{u_{k_j}\}_{j\in \mathbb {N}}\) such that \(u_{k_j} \rightharpoonup v\) weakly in \(X_0^s(\Omega )\). Thanks to Lemma 2.1, we can assume in addition \(u_{k_j}\rightarrow v\) strongly in \(L^2(\Omega )\) and a.e. in \(\Omega \) by taking another subsequence if necessary.
Let \(\varphi \in X_0^s(\Omega )\) and consider it as a test function for the equation in (4.2) associated to \(h_k\). Then,
Since \(h_k \rightarrow h\) strongly in \(L^2(\Omega )\), \(u_{k_j} \rightharpoonup v\) weakly in \(X_0^s(\Omega )\), \(u_{k_j}\rightarrow v\) strongly in \(L^2(\Omega )\) and a.e. in \(\Omega \) as \(k\rightarrow +\infty \); and bearing in mind that \(\psi \) is a Carathéodory function, by taking the limit \(j\rightarrow \infty \) we get
Due to the uniqueness of solutions to this problem, we get \(v=u\). Notice that the limit function does not depend on the election of the subsequence. Therefore, \(u_k \rightharpoonup u\) weakly in \(X_0^s(\Omega )\).
To deduce the strong convergence in \(X_0^s(\Omega )\), notice that
Hence, by taking the limit as \(k\rightarrow +\infty \), we get that \(h_k \rightarrow h\) strongly in \(L^2(\Omega )\), \(u_{k}\rightarrow u\) strongly in \(L^2(\Omega )\) and a.e. in \(\Omega \); and since \(\psi \) is a Carathéodory function, we get \(u_k \rightarrow u\) strongly in \(X_0^s(\Omega )\), which implies the strongstrong continuity of T. \(\square \)
Theorem 4.5
Let \(g:\Omega \times \mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) be such that hypotheses \((G_1)\)\((G_2)\) are satisfied. Consider the problem
Assume there exist \(\underline{u},\overline{u}\in X^s(\Omega )\cap L^\infty (\Omega ^c)\), a subsolution and a super solution, respectively, with \(\underline{u}(x)\le \overline{u}(x)\) a.e. in \(\Omega \). Then, there exists a minimal (and, respectively, a maximal) weak solution \(u_*\) (resp. \(u^*\)) for the problem (4.3) in the “interval”
Proof
Consider the set \([\underline{u},\overline{u}]\) with the topology of convergence a.e., and define the operator \(S:[\underline{u},\overline{u}]\rightarrow L^{2}(\Omega )\) by
for any \(v\in [\underline{u},\overline{u}]\). By \((H_1)\)\((H_2)\), we find that S is nondecreasing and bounded.
Moreover, if \(v_n,v\in [\underline{u},\overline{u}]\) are such that
\(v_n\rightarrow v\) a.e. in \(\Omega \). Thanks to \((H_1)\), \(g(x, \cdot )\) is continuous. Therefore, \(g(x, v_n(x)) \rightarrow g(x, v(x))\) in \( \mathbb {R}\), a.e. \(x\in \Omega \). Clearly, \(Mv_n(x)\rightarrow Mv(x)\) a.e. \(x\in \Omega \). Again, by \((H_1)\) and the Dominated Lebesgue Convergence Theorem, \(S(v_n)\rightarrow S(v)\) strongly in \(L^2(\Omega )\).
We have proved the a.estrong continuity of the operator S, that is, \(S(v_n)\rightarrow S(v)\) strongly in \(L^2(\Omega )\), if \(v_n\rightarrow v\) a.e. in \(\Omega \), with \(v_n,v \in [\underline{u},\overline{u}]\).
Consider \(H:[\underline{u},\overline{u}]\rightarrow X^{s}_0(\Omega )\) the nondecreasing operator defined by \(H=T\circ S\), where T is given in Lemma 4.4. That is, for a function \(v\in [\underline{u},\overline{u}]\), H(v) is the unique weak solution of the boundary value problem
Notice that H is a.estrong continuous, that is, \(H(v_n)\rightarrow H(v)\) strongly in \(X_0^s(\Omega )\), if \(v_n\rightarrow v\) a.e. in \(\Omega \), with \(v_n,v \in [\underline{u},\overline{u}]\).
Let \(u_1=H(\underline{u})\) and \(u^1=H(\overline{u})\). Then, for every \(\phi \in X^s_0(\Omega )\) with \(\phi \ge 0\) we have that
and
Applying Lemma 4.3, and taking into account that H is nondecreasing, we obtain that \(\underline{u}\le H(\underline{u})\le H(u)\le H(\overline{u})\le \overline{u}\), a.e. in \(\Omega \), for any \(u\in [\underline{u},\overline{u}]\).
By the same reasoning, we can prove the existence of sequences \(\{u^n\}_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) and \(\{u_n\}_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) satisfying
and, for every weak solution \(u\in [\underline{u},\overline{u}]\) of (PL), we have that
Then, \(u_n\rightarrow u_*\), \(u^n\rightarrow u^*\), a.e. in \(\Omega \), with \(u_*,u^*\in [\underline{u},\overline{u}]\), \(u_*\le u^*\) a.e. in \(\Omega \). Since \(u_{n+1}=H(u_n)\rightarrow H(u_*)\), and \(u^{n+1}=H(u^n)\rightarrow H(u^*)\) in \(X_0^s(\Omega )\) by the continuity of H, we find that \(u_*,u^*\in X_0^s(\Omega )\) with \(u_*=H(u_*)\), \(u^*=H(u^*)\). This completes the proof. \(\square \)
Now, we are able to prove our main result, Theorem 1.1.
Proof of Theorem 1.1
Accoding Theorem 3.1, there exists a \(\lambda ^*\) such that the problem (1.1) admits a solution \(u_\lambda \) for any \(\lambda >\lambda ^*\). Moreover, following the arguments given in the proof of Theorem 3.1,
Hence, if we fix \(\lambda _0>\lambda ^*\), then \(\underline{u}=u_{\lambda _0}\) is a subsolution of problem (1.1) for any \(\lambda >\lambda _0\). Indeed, given \(\phi \in C_0^2(\Omega )\) such that \(\phi \ge 0\) in \(\Omega \), we have
On the other hand, \(\overline{u}=1\) is a supersolution of the problem (1.1) for any \(\lambda >\lambda _0\). Indeed,
Hence, by Theorem 4.5, if we put \(g(x,u)= \lambda f(u)\) for any \(\lambda > \lambda _0\), then we obtain another solution \(v_\lambda \) of (1.1) for every \(\lambda >\lambda _0\). Observe that from Theorem 3.1,
Therefore, \(\lambda _0\) can be chosen sufficiently large, so that \(u_\lambda <\underline{u}\le v_\lambda \le 1=\bar{u}\). In this way, the proof is completed if we take \(\overline{\lambda }=\lambda _0\). \(\square \)
References
 1.
Alarcón, S., Iturriaga, L., Quaas, A.: Existence and multiplicity results for Pucci’s operators involving nonlinearities with zeros. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 45, 443–454 (2012)
 2.
Ambrosetti, A., Brezis, H., Cerami, G.: Combined effects of concave and convex nonlinearities in some elliptic problems. J. Funct. Anal. 122, 519–543 (1994)
 3.
Ambrosetti, A., Hess, P.: Positive solutions of asymptotically linear elliptic eigenvalue problems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 73, 411–422 (1980)
 4.
Barrios, B., GarcíaMelián, J., Iturriaga, L.: Semilinear elliptic equations and nonlinearities with zeros. Nonlinear Anal. 134, 117–126 (2016)
 5.
Biswas, A., Lőrinczi, J.: AmbrosettiProdi type results for Dirichlet problems of the fractional Laplacian. 1803.08540
 6.
Brasco, P., Lindgren, E., Parini, E.: The fractional Cheeger problem. Interfaces Free Bound 16, 419–458 (2014)
 7.
De Figueiredo, D.G., Gossez, J.P., Ubilla, P.: Local superlinearity and sublinearity for indefinite semilinear elliptic problems. J. Funct. Anal. 199, 452–467 (2003)
 8.
De Figueiredo, D..G., Lions, P..L., Nussbaum, R..D.: A priori estimates and existence of positive solutions of semilinear elliptic equations. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 61, 41–63 (1982)
 9.
De Giorgi, E.: Sulla differenziabilità e l’analiticità delle estremali degli integrali multipli regolari. Mem. Accad. Sci. Torino. Cl. Sci. Fis. Math. Nat. 3, 25–43 (1957)
 10.
Di Nezza, E., Palatucci, G., Valdinoci, E.: Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces. Bull. Sci. Math. 136, 521–573 (2012)
 11.
GarcíaMelián, J., Iturriaga, L.: Multiplicity of solutions for some semilinear problems involving nonlinearities with zeros. Israel J. Math. 210, 233–244 (2015)
 12.
Iturriaga, L., Lorca, S., Montenegro, M.: Existence of solutions to quasilinear elliptic equations with singular weights. Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 10, 109–120 (2010)
 13.
Iturriaga, L., Lorca, S., Massa, E.: Positive solutions for the pLaplacian involving critical and supercritical nonlinearities with zeros. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 27, 763–771 (2010)
 14.
Iturriaga, L., Massa, E., Sánchez, J., Ubilla, P.: Positive solutions of the pLaplacian involving a superlinear nonlinearity with zeros. J. Differ. Equ. 248, 309–327 (2010)
 15.
Kouhestani, N., Mahyar, H., Moameni, A.: Multiplicity results for a nonlocal problem with concave and convex nonlinearities. Nonlinear Anal. 182, 263–279 (2019)
 16.
Lions, P.L.: On the existence of positive solutions of semilinear elliptic equations. SIAM Rev. 24, 441–467 (1982)
 17.
Molica Bisci, G., Radulescu, V., Servadei, R.: Variational Methods For Nonlocal Fractional Problems. With a Foreword by Jean Mawhin, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2016)
 18.
Moser, J.: A new proof of De Giorgi’s theorem concerning the regularity problem for elliptic differential equations. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 13, 457–468 (1960)
 19.
RosOton, X., Serra, J.: The Pohozaev identity for the fractional Laplacian. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 213, 587–628 (2014)
 20.
Xiaohui, Y.: Multiplicity solutions for fully nonlinear equation involving nonlinearity with zeros. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 12, 451–459 (2013)
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
All authors were partially supported by FONDECYT, Grant, 1171691, Chile. Besides, two first authors were partially supported by, FONDECYT Grants 1161635 and 1181125, Chile. A.R. was partially supported by CONICET PIP Grant 11220150100032CO and ANPCyTPICT Grant 20120153, Argentina, and by the Dutch Research Council (NWO) through the Project TOP2.17.012.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Alarcón, S., Iturriaga, L. & Ritorto, A. Nonnegative solutions for the fractional Laplacian involving a nonlinearity with zeros. manuscripta math. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s0022902101275w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Mathematics Subject Classification
 Primary 35B20
 35B40
 Secondary 35J60
 35B38