, , , March, 13th 2005

We address the problem of existence and multiplicity of possibly sign-changing solutions of the following Emden-Fowler boundary value problem on a smooth domain

Ω

R n

n \geq 3

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} Δ u = \frac{| u |^{2 ◆ - 2} u}{| x |^{s}} & i n D^{'} (Ω) \\ u = 0 & o n \partial Ω . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(1)

where here and throughout the paper,

Δ = - \sum_{i} \partial_{i i}

is the Laplacian with minus sign convention, and

2 ◆ : = 2^{*} (s) = \frac{2 (n - s)}{n - 2}

with

s \in [0, 2]

. The non-singular case, i.e., when

s = 0

, is the Euclidean version of the celebrated Yamabe problem considered first by Brezis and Nirenberg [6] followed by a large number of authors.

Here again the situation is interesting since we are dealing with the corresponding critical exponent in the Hardy-Sobolev embedding

H 21, 0 (Ω) \to L^{p} (Ω; | x |^{- s} d x)

which is not compact when

p = 2^{*} (s)

. We recall that

H 21, 0 (Ω)

is the completion of

C_{c}^{\infty} (Ω)

, the set of smooth functions compactly supported in

Ω

, for the norm

∥ u ∥_{H 21, 0 (Ω)} = \sqrt{\int_{Ω} | \nabla u |^{2} d x}

, and that the above embedding follows from the Hardy-Sobolev inequality ([9] , [10] , [24] ) which states that the constant defined as

\begin{matrix} μ_{s} (Ω) : = inf {\int_{Ω} | \nabla u |^{2} d x; u \in H 21, 0 (Ω) a n d \int_{Ω} \frac{| u |^{2 ◆}}{| x |^{s}} d x = 1} \end{matrix}

(2)

satisfies

0 < μ_{s} (Ω) < + \infty

. This in turn allows for a variational approach for the problem of finding solutions in

H 21, 0 (Ω) \cap C^{0} (\bar{Ω})

for the Dirichlet problem ( 1 ).

Now the story of the state of the art in the non-singular case is quite extensive (see for instance Struwe [38] ), but for our purpose we single out the following highlights:

1) For any domain

Ω

, the best constant

μ_{0} (Ω)

is the same as

μ_{0} (R n)

and it is never attained unless

Ω

is essentially

R n

(i.e.,

c a p (R n \ Ω) = 0

), in which case there is an infinite number of sign-changing solutions for

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} Δ u = | u |^{2 ◆ - 2} u & i n D^{'} (Ω) \\ u = 0 & o n \partial Ω . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(3)

Moreover, there are no solution for ( 3 ) whenever

Ω

is bounded convex or star-shaped.

On the other hand, there are solutions if

Ω

is not contractible (in dimension 3) and an infinite number of them [3] , if the domain

Ω

has non-trivial homology (i.e.,

H_{d} (Ω, Z_{2}) \neq 0

for some

d > 0

). Unfortunately, these topological conditions are far from being optimal and no geometric condition that would guarantee the existence of one or more solutions, have so far been isolated.

2) On the other hand, the addition of a linear term to the equation, such as

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} Δ u = | u |^{2 ◆ - 2} u + λ u & i n D^{'} (Ω) \\ u = 0 & o n \partial Ω . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(4)

improves the situation dramatically, especially when

0 < λ < λ_{1}

, since there is then a positive solution for any smooth bounded domain

Ω

R n

as long as

n \geq 4

(See Brezis-Nirenberg [6] ). The case

n = 3

is more delicate and was dealt with by Druet [13] . Most relevant to our work, are the recent results by Devillanova and Solimini who managed in a remarkable paper [11] , to establish the existence of an infinite number of solutions for ( 4 ) in dimension

n \geq 7

The situation for the Emden-Fowler equations (i.e., when

s > 0

) turned out to be at least as interesting, and somewhat more satisfactory. Actually, the case when

0

belongs to the interior of the domain

Ω

is almost identical to the non-singular case [24] as one can prove essentially the same results with a suitable adaptation of the same techniques. However, the situation is much different when

0 \in \partial Ω

1) Indeed, Egnell showed in [17] that for open cones of the form

C = {x \in R n; x = r θ, θ \in D a n d r > 0}

where the base

D

is a connected domain of the unit sphere

S^{n - 1}

R n

, the best constant

μ_{s} (C)

is attained for

0 < s < 2

even when

\bar{C} \neq R n

The case where

\partial Ω

is smooth at

0

was tackled in [21] and it turned out to be also quite interesting since the curvature of the boundary at

0

gets to play an important role. It was shown there that in dimension

n \geq 4

, the negativity of all principal curvatures¹ at

0

–which is essentially a condition of “local strict concavity” – leads to attainability of the best constant for problems with Dirichlet boundary conditions, while the Neumann problems required the positivity of the mean curvature at

0

More recently, we show in [22] that for dimension

n \geq 4

, the negativity of the mean curvature of

\partial Ω

0

is sufficient to ensure the attainability of

μ_{s} (Ω)

. This result is quite satisfactory, since standard Pohozaev type arguments show non-attainability in the case where

Ω

is convex or star-shaped at

0

. One of the results of this paper is the extension of this attainability result to cover all dimensions (greater than

3

) including the more subtle context of dimension

3

. We shall establish the following

Theorem 1.1. Let

Ω

be a smooth bounded oriented domain of

R n

n \geq 3

, such that

0 \in \partial Ω

and assume

s \in (0, 2)

. If the mean curvature of

\partial Ω

0

is negative, then

μ_{s} (Ω)

is achieved by a positive function which is –a positive multiple of– a solution for

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} Δ u = \frac{| u |^{2 ◆ - 2} u}{| x |^{s}} & i n D^{'} (Ω) \\ u > 0 & i n Ω \\ u = 0 & o n \partial Ω . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(5)

2) As to the question of multiplicity of solutions for ( 1 ), we note that Ghoussoub-Kang had shown in [21] the existence of two solutions under the assumption that all principal curvatures at

0

are negative. More precisely, assuming that the principal curvatures

α_{1}, . . ., α_{n - 1}

\partial Ω

0

are finite, the oriented boundary

\partial Ω

near the origin can then be represented (up to rotating the coordinates if necessary) by

x_{1} = φ_{0} (x^{'}) = - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i = 2}^{n} α_{i - 1} x_{i}^{2} + o (| x^{'} |^{2})

, where

x^{'} = (x_{2}, . . ., x_{n}) \in B_{δ} (0) \cap {x_{1} = 0}

for some

δ > 0

where

B_{δ} (0)

is the ball in

R n

centered at

0

with radius

δ

. If the principal curvatures at

0

are all negative, i.e., if

\begin{matrix} {max}_{1 \leq i \leq n - 1} α_{i} < 0, \end{matrix}

(6)

then the sectional curvature at

0

is negative and therefore

\partial Ω

–viewed as an

(n - 1)

-Riemannian submanifold of

R n

– is strictly convex at

0

(see for instance [19] ). The latter property means that there exists a neighborhood

U

0

\partial Ω

, such that the whole of

U

lies on one side of a hyperplane

H

that is tangent to

\partial Ω

0

and

U \cap H = {0}

, and so does the complement

R n \ Ω

, at least locally. In other words, the above curvature condition then amounts to a notion of strict local convexity of

R n \ Ω

0

. In this paper, we complete and extend these results in many ways, since we establish the existence of infinitely many solutions under the following much weaker assumption:

\begin{matrix} {max}_{1 \leq i \leq n - 1} α_{i} \leq 0 a n d {min}_{1 \leq i \leq n - 1} α_{i} < 0 . \end{matrix}

(7)

which is a condition of “local concavity at

0

” that is “strict” in at least one direction.

Theorem 1.2. Let

Ω

be a smooth bounded oriented domain of

R n

n \geq 3

, such that

0 \in \partial Ω

. Let

s \in (0, 2)

and

a \in C^{1} (\bar{Ω})

be such that the operator

Δ + a

is coercive in

Ω

. If the principal curvatures of

\partial Ω

0

are non-positive, but not all vanishing, then there exists an infinite number of solutions

u \in H 21, 0 (Ω) \cap C^{1} (\bar{Ω})

for

{\begin{matrix} Δ u + a u = \frac{| u |^{2 ◆ - 2} u}{| x |^{s}} & i n D^{'} (Ω) \\ u = 0 & o n \partial Ω . \end{matrix}

We do not know if the negativity of the mean curvature at

0

is sufficient for the above result, however it is a remarkably satisfactory once compared to what is known in the nonsingular case and since –as mentioned above– we have no solution when

Ω

is convex or star-shaped at

0

3) All these results rely on blow-up analysis techniques where the limiting spaces (i.e., on which the blown-up solutions of corresponding Euler-Lagrange equations eventually live) play an important role. In the non-singular case, the limiting space is

R n

while in our framework, the limiting cases occur on half-spaces of the form

R n - = {x \in R n - / x_{1} < 0}

, where

x_{1}

denotes the first coordinate of a generic point

x \in R n

in the canonical basis of

R n

. The above theorem is a corollary of a more powerful result established below about the asymptotic behaviour of a family of solutions to elliptic pde's, which are not necessarily minimizing sequences. We actually study families of solutions to related subcritical problems, and we completely describe their asymptotic behaviour –potentially developing a singularity at zero– as we approach the critical exponent.

More precisely, we say that a function is in

C^{1} (\bar{Ω})

if it can be extended to a

C^{1} -

function in a open neighborhood of

\bar{Ω}

, and consider a family

(a ε)_{ε > 0} \in C^{1} (\bar{Ω})

and a function

a \in C^{1} (\bar{Ω})

such that there exists an open subset

U \subset R n

such that

a ε, a

can be extended to

U

C^{1} -

functions that we still denote by

a ε, a

. We assume that they satisfy

\begin{matrix} \bar{Ω} \subset \subset U a n d {lim}_{ε \to 0} a ε = a i n C^{1} (U) . \end{matrix}

(8)

Here is the main result of this paper.

Theorem 1.3. Let

Ω

be a smooth bounded oriented domain of

R n

n \geq 3

, such that

0 \in \partial Ω

. Assume

s \in (0, 2)

and consider

(a ε)_{ε > 0} \in C^{1} (\bar{Ω})

such that ( 8 ) hold. We let

(p ε)_{ε > 0}

such that

p ε \in [0, 2 ◆ - 2)

for all

ε > 0

and

{lim}_{ε \to 0} p ε = 0

. We assume that the principal curvatures of

\partial Ω

0

are non-positive but do not all vanish. We consider a family of functions

(u ε)_{ε > 0}

that is uniformly bounded in

H 21, 0 (Ω)

and satisfying

{\begin{matrix} Δ u ε + a ε u ε = \frac{| u ε |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε}}{| x |^{s}} u ε & i n D^{'} (Ω) \\ u ε = 0 & o n \partial Ω . \end{matrix}

1) The family

(u ε)_{ε > 0}

is then pre-compact in the

C^{1} -

topology. In particular, there exists

u_{0} \in H 21, 0 (Ω)

such that, up to a subsequence, we have that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} u ε = u_{0}

C^{1} (\bar{Ω})

2) Moreover, if the

u ε

's are nonnegative for all

ε > 0

, then the same conclusion holds under the sole hypothesis that the mean curvature of

\partial Ω

0

is negative.

The proof of this last theorem uses the machinery developed in Druet-Hebey-Robert [15] and is in the spirit of Druet [14] , where the concentration analysis is studied in the intricate Riemannian setting. The study of the asymptotic for elliptic nonlinear pde's was initiated by Atkinson-Peletier [1] , see also Brézis-Peletier [7] . In the Riemannian context, the asymptotics have first been studied by Schoen [39] and Hebey-Vaugon [32] . This tool turned out to be very powerful in the study of best constant problems in Sobolev inequalities, see for instance Druet [12] , Hebey-Vaugon [32] , [33] and Robert [37] ). We also mention the study of the asymptotics for solutions to nonlinear pde's (Han [27] , Hebey [29] , Druet-Robert [16] and Robert [36] ). In the case of arbitrary large energies, the compactness issues become quite intricate, especially in the Riemannian context, see for instance the pioneer work of Schoen [39] . We also refer to the recent work of Druet [14] and Marques [35] . One can also find compactness results for fourth order equations in the work of Hebey-Robert [30] and Hebey-Robert-Wen [31] . In a forthcoming paper [22] , we tackle similar questions for various critical equations involving a whole affine subspace of singularities on the boundary.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 , we state general facts and two lemmae that will be useful throughout the paper. In Section 3 , we construct the different scales of blow-up. In Sections 4 and 5 , we prove strong pointwise estimates for sequences of solutions to our problem. In Section 6 , we use the Pohozaev identity to describe precisely the asymptotics related to our problem and we prove theorem 1.3 . Section 7 contains the proofs of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2. Finally, we give in the Appendix a regularity result for solutions to a critical PDE, some useful properties of the Green's function and a symmetry property of solutions to some nonlinear elliptic equations on the half-plane.

¹ In our context, we specify the orientation of $\partial Ω$ in such a way that the normal vectors of $\partial Ω$ are pointing outward from the domain $Ω$ .

2 Basic facts and preliminary Lemmae

Throughout the paper,

Ω

will be a smooth bounded domain of

R n

n \geq 3

, such that

0 \in \partial Ω

. For

s \in (0, 2)

, we write

2 ◆ = 2 ◆ (s) : = \frac{2 (n - s)}{n - 2}

and for each

ε > 0

, we consider

p ε \in [0, 2 ◆ - 2)

such that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{ε \to 0} p ε = 0 . \end{matrix}

(9)

We let

a \in C^{1} (\bar{Ω})

and a family

(a ε)_{ε > 0} \in C^{1} (\bar{Ω})

such that ( 8 ) holds. For any

ε > 0

, we consider

u ε \in H 21, 0 (Ω)

to be a solution to the system

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} Δ u ε + a ε u ε = \frac{| u ε |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε}}{| x |^{s}} u ε & i n D^{'} (Ω) \\ u ε = 0 & o n \partial Ω \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(E − ε)

for all

ε > 0

. Note that it follows from Proposition 8.1 of the Appendix that

u ε \in C^{1, θ} (\bar{Ω}) \cap C^{2} (\bar{Ω} \ {0})

for all

θ \in (0, min {1, 2 ◆ - s})

. In addition, we assume that there exists

Λ > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} ∥ u ε ∥_{H 21, 0 (Ω)} \leq Λ \end{matrix}

(10)

for all

ε > 0

. It then follows from the weak compactness of the unit ball of

H 21, 0 (Ω)

that there exists

u_{0} \in H 21, 0 (Ω)

such that

\begin{matrix} u ε ⇀ u_{0} \end{matrix}

(11)

weakly in

H 21, 0 (Ω)

when

ε \to 0

. Note that

u_{0}

verifies

Δ u_{0} + a u_{0} = \frac{| u_{0} |^{2 ◆ - 2}}{| x |^{s}} u_{0} i n D^{'} (Ω) .

It follows from the Appendix that

u_{0} \in C^{1, θ} (\bar{Ω}) \cap C^{2} (\bar{Ω} \ {0})

for all

θ \in (0, min {1, 2 ◆ - s})

. The following Proposition addresses the case when

u ε

is uniformly bounded in

L^{\infty}

. Note that here and in the sequel, all the convergence results are up to the extraction of a subsequence.

Proposition 2.1. Let

Ω

be a smooth bounded domain of

R n

n \geq 3

, such that

0 \in \partial Ω

. We let

(u ε)

(a ε)

and

(p ε)

such that

(E_{ε})

, ( 8 ) and ( 9 ) hold. We assume that there exists

C > 0

such that

| u ε (x) | \leq C

for all

x \in Ω

. Then up to a subsequence,

{lim}_{ε \to 0} u ε = u_{0}

C^{1} (\bar{Ω})

, where

u_{0}

is as in ( 11 ).

Proof: It follows from the proof of Proposition 8.1 of the Appendix that for any

θ \in (0, min {1, 2 ◆ - s})

, there exists

C > 0

such that

∥ u ε ∥_{C^{1, θ} (\bar{Ω})} \leq C

for all

ε > 0

The conclusion of the Proposition then follows. We refer to the Appendix for the details.

□

From now on, we assume that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{ε \to 0} ∥ u ε ∥_{L^{\infty} (Ω)} = + \infty . \end{matrix}

(12)

Throughout the paper, we shall say that blow-up occurs whenever ( 12 ) holds. We define

R n - = {x \in R n / x_{1} < 0}

where

x_{1}

is the first coordinate of a generic point of

R n

. This space will be the limit space after blow-up. In the sequel of this section, we give some useful tools for the blow-up analysis. We let

y_{0} \in \partial Ω

. Since

\partial Ω

is smooth and

y_{0} \in \partial Ω

, there exist

U, V

open subsets of

R n

, there exists

I

an open intervall of

R

, there exists

U^{'}

an open subset of

R^{n - 1}

such that

0 \in U = I \times U^{'}

and

y_{0} \in V

. There exist

φ \in C^{\infty} (U, V)

and

φ_{0} \in C^{\infty} (U^{'})

such that, up to rotating the coordinates if necessary,

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} (i) & φ : U \to V i s a C^{\infty} - d i f f e o m o r p h i s m \\ (i i) & φ (0) = y_{0} \\ (i i i) & D_{0} φ = I d_{R n} \\ (i v) & φ (U \cap {x_{1} < 0}) = φ (U) \cap Ω a n d φ (U \cap {x_{1} = 0}) = φ (U) \cap \partial Ω . \\ (v) & φ (x_{1}, y) = y_{0} + (x_{1} + φ_{0} (y), y) f o r a l l (x_{1}, y) \in I \times U^{'} = U \\ (v i) & φ_{0} (0) = 0 a n d \nabla φ_{0} (0) = 0 . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(13)

Here

D_{x} φ

denotes the differential of

φ

x

. This chart will be useful throughout all the paper.

We prove two useful blow-up lemmae:

Lemma 2.1. We let

Ω

be a smooth bounded domain of

R n

n \geq 3

. We assume that

0 \in \partial Ω

. We let

(u ε)

(a ε)

and

(p ε)

such that

(E_{ε})

, ( 8 ), ( 9 ) and ( 10 ) hold. We let

(y ε)_{ε > 0} \in Ω

. Let

ν ε : = | u ε (y ε) |^{- \frac{2}{n - 2}} a n d β ε : = | y ε |^{\frac{s}{2}} | u ε (y ε) |^{\frac{2 + p ε - 2 ◆}{2}} .

We assume that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} ν ε = 0

. In particular,

{lim}_{ε \to 0} β ε = 0

. We assume that for any

R > 0

, there exists

C (R) > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | u ε (x) | \leq C (R) | u ε (y ε) | \end{matrix}

(14)

for all

x \in B_{R β ε} (y ε) \cap Ω

and all

ε > 0

. Then we have that

y ε = O (ν^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} ε)

when

ε \to 0

. In particular,

{lim}_{ε \to 0} y ε = 0

Proof of Lemma 2.1 : We proceed by contradiction and assume that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{ε \to 0} \frac{| y ε |}{ℓ ε} = + \infty . \end{matrix}

(15)

where

ℓ ε : = ν^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} ε

for all

ε > 0

. In particular, it follows from the definition of

β ε

and ( 15 ) that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{ε \to 0} β ε = 0, {lim}_{ε \to 0} \frac{β ε}{ℓ ε} = + \infty a n d {lim}_{ε \to 0} \frac{β ε}{| y ε |} = 0 . \end{matrix}

(16)

Case 1: We assume that there exists

ρ > 0

such that

\frac{d (y ε, \partial Ω)}{β ε} \geq 3 ρ

for all

ε > 0

. For

x \in B_{2 ρ} (0)

and

ε > 0

, we define

v ε (x) : = \frac{u ε (y ε + β ε x)}{u ε (y ε)} .

Note that this is well defined since

y ε + β ε x \in Ω

for all

x \in B_{2 ρ} (0)

. It follows from ( 14 ) that there exists

C (ρ) > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | v ε (x) | \leq C (ρ) \end{matrix}

(17)

for all

ε > 0

and all

x \in B_{2 ρ} (0)

. As easily checked, we have that

Δ v ε + β^{2} ε a ε (y ε + β ε x) v ε = \frac{| v ε |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε} v ε}{{| \frac{y ε}{| y ε |} + \frac{β ε}{| y ε |} x |}^{s}}

weakly in

B_{2 ρ} (0)

. Since ( 16 ) holds, we have that

\begin{matrix} Δ v ε + β^{2} ε a ε (y ε + β ε x) v ε = (1 + o (1)) | v ε |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε} v ε \end{matrix}

(18)

weakly in

B_{2 ρ} (0)

, where

{lim}_{ε \to 0} o (1) = 0

C_{l o c}^{0} (B_{2 ρ} (0))

. It follows from ( 17 ), ( 18 ) and standard elliptic theory that there exists

v \in C^{1} (B_{2 ρ} (0))

such that

v ε \to v

C_{l o c}^{1} (B_{2 ρ} (0))

when

ε \to 0

. In particular,

\begin{matrix} v (0) = {lim}_{ε \to 0} v ε (0) = 1 \end{matrix}

(19)

and

v ≢ 0

. With a change of variables and the definition of

β ε

, we get that

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω \cap B_{ρ β ε} (y ε)} \frac{| u ε |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| x |^{s}} d x = \frac{| u ε (y ε) |^{2 ◆ - p ε} β^{n} ε}{| y ε |^{s}} \int_{B_{ρ} (0)} \frac{| v ε |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{{| \frac{y ε}{| y ε |} + \frac{β ε}{| y ε |} x |}^{s}} d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq {(\frac{| y ε |}{ℓ ε})}^{s \frac{n - 2}{2}} \int_{B_{ρ} (0)} \frac{| v ε |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{{| \frac{y ε}{| y ε |} + \frac{β ε}{| y ε |} x |}^{s}} d x . \end{matrix}

Using the equation

(E_{ε})

, ( 10 ), ( 15 ) and ( 16 ) and passing to the limit

ε \to 0

, we get that

\int_{B_{ρ} (0)} | v |^{2 ◆} d x = 0,

and then

v \equiv 0

B_{ρ} (0)

. A contradiction with ( 19 ). Then ( 15 ) does not hold in Case 1.

Case 2: We assume that, up to a subsequence,

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{ε \to 0} \frac{d (y ε, \partial Ω)}{β ε} = 0 . \end{matrix}

(20)

In this case,

{lim}_{ε \to 0} y ε = y_{0} \in \partial Ω .

Since

y_{0} \in \partial Ω

, we let

φ : U \to V

as in ( 13 ), where

U, V

are open neighborhoods of

0

and

y_{0}

respectively. We let

\tilde{u} ε = u ε \circ φ

, which is defined on

U \cap {x_{1} \leq 0}

. For any

i, j = 1, . . ., n

, we let

g_{i j} = (\partial_{i} φ, \partial_{j} φ)

, where

(\cdot, \cdot)

denotes the Euclidean scalar product on

R n

, and we consider

g

as a metric on

R n

. We let

Δ_{g} = - d i v_{g} (\nabla)

the Laplace-Beltrami operator with respect to the metric

g

. In our basis, we have that

Δ_{g} = - g^{i j} (\partial_{i j} - Γ_{i j}^{k} \partial_{k}),

where

g^{i j} = (g^{- 1})_{i j}

are the coordinates of the inverse of the tensor

g

and the

Γ_{i j}^{k}

's are the Christoffel symbols of the metric

g

. As easily checked, we have that

Δ_{g} \tilde{u} ε + a ε \circ φ (x) \cdot \tilde{u} ε = \frac{| \tilde{u} ε |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε} \tilde{u} ε}{| φ (x) |^{s}}

weakly in

U \cap {x_{1} < 0}

. We let

z ε \in \partial Ω

such that

\begin{matrix} | z ε - y ε | = d (y ε, \partial Ω) . \end{matrix}

(21)

We let

\tilde{y} ε, \tilde{z} ε \in U

such that

\begin{matrix} φ (\tilde{y} ε) = y ε a n d φ (\tilde{z} ε) = z ε . \end{matrix}

(22)

It follows from the properties ( 13 ) of

φ

that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{ε \to 0} \tilde{y} ε = {lim}_{ε \to 0} \tilde{z} ε = 0, (\tilde{y} ε)_{1} < 0 a n d (\tilde{z} ε)_{1} = 0 . \end{matrix}

(23)

At last, we let

\tilde{v} ε (x) : = \frac{\tilde{u} ε (\tilde{z} ε + β ε x)}{\tilde{u} ε (\tilde{y} ε)}

for all

x \in \frac{U - \tilde{z} ε}{β ε} \cap {x_{1} < 0}

. With ( 23 ), we get that

\tilde{v} ε

is defined on

B_{R} (0) \cap {x_{1} < 0}

for all

R > 0

, as soon as

ε

is small enough. It follows from ( 14 ) that there exists

C^{'} (R) > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | \tilde{v} ε (x) | \leq C^{'} (R) \end{matrix}

(24)

for all

ε > 0

and all

x \in B_{R} (0) \cap {x_{1} \leq 0}

. The function

\tilde{v} ε

verifies

Δ_{\tilde{g} ε} \tilde{v} ε + β^{2} ε a ε \circ φ (\tilde{z} ε + β ε x) \tilde{v} ε = \frac{| \tilde{v} ε |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε} \tilde{v} ε}{{| \frac{φ (\tilde{z} ε + β ε x)}{| y ε |} |}^{s}}

weakly in

B_{R} (0) \cap {x_{1} < 0}

. In this expression,

\tilde{g} ε = g (\tilde{z} ε + β ε x)

and

Δ_{\tilde{g} ε}

is the Laplace-Beltrami operator with respect to the metric

\tilde{g} ε

. With ( 20 ), ( 21 ) and ( 22 ), we get that

φ (\tilde{z} ε + β ε x) = y ε + O_{R} (1) β ε,

for all

x \in B_{R} (0) \cap {x_{1} \leq 0}

and all

ε > 0

, where there exists

C_{R} > 0

such that

| O_{R} (1) | \leq C_{R}

for all

x \in B_{R} (0) \cap {x_{1} < 0}

. With ( 16 ), we then get that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} \frac{| φ (\tilde{z} ε + β ε x) |}{| y ε |} = 1

C^{0} (B_{R} (0) \cap {x_{1} \leq 0})

. It then follows that

Δ_{\tilde{g} ε} \tilde{v} ε + β^{2} ε a ε \circ φ (\tilde{z} ε + β ε x) \tilde{v} ε = (1 + o (1)) | \tilde{v} ε |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε} \tilde{v} ε

weakly in

B_{R} (0) \cap {x_{1} < 0}

, where

{lim}_{ε \to 0} o (1) = 0

C^{0} (B_{R} (0) \cap {x_{1} \leq 0})

Since

\tilde{v} ε

vanishes on

B_{R} (0) \cap {x_{1} = 0}

and ( 24 ) holds, it follows from standard elliptic theory that there exists

\tilde{v} \in C^{1} (B_{R} (0) \cap {x_{1} \leq 0})

such that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} \tilde{v} ε = \tilde{v}

C^{0} (B_{\frac{R}{2}} (0) \cap {x_{1} \leq 0})

. In particular,

\begin{matrix} \tilde{v} \equiv 0 o n B_{\frac{R}{2}} (0) \cap {x_{1} = 0} . \end{matrix}

(25)

Moreover, it follows from ( 20 ), ( 21 ) and ( 22 ) that

\tilde{v} ε (\frac{\tilde{y} ε - \tilde{z} ε}{β ε}) = 1 a n d {lim}_{ε \to 0} \frac{\tilde{y} ε - \tilde{z} ε}{β ε} = 0 .

In particular,

\tilde{v} (0) = 1

. A contradiction with ( 25 ). Then ( 15 ) does not hold in Case 2.

In both cases, we have contradicted ( 15 ). This proves that

y ε = O (ℓ ε)

when

ε \to 0

, which proves the Lemma.

□

Lemma 2.2. We let

Ω

be a smooth bounded domain of

R n

n \geq 3

. We assume that

0 \in \partial Ω

. We let

(u ε)

(a ε)

and

(p ε)

such that

(E_{ε})

, ( 8 ), ( 9 ) and ( 10 ) hold. We let

(ν ε)_{ε > 0}

and

(ℓ ε)_{ε > 0}

such that

ν ε, ℓ ε > 0

for all

ε > 0

and

ℓ ε = ν^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} ε a n d {lim}_{ε \to 0} ν ε = 0 .

Since

0 \in \partial Ω

, we let

φ : U \to V

as in ( 13 ) with

y_{0} = 0

, where

U, V

are open neighborhoods of

0

. We let

\tilde{u} ε (x) : = ν^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} ε u ε \circ φ (ℓ ε x)

for all

x \in \frac{U}{ℓ ε} \cap {x_{1} \leq 0}

and all

ε > 0

. We assume that either (L1) for all

R > 0

, there exists

C (R) > 0

such that

| \tilde{u} ε (x) | \leq C (R)

for all

x \in B_{R} (0) \cap {x_{1} < 0}

, or (L2) for all

R > δ > 0

, there exists

C (R, δ) > 0

such that

| \tilde{u} ε (x) | \leq C (R, δ)

for all

x \in (B_{R} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{δ} (0)) \cap {x_{1} < 0}

Then there exists

\tilde{u} \in H 21, 0 (R n -) \cap C^{1} (\bar{R n -})

such that

Δ \tilde{u} = \frac{| \tilde{u} |^{2 ◆ - 2} \tilde{u}}{| x |^{s}} i n D^{'} (R n -)

and

{lim}_{ε \to 0} \tilde{u} ε = \tilde{u} i n {\begin{matrix} C_{l o c}^{1} (\bar{R n -}) & i f (L 1) h o l d s \\ C_{l o c}^{1} (\bar{R n -} \ {0}) & i f (L 2) h o l d s \end{matrix}

Proof of Lemma 2.2 : Let

η \in C^{\infty} (R n)

. As easily checked, we have that

η \tilde{u} ε \in H 21, 0 (R n -)

for all

ε > 0

small enough, and

\nabla (η \tilde{u} ε) (x) = \tilde{u} ε \nabla η + η ℓ ε ν^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} ε D_{(ℓ ε x)} φ [(\nabla u ε) (φ (ℓ ε x))],

for all

ε > 0

and all

x \in R n -

. In this expression,

D_{x} φ

is the differential of the function

φ

x

. We get that

\begin{matrix} \int_{R n -} | \nabla (η \tilde{u} ε) |^{2} d x \leq 2 \int_{R n -} | \nabla η |^{2} {\tilde{u}}^{2} ε d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + 2 ℓ^{2} ε ν^{n - 2} ε \int_{R n - \cap S u p p η} | D_{(ℓ ε x)} φ [(\nabla u ε) (φ (ℓ ε x))] |^{2} d x . \end{matrix}

With Hölder's inequality and a change of variables, we get that

\begin{matrix} \int_{R n -} | \nabla (η \tilde{u} ε) |^{2} d x \leq 2 {(\int_{R n -} | \nabla η |^{n} d x)}^{\frac{2}{n}} \cdot {(\int_{R n - \cap S u p p \nabla η} | \tilde{u} ε |^{\frac{2 n}{n - 2}} d x)}^{\frac{n - 2}{n}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + 4 ℓ^{n} ε {(\frac{ν ε}{ℓ ε})}^{n - 2} \int_{R n - \cap S u p p η} | \nabla u ε |^{2} (φ (ℓ ε x)) d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq 2 ∥ \nabla η ∥_{n}^{2} ∥ \tilde{u} ε ∥_{L^{\frac{2 n}{n - 2}} (S u p p \nabla η)}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + C ν^{\frac{p ε (n - 2)}{2 ◆ - 2}} ε \int_{Ω} | \nabla u ε |^{2} d x \end{matrix}

(26)

With another change of variables, we get that

\begin{matrix} \int_{R n -} | \nabla (η \tilde{u} ε) |^{2} d x \leq C ν^{\frac{(n - 2) p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} ε ∥ \nabla η ∥_{n}^{2} ∥ u ε ∥_{L^{\frac{2 n}{n - 2}} (Ω)}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + C ν^{\frac{p ε (n - 2)}{2 ◆ - 2}} ε \int_{Ω} | \nabla u ε |^{2} d x \end{matrix}

(27)

for all

ε > 0

, where

C

is independant of

ε

. With ( 10 ), Sobolev's inequality and since

ν^{p ε} ε \leq 1

for all

ε > 0

small enough, we get with ( 27 ) that

∥ η \tilde{u} ε ∥_{H 21, 0 (R n -)} = O (1)

when

ε \to 0

. It then follows that there exists

{\tilde{u}}_{η} \in H 21, 0 (R n -)

such that, up to a subsequence,

η \tilde{u} ε ⇀ {\tilde{u}}_{η}

weakly in

H 21, 0 (R n -)

when

ε \to 0

. We let

η_{1} \in C_{c}^{\infty} (R n)

such that

η_{1} \equiv 1

B_{1} (0)

and

η_{1} \equiv 0

R n \ {\bar{B}}_{2} (0)

. For any

R \in N^{◆}

, we let

η_{R} (x) = η_{1} (\frac{x}{R})

for all

x \in R n

With a diagonal argument, we can assume that, up to a subsequence, for any

R > 0

, there exists

{\tilde{u}}_{R} \in H 21, 0 (R n -)

such that

η_{R} \tilde{u} ε ⇀ {\tilde{u}}_{R}

weakly in

H 21, 0 (R n -)

when

ε \to 0

. Letting

ε \to 0

in ( 27 ), with ( 10 ), Sobolev's inequality and since

ν^{p ε} ε \leq 1

for all

ε > 0

small enough, we get that there exists a constant

C > 0

independant of

R

such that

\int_{R n -} | \nabla {\tilde{u}}_{R} |^{2} d x \leq C ∥ \nabla η_{R} ∥_{n}^{2} + C

for all

R > 0

. Since

∥ \nabla η_{R} ∥_{n}^{2} = ∥ \nabla η_{1} ∥_{n}^{2}

for all

R > 0

, we get that there exists

C > 0

independant of

R

such that

\int_{R n -} | \nabla {\tilde{u}}_{R} |^{2} d x \leq C

for all

R > 0

. It then follows that there exists

\tilde{u} \in H 21, 0 (R n -)

such that

{\tilde{u}}_{R} ⇀ \tilde{u}

weakly in

H 21, 0 (R n -)

when

R \to + \infty

. As easily checked, we then obtain that

{\tilde{u}}_{η} = η \tilde{u}

(we omit the proof of this fact. It is straightforward). For any

i, j = 1, . . ., n

, we let

(\tilde{g} ε)_{i j} = (\partial_{i} φ (ℓ ε x), \partial_{j} φ (ℓ ε x))

, where

(\cdot, \cdot)

denotes the Euclidean scalar product on

R n

. We consider

\tilde{g} ε

as a metric on

R n

. We let

Δ_{\tilde{g} ε} = - \tilde{g} ε^{i j} (\partial_{i j} - Γ_{i j}^{k} (\tilde{g} ε) \partial_{k}),

where

{\tilde{g}}^{i j} ε : = ({\tilde{g}}^{- 1} ε)_{i j}

are the coordinates of the inverse of the tensor

\tilde{g} ε

and the

Γ_{i j}^{k} (\tilde{g} ε)

's are the Christoffel symbols of the metric

\tilde{g} ε

. With a change of variable, equation

(E_{ε})

rewrites as

\begin{matrix} Δ_{\tilde{g} ε} (η_{R} \tilde{u} ε) + ℓ^{2} ε a ε \circ φ (ℓ ε x) η_{R} \tilde{u} ε = \frac{| η_{R} \tilde{u} ε |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε} η_{R} \tilde{u} ε}{{| \frac{φ (ℓ ε x)}{ℓ ε} |}^{s}} i n D^{'} (B_{R} (0) \cap {x_{1} < 0}) \end{matrix}

(28)

for all

ε > 0

. Passing to the weak limit

ε \to 0

and then

R \to + \infty

in this equation, we get that

Δ \tilde{u} = \frac{| \tilde{u} |^{2 ◆ - 2} \tilde{u}}{| x |^{s}} i n D^{'} (R n -) .

Since

\tilde{u} \in H 21, 0 (R n -)

, it follows from Proposition 8.1 of the Appendix that

\tilde{u} \in C^{1, θ} (\bar{R n -})

for all

θ \in (0, min {1, 2 ◆ - s})

We deal with case (L1). Since

s \in (0, 2)

, (L1) and ( 28 ) hold and

\tilde{u} ε \equiv 0

{x_{1} = 0}

, it follows from arguments similar to the ones developed in the Appendix that for any

θ \in (0, min {1, 2 ◆ - s})

and any

R > 0

, there exists

C (θ, R) > 0

independant of

ε > 0

small such that

∥ \tilde{u} ε ∥_{C^{1, θ} (B_{R} (0) \cap {x_{1} \leq 0})} \leq C (θ, R)

for all

ε > 0

small. It then follows from Ascoli's theorem that for any

θ \in (0, min {1, 2 ◆ - s})

{lim}_{ε \to 0} \tilde{u} ε = \tilde{u}

C_{l o c}^{1, θ} (\bar{R n -})

. The proof proceeds similarly in Case (L2). This ends the proof of the Lemma.

□

3 Construction and exhaustion of the blow-up scales

This section is devoted to the proof of the following proposition:

Proposition 3.1. We let

Ω

be a smooth bounded domain of

R n

n \geq 3

We assume that

0 \in \partial Ω

. We let

(u ε)

(a ε)

and

(p ε)

such that

(E_{ε})

, ( 8 ), ( 9 ) and ( 10 ) hold. We assume that blow-up occurs, that is

{lim}_{ε \to 0} ∥ u ε ∥_{L^{\infty} (Ω)} = + \infty .

Then there exists

N \in N^{◆}

, there exists

N

families of points

(μ ε, i)_{ε > 0}

such that we have that (A1)

{lim}_{ε \to 0} u ε = u_{0}

C_{l o c}^{2} (\bar{Ω} \ {0})

where

u_{0}

is as in ( 11 ), (A2)

0 < μ ε, 1 < . . . < μ ε, N

for all

ε > 0

, (A3)

{lim}_{ε \to 0} μ ε, N = 0 a n d {lim}_{ε \to 0} \frac{μ_{ε, i + 1}}{μ ε, i} = + \infty f o r a l l i = 1 . . . N - 1

(A4) For all

i = 1 . . . N

, there exists

\tilde{u} i \in H 21, 0 (R n -) \cap C^{1} (\bar{R n -}) \ {0}

such that

Δ \tilde{u} i = \frac{| \tilde{u} i |^{2 ◆ - 2} \tilde{u} i}{| x |^{s}} i n D^{'} (R n -)

and

{lim}_{ε \to 0} \tilde{u} ε, i = \tilde{u} i

C_{l o c}^{1} (\bar{R n -} \ {0})

, where

\tilde{u} ε, i (x) : = μ^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} ε, i u ε (φ (k ε, i x))

for all

x \in \frac{U}{k ε, i} \cap {x_{1} \leq 0}

and

k ε, i = μ^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} ε, i

. Moreover,

{lim}_{ε \to 0} \tilde{u} ε, 1 = {\tilde{u}}_{1}

C_{l o c}^{1} (\bar{R n -})

(A5)

{lim}_{R \to + \infty} {lim}_{ε \to 0} {sup}_{| x | \geq R k ε, N} | x |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} | u ε (x) - u_{0} (x) |^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} = 0

(A6) For any

δ > 0

and any

i = 1 . . . N - 1

, we have that

{lim}_{R \to + \infty} {lim}_{ε \to 0} {sup}_{δ k_{ε, i + 1} \geq | x | \geq R k ε, i} | x |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} {| u ε (x) - μ_{ε, i + 1}^{- \frac{n - 2}{2}} u_{i + 1} (\frac{φ^{- 1} (x)}{k_{ε, i + 1}}) |}^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} = 0 .

(A7) For any

i \in {1, . . ., N}

, there exists

α_{i} \in (0, 1]

such that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} μ^{p ε} ε, i = α_{i} .

The proof of this proposition proceeds in seven steps.

Step 3 .1: We let

x ε, 1 \in Ω

and

μ ε, 1, k ε, 1 > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} {max}_{Ω} | u ε | = | u ε (x ε, 1) | = μ^{- \frac{n - 2}{2}} ε, 1 a n d k ε, 1 = μ^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} ε, 1 . \end{matrix}

(29)

We claim that

\begin{matrix} | x ε, 1 | = O (k ε, 1) \end{matrix}

(30)

when

ε \to 0

, and in particular that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} x ε = 0

. Indeed, we use Lemma 2.1 with

y ε = x ε, 1

ν ε = μ ε, 1

and

C (R) = 1

. We then immediately get that

| x ε, 1 | = O (k ε, 1)

when

ε \to 0

From now on, we let

φ : U \to V

as in ( 13 ) with

y_{0} = 0

and

U, V

are open neighborhoods of

0

R n

. We then let

\begin{matrix} x ε, 1 = φ (a_{ε}, b_{ε}), \end{matrix}

(31)

where

a_{ε} \in {x_{1} < 0}

b_{ε} \in R^{n - 1}

and

(a_{ε}, b_{ε}) \in U

. Note that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} (a_{ε}, b_{ε}) = (0, 0)

Step 3 .2: We claim that

\begin{matrix} d (x ε, 1, \partial Ω) = (1 + o (1)) | a_{ε} | = O (k ε, 1) \end{matrix}

(32)

where

{lim}_{ε \to 0} o (1) = 0

Proof of the Claim: Indeed, since

0 \in \partial Ω

, we get with ( 30 ) that

\begin{matrix} d (x ε, 1, \partial Ω) \leq | x ε, 1 - 0 | = O (k ε, 1) \end{matrix}

(33)

when

ε \to 0

. We first remark that

d (x ε, 1, \partial Ω) \leq d (x ε, 1, φ (0, b_{ε})) = | a_{ε} | .

We let

γ_{ε} \in R^{n - 1}

such that

(0, γ_{ε}) \in U \cap {x_{1} = 0}

and

Y_{ε} = φ (0, γ_{ε}) \in \partial Ω

such that

d (x ε, 1, \partial Ω) = | x ε, 1 - Y_{ε} |

. Since

d (x ε, 1, \partial Ω) \leq | a_{ε} |

, we get that

b_{ε} - γ_{ε} = O (| a_{ε} |),

when

ε \to 0

. Since

\nabla φ_{0} (0) = 0

(where

φ_{0}

is as in ( 13 )), we get that

φ_{0} (b_{ε}) = φ_{0} (γ_{ε}) + o (| b_{ε} - γ_{ε} |) = φ_{0} (γ_{ε}) + o (| a_{ε} |)

when

ε \to 0

. Moreover,

\begin{matrix} d (x ε, 1, \partial Ω) & = & | x ε, 1 - Y_{ε} | \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & | (a_{ε} + φ_{0} (b_{ε}) - φ_{0} (γ_{ε}), b_{ε} - γ_{ε}) | \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & | (a_{ε} + o (a_{ε}), b_{ε} - γ_{ε}) | \leq | a_{ε} | \end{matrix}

when

ε \to 0

. It then follows that

b_{ε} - γ_{ε} = o (| a_{ε} |)

and

d (x ε, 1, \partial Ω) = (1 + o (1)) | a_{ε} |

when

ε \to 0

. This prove ( 32 ).

□

The classical Hardy-Sobolev inequality asserts that there exists

C > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} {(\int_{R n} \frac{| u |^{2 ◆}}{| x |^{s}} d x)}^{\frac{2}{2 ◆}} \leq C \int_{R n} | \nabla u |^{2} d x \end{matrix}

(34)

for all

u \in H 21, 0 (R n)

. We define

\begin{matrix} μ_{s} (R n -) : = inf \frac{\int_{R n -} | \nabla u |^{2} d x}{{(\int_{R n -} \frac{| u |^{2 ◆}}{| x |^{s}} d x)}^{\frac{2}{2 ◆}}} \end{matrix}

(35)

where the infimum is taken over functions

u \in H 21, 0 (R n -) \ {0}

. The existence of

μ_{s} (R n -) > 0

is a consequence of ( 34 ).

Step 3 .3: The construction of the

(μ ε, i)

's proceeds by induction. This step is the initiation.

Lemma 3.1. We let

\tilde{u} ε, 1 (x) : = μ^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} ε, 1 u ε \circ φ (k ε, 1 x)

for all

ε > 0

and all

x \in \frac{U}{k ε, 1} \cap {x_{1} \leq 0}

. Then, there exists

{\tilde{u}}_{1} \in H 21, 0 (R n -) \cap C^{1} (\bar{R n -})

such that (B1)

{lim}_{ε \to 0} \tilde{u} ε, 1 = {\tilde{u}}_{1}

C_{l o c}^{1} (\bar{R n -})

, (B2)

Δ {\tilde{u}}_{1} = \frac{| {\tilde{u}}_{1} |^{2 ◆ - 2} {\tilde{u}}_{1}}{| x |^{s}} i n D^{'} (R n -),

(B3)

\int_{R n -} | \nabla {\tilde{u}}_{1} |^{2} d x \geq μ_{s} (R n -)^{\frac{2 ◆}{2 ◆ - 2}} .

Moreover, there exists

α_{1} \in (0, 1]

such that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} μ^{p ε} ε, 1 = α_{1}

Proof of Lemma 3.1 : Indeed, since

| \tilde{u} ε, 1 (x) | \leq 1

for all

x \in \frac{U}{k ε, 1} \cap {x_{1} \leq 0}

, hypothesis (L1) of Lemma 2.2 is satisfied and it follows from Lemma 2.2 that points (B1) and (B2) hold. We let

λ_{ε} = - \frac{a_{ε}}{k ε, 1} > 0

and

θ_{ε} = \frac{b_{ε}}{k ε, 1} \in R^{n - 1}

, where

a_{ε}, b_{ε}

are defined in ( 31 ). It follows from Steps 3 .1 and 3 .2 that there exists

λ_{0} \geq 0

and

θ_{0} \in R^{n - 1}

such that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} (λ_{ε}, θ_{ε}) = (λ_{0}, θ_{0})

. It then follows from the definition of

\tilde{u} ε, 1

and ( 29 ) that

| \tilde{u} ε, 1 (- λ_{ε}, θ_{ε}) | = 1 .

Passing to the limit

ε \to 0

and using point (B1), we get that

| {\tilde{u}}_{1} (- λ_{0}, θ_{0}) | = 1

In particular

{\tilde{u}}_{1} ≢ 0

and

λ_{0} \neq 0

. Multiplying (B2) by

{\tilde{u}}_{1}

and integrating by parts over

R n -

, we get that

\int_{R n -} | \nabla {\tilde{u}}_{1} |^{2} d x = \int_{R n -} \frac{| u |^{2 ◆}}{| x |^{s}} d x .

Using the Hardy-Sobolev inequality ( 35 ) and that

{\tilde{u}}_{1} ≢ 0

, we get (B3). At last, with ( 10 ), ( 27 ) and Sobolev's inequality, we get that for any

η \in C_{c}^{\infty} (R n)

, there exists

C > 0

such that

\int_{R n -} | \nabla (η \tilde{u} ε, 1) |^{2} d x \leq C μ^{\frac{(n - 2) p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} ε, 1

for all

ε > 0

. Letting

ε \to 0

and using that

{\tilde{u}}_{1} ≢ 0

, we get that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} μ^{p ε} ε, 1 > 0

□

Step 3 .4: We claim that there exists

C > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | x |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} | u ε (x) |^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} \leq C \end{matrix}

(36)

for all

ε > 0

and all

x \in Ω

Proof of the Claim: We argue by contradiction and we let

(y ε)_{ε > 0} \in Ω

such that

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{x \in Ω} | x |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} | u ε (x) |^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} = | y ε |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} | u ε (y ε) |^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} \to + \infty \end{matrix}

(37)

when

ε \to 0

. We let

ν ε : = | u ε (y ε) |^{- \frac{2}{n - 2}} a n d ℓ ε : = ν^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} ε

for all

ε > 0

. It follows from ( 37 ) that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{ε \to 0} \frac{| y ε |}{ℓ ε} = + \infty a n d {lim}_{ε \to 0} ν ε = 0 . \end{matrix}

(38)

We let

β ε : = | y ε |^{\frac{s}{2}} | u ε (y ε) |^{\frac{2 + p ε - 2 ◆}{2}} .

It follows from ( 37 ) that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{ε \to 0} \frac{β ε}{| y ε |} = 0 . \end{matrix}

(39)

We let

R > 0

. We let

x \in B_{R} (0)

such that

y ε + β ε x \in Ω

. It follows from the definition ( 37 ) of

y ε

that

| y ε + β ε x |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} | u ε (y ε + β ε x) | \leq | y ε |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} | u ε (y ε) |,

and then

{(\frac{| u ε (y ε + β ε x) |}{| u ε (y ε) |})}^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} \leq {(\frac{1}{1 - \frac{β ε}{| y ε |} R})}^{\frac{n - 2}{2}}

for all

ε > 0

and all

x \in B_{R} (0)

such that

y ε + β ε x \in Ω

. With ( 39 ), we get that there exists

ε (R) > 0

such that

| u ε (y ε + β ε x) | \leq 2 | u ε (y ε) |

for all

x \in B_{R} (0)

such that

y ε + β ε x \in Ω

and all

0 < ε < ε (R)

. It then follows from Lemma 2.1 that

y ε = O (ℓ ε)

when

ε \to 0

. A contradiction with ( 38 ). This proves ( 36 ).

□

As a remark, it follows from

(E_{ε})

, ( 11 ), ( 36 ) and standard elliptic theory that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{ε \to 0} u ε = u_{0} i n C_{l o c}^{2} (\bar{Ω} \ {0}) . \end{matrix}

(40)

We let

p \in N^{◆}

. We consider the following assertions:

(C1)

0 < μ ε, 1 < . . . < μ_{ε, p}

(C2)

{lim}_{ε \to 0} μ_{ε, p} = 0 a n d {lim}_{ε \to 0} \frac{μ_{ε, i + 1}}{μ ε, i} = + \infty f o r a l l i = 1 . . . p - 1

(C3) For all

i = 1 . . . p

, there exists

\tilde{u} i \in H 21, 0 (R n -) \cap C^{1} (\bar{R n -}) \ {0}

such that

Δ \tilde{u} i = \frac{| \tilde{u} i |^{2 ◆ - 2} \tilde{u} i}{| x |^{s}} i n D^{'} (R n -), \int_{R n -} | \nabla \tilde{u} i |^{2} d x \geq μ_{s} (R n -)^{\frac{2 ◆}{2 ◆ - 2}}

and

{lim}_{ε \to 0} \tilde{u} ε, i = \tilde{u} i

C_{l o c}^{1} (\bar{R n -} \ {0})

, where

\tilde{u} ε, i (x) : = μ^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} ε, i u ε (φ (k ε, i x))

for all

x \in \frac{U}{k ε, i} \cap {x_{1} \leq 0}

and

k ε, i : = μ^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} ε, i

(C4) For any

i \in {1, . . ., p}

, there exists

α_{i} \in (0, 1]

such that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} μ^{p ε} ε, i = α_{i} .

We say that

ℋ_{p}

holds if there exists

p

families of points

(μ ε, i)_{ε > 0}

i = 1, . . ., p

such that

(μ ε, 1)_{ε > 0}

is as in ( 29 ) and points (C1), (C2) (C3) and (C4) hold. Note that it follows from Step 3 .4 that

ℋ_{1}

holds with the improvement that the convergence in (C3) holds in

C_{l o c}^{1} (\bar{R n -})

Step 3 .5: We prove the following proposition:

Proposition 3.2. Let

Ω

be a smooth bounded domain of

R n

n \geq 3

, such that

0 \in \partial Ω

. We let

(u ε)

(a ε)

and

(p ε)

such that

(E_{ε})

, ( 8 ), ( 9 ) and ( 10 ) hold. Let

p \geq 1

. We assume that

ℋ_{p}

holds. Then either

{lim}_{R \to + \infty} {lim}_{ε \to 0} {sup}_{| x | \geq R k_{ε, p}} | x |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} | u ε (x) - u_{0} (x) |^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} = 0

ℋ_{p + 1}

holds.

Proof of Proposition 3.2 : We assume that

{lim}_{R \to + \infty} {lim}_{ε \to 0} {sup}_{| x | \geq R k_{ε, p}} | x |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} | u ε (x) - u_{0} (x) |^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} \neq 0 .

It then follows that there exists a family

(y ε)_{ε > 0} \in Ω

such that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{ε \to 0} \frac{| y ε |}{k_{ε, p}} = + \infty a n d {lim}_{ε \to 0} | y ε |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} | u ε (y ε) - u_{0} (y ε) |^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} = α > 0 . \end{matrix}

(41)

We claim that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} y ε = 0

. Otherwise, it follows from ( 40 ) that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} | u ε (y ε) - u_{0} (y ε) | = 0

. A contradiction.

Since

u_{0} \in C^{0} (\bar{Ω})

and

{lim}_{ε \to 0} y ε = 0

, we get that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{ε \to 0} | y ε |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} | u ε (y ε) |^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} = α > 0 . \end{matrix}

(42)

In particular,

{lim}_{ε \to 0} | u ε (y ε) | = + \infty

. We let

μ_{ε, p + 1} : = | u ε (y ε) |^{- \frac{2}{n - 2}} a n d k_{ε, p + 1} : = μ_{ε, p + 1}^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} .

As a consequence,

{lim}_{ε \to 0} μ_{ε, p + 1} = 0

. We define

{\tilde{u}}_{ε, p + 1} (x) : = μ_{ε, p + 1}^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} u ε (φ (k_{ε, p + 1} x))

for all

x \in \frac{U}{k_{ε, p + 1}} \cap {x_{1} \leq 0}

. It follows from ( 36 ) that

| φ (k_{ε, p + 1} x) |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} | u ε (φ (k_{ε, p + 1} x)) |^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} \leq C

for all

x \in \frac{U}{k_{ε, p + 1}} \cap {x_{1} \leq 0}

. With the definition of

{\tilde{u}}_{ε, p + 1}

and the properties ( 13 ) of

φ

, we get that there exists

C > 0

such that

| x |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} | {\tilde{u}}_{ε, p + 1} (x) |^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} \leq C

for all

x \in \frac{U}{k_{ε, p + 1}} \cap {x_{1} \leq 0}

. It then follows that hypothesis (L2) of Lemma 2.2 is satisfied. It then follows from Lemma 2.2 that there exists

{\tilde{u}}_{p + 1} \in H 21, 0 (R n -) \cap C^{1} (\bar{R n -})

such that

Δ {\tilde{u}}_{p + 1} = \frac{| {\tilde{u}}_{p + 1} |^{2 ◆ - 2} {\tilde{u}}_{p + 1}}{| x |^{s}} i n D^{'} (R n -),

and

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{ε \to 0} {\tilde{u}}_{ε, p + 1} = {\tilde{u}}_{ε, p + 1} \end{matrix}

(43)

C_{l o c}^{1} (\bar{R n -} \ {0})

. It follows from ( 42 ) and the definition of

k_{ε, p + 1}

that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} \frac{| y ε |}{k_{ε, p + 1}} = α > 0 .

We let

\tilde{y} ε \in {x_{1} < 0}

such that

y ε = φ (k_{ε, p + 1} \tilde{y} ε)

. It then exists

{\tilde{y}}_{0} \in \bar{R n -}

such that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} \tilde{y} ε = {\tilde{y}}_{0} \neq 0

. It then follows from ( 43 ) that

| {\tilde{u}}_{p + 1} (y_{0}) | = {lim}_{ε \to 0} | {\tilde{u}}_{ε, p + 1} (\tilde{y} ε) | = 1,

and then

{\tilde{u}}_{p + 1} ≢ 0

. With arguments similar to the ones developed in the proof of Lemma 3.1 , we then get that

\int_{R n -} | \nabla {\tilde{u}}_{p + 1} |^{2} d x \geq μ_{s} (R n -)^{\frac{2 ◆}{2 ◆ - 2}}

and there exists

α_{p + 1} \in (0, 1]

such that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} μ_{ε, p + 1}^{p ε} = α_{p + 1}

. Moreover, it follows from ( 42 ), ( 41 ) and the definition of

μ_{ε, p + 1}

that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} \frac{μ_{ε, p + 1}}{μ_{ε, p}} = + \infty a n d {lim}_{ε \to 0} μ_{ε, p + 1} = 0 .

As easily checked, the families

(μ ε, i)_{ε > 0}

i \in {1, . . ., p + 1}

satisfy

ℋ_{p + 1}

□

Step 3 .6: Next proposition is the equivalent of Proposition 3.2 at smaller scales.

Proposition 3.3. Let

Ω

be a smooth bounded domain of

R n

n \geq 3

, such that

0 \in \partial Ω

. We let

(u ε)

(a ε)

and

(p ε)

such that

(E_{ε})

, ( 8 ), ( 9 ) and ( 10 ) hold. Let

p \geq 1

. We assume that

ℋ_{p}

holds. Then either for any

i \in {1, . . ., p - 1}

and for any

δ > 0

{lim}_{R \to + \infty} {lim}_{ε \to 0} {sup}_{x \in B_{δ k_{ε, i + 1}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k_{ε, i} (0)}} | x |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} {| u ε (x) - μ_{ε, i + 1}^{- \frac{n - 2}{2}} {\tilde{u}}_{i + 1} (\frac{φ^{- 1} (x)}{k_{ε, i + 1}}) |}^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} = 0

ℋ_{p + 1}

holds.

Proof of Proposition 3.3 : We assume that there exist

i \leq p - 1

δ > 0

such that

{lim}_{R \to + \infty} {lim}_{ε \to 0} {sup}_{x \in B_{δ k_{ε, i + 1}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k_{ε, i} (0)}} | x |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} {| u ε (x) - μ_{ε, i + 1}^{- \frac{n - 2}{2}} {\tilde{u}}_{i + 1} (\frac{φ^{- 1} (x)}{k_{ε, i + 1}}) |}^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} > 0 .

It then follows that there exists a family

(y ε)_{ε > 0} \in Ω

such that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{ε \to 0} \frac{| y ε |}{k_{ε, i}} = + \infty, | y ε | \leq δ k_{ε, i + 1} f o r a l l ε > 0 \end{matrix}

(44)

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{ε \to 0} | y ε |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} {| u ε (y ε) - μ_{ε, i + 1}^{- \frac{n - 2}{2}} {\tilde{u}}_{i + 1} (\frac{φ^{- 1} (y ε)}{k_{ε, i + 1}}) |}^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} = α > 0 . \end{matrix}

(45)

We let

\tilde{y} ε \in R n -

such that

y ε = φ (k_{ε, i + 1} \tilde{y} ε)

. It follows from ( 44 ) that

| \tilde{y} ε | \leq 2 δ

for all

ε > 0

. We claim that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} \tilde{y} ε = 0

. Indeed, we rewrite ( 45 ) as

{lim}_{ε \to 0} | \tilde{y} ε |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} {| {\tilde{u}}_{ε, i + 1} (\tilde{y} ε) - {\tilde{u}}_{i + 1} (\tilde{y} ε) |}^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} = α > 0 .

A contradiction with point (C3) of

ℋ_{p}

in case

\tilde{y} ε \to̸ 0

when

ε \to 0

. Since

{\tilde{u}}_{i + 1} \in C^{0} (\bar{R n -})

, we then get that

| y ε |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} {| μ_{ε, i + 1}^{- \frac{n - 2}{2}} {\tilde{u}}_{i + 1} (\frac{φ^{- 1} (y ε)}{k_{ε, i + 1}}) |}^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} = O {(\frac{| y ε |}{k_{ε, i + 1}})}^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} = o (1)

when

ε \to 0

. We rewrite ( 45 ) as

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{ε \to 0} | y ε |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} | u ε (y ε) |^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} = α > 0 . \end{matrix}

(46)

We let

ν ε : = | u ε (y ε) |^{- \frac{2}{n - 2}} a n d ℓ ε : = ν^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} ε .

We define

\tilde{u} ε (x) : = ν^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} ε u ε (φ (ℓ ε x))

for all

x \in \frac{U}{ℓ ε} \cap {x_{1} \leq 0}

. It follows from ( 36 ) that

| φ (ℓ ε x) |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} | u ε (φ (ℓ ε x)) |^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} \leq C

for all

x \in \frac{U}{ℓ ε} \cap {x_{1} \leq 0}

. With the definition of

\tilde{u} ε

and the properties ( 13 ) of

φ

, we get that there exists

C > 0

such that

| x |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} | \tilde{u} ε (x) |^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} \leq C

for all

x \in \frac{U}{ℓ ε} \cap {x_{1} \leq 0}

. It then follows that hypothesis (L2) of Lemma 2.2 is satisfied. It then follows from Lemma 2.2 that there exists

\tilde{u} \in H 21, 0 (R n -) \cap C^{1} (\bar{R n -})

such that

Δ \tilde{u} = \frac{| \tilde{u} |^{2 ◆ - 2} \tilde{u}}{| x |^{s}} i n D^{'} (R n -),

and

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{ε \to 0} \tilde{u} ε = \tilde{u} \end{matrix}

(47)

C_{l o c}^{1} (\bar{R n -} \ {0})

. It follows from ( 46 ) and the definition of

ℓ ε

that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} \frac{| y ε |}{ℓ ε} = α > 0 .

We let

\bar{y} ε \in {x_{1} < 0}

such that

y ε = φ (ℓ ε \bar{y} ε)

. It then exists

{\bar{y}}_{0} \in \bar{R n -}

such that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} \bar{y} ε = {\bar{y}}_{0} \neq 0

. It follows from ( 47 ) and the definition of

\tilde{u} ε

and

\tilde{y} ε

that

| \tilde{u} ({\bar{y}}_{0}) | = {lim}_{ε \to 0} | \tilde{u} ε (\bar{y} ε) | = 1,

and then

\tilde{u} ≢ 0

. With arguments similar to the ones developed in the proof of Lemma 3.1 , we then get that

\int_{R n -} | \nabla \tilde{u} |^{2} d x \geq μ_{s} (R n -)^{\frac{2 ◆}{2 ◆ - 2}}

and there exists

α \in (0, 1]

such that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} ν^{p ε} ε = α

. Moreover, it follows from ( 46 ), ( 44 ) and the definition of

ν ε

that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} \frac{ν ε}{μ_{ε, i}} = + \infty a n d {lim}_{ε \to 0} \frac{μ_{ε, i + 1}}{ν ε} = + \infty .

As easily checked, the families

(μ ε, 1)

,...,

(μ ε, i)

(ν ε)

(μ_{ε, i + 1})

,...,

(μ ε, N)_{ε > 0}

satisfy

ℋ_{p + 1}

□

Step 3 .7: This last Step is the proof of Proposition 3.1 .

Proposition 3.4. Let

Ω

be a smooth bounded domain of

R n

n \geq 3

, such that

0 \in \partial Ω

. We let

(u ε)

(a ε)

and

(p ε)

such that

(E_{ε})

, ( 8 ), ( 9 ) and ( 10 ) hold. We let

N_{0} = max {p / ℋ_{p} h o l d s}

. Then

N_{0} < + \infty

and the conclusion of Proposition 3.1 holds with

N = N_{0}

Proof of Proposition 3.4 : Indeed, assume that

ℋ_{p}

holds. Let

δ, R > 0

. Since

μ ε, i = o (μ_{ε, i + 1})

for all

i \in {1, . . ., N - 1}

, we then get with a change of variable and the definition of

\tilde{u} ε, i

(see (C3)) that

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} | \nabla u ε |^{2} d x & \geq & \sum_{i = 1}^{N} \int_{φ (B_{R k ε, i} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{δ k ε, i} (0))} | \nabla u ε |^{2} d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & \sum_{i = 1}^{N} μ^{- \frac{n - 2}{2 ◆ - 2} p ε} ε, i \int_{B_{R} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{δ} (0)} | \nabla \tilde{u} ε, i |_{g_{ε, i}}^{2} d v_{g_{ε, i}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & \sum_{i = 1}^{N} \int_{B_{R} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{δ} (0)} | \nabla \tilde{u} ε, i |_{g_{ε, i}}^{2} d v_{g_{ε, i}} \end{matrix}

where

g_{ε, i}

is the metric such that

(g_{ε, i})_{q r} = (\partial_{q} φ (k ε, i x), \partial_{r} φ (k ε, i x))

for all

q, r \in {1, . . ., p}

. Passing to the limit

ε \to 0

and using point (C3) of

ℋ_{p}

, we get that

\int_{Ω} | \nabla u ε |^{2} d x \geq p μ_{s} (R n -)^{\frac{2 ◆}{2 ◆ - 2}} + o (1)

when

ε \to 0

. With ( 10 ), we get that there exists

C > 0

such that

p \leq Λ^{2} μ_{s} (R n -)^{- \frac{2 ◆}{2 ◆ - 2}} .

It then follows that

N_{0} < + \infty

exists.

We let families

(μ ε, 1)_{ε > 0}

,...,

(μ_{ε, N_{0}})_{ε > 0}

such that

ℋ_{N_{0}}

holds. We argue by contradiction and assume that the conclusion of Proposition 3.1 does not hold with

N = N_{0}

Assertions (A1), (A2), (A3) (A4) and (A7) hold. Assume that (A5) or (A6) does not hold. It then follows from Propositions 3.2 and 3.3 that

ℋ_{N + 1}

holds. A contradiction with the choice of

N = N_{0}

, and the proposition is proved.

□

4 Strong pointwise estimates, Part 1

The objective of this section is the proof of the following strong pointwise estimate:

Proposition 4.1. Let

Ω

be a smooth bounded domain of

R n

n \geq 3

. We let

s \in (0, 2)

. We let

(p ε)_{ε > 0}

such that

p ε \in [0, 2 ◆ - 2)

for all

ε > 0

and ( 9 ) holds. We consider

(u ε)_{ε > 0} \in H 21, 0 (Ω)

such that ( 8 ),

(E_{ε})

and ( 10 ) hold.

We assume that blow-up occurs, that is

{lim}_{ε \to 0} ∥ u ε ∥_{L^{\infty} (Ω)} = + \infty .

We let

μ_{ε, 1}, . . ., μ_{ε, N}

as in Proposition 3.1 . Then, there exists

C > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | u ε (x) | \leq C \sum_{i = 1}^{N} \frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i | x |}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | x |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2}}} + C | x | \end{matrix}

(48)

for all

ε > 0

and all

x \in Ω

The proof of this estimate goes through seven steps. We let

s \in (0, 2)

. We let

(p ε)_{ε > 0}

such that

p ε \in [0, 2 ◆ - 2)

for all

ε > 0

and ( 9 ) holds. We consider

(u ε)_{ε > 0} \in H 21, 0 (Ω)

that satisfies the hypothesis of Proposition 4.1 . We let

μ_{ε, 1}, . . ., μ_{ε, N}

as in Proposition 3.1 .

Step 4 .1: We claim that for any

ν \in (0, 1)

and any

R > 0

, there exists

C (ν, R) > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | u ε (x) | \leq C (ν, R) \cdot (\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2} - ν (n - 1)} ε, N d (x, \partial Ω)^{1 - ν}}{| x |^{n (1 - ν)}} + d (x, \partial Ω)^{1 - ν}) \end{matrix}

(49)

for all

x \in Ω \ {\bar{B}}_{R k_{ε, N}} (0)

and all

ε > 0

Proof of the Claim: Since

Δ

is coercive on

Ω

, we let

G

be the Green's function for

Δ

Ω

with Dirichlet boundary condition. We let

H (x) = - \partial_{ν} G (x, 0)

for all

x \in \bar{Ω} \ {0}

. Here

ν

denotes the outward normal vector at

\partial Ω

. It follows from Theorem 9.2 of the Appendix that

H \in C^{2} (\bar{Ω} \ {0})

, that

\begin{matrix} Δ H = 0 \end{matrix}

(50)

Ω

and that there exist

δ_{1}, C_{1} > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} \frac{d (x, \partial Ω)}{C_{1} | x |^{n}} \leq H (x) \leq \frac{C_{1} d (x, \partial Ω)}{| x |^{n}} \end{matrix}

(51)

and

\begin{matrix} \frac{| \nabla H (x) |}{H (x)} \geq \frac{1}{C_{1} d (x, \partial Ω)} \geq \frac{1}{C_{1} | x |} \end{matrix}

(52)

for all

x \in Ω \cap B_{2 δ_{1}} (0)

. Since

Δ

is coercive, we let

λ_{1} > 0

be the first eigenvalue of

Δ

Ω

, and we let

ψ \in C^{2} (\bar{Ω})

be the unique eigenfunction such that

{\begin{matrix} Δ ψ = λ_{1} ψ & i n Ω \\ ψ > 0 & i n Ω \\ ψ = 0 & o n \partial Ω \\ \int_{Ω} ψ^{2} d x = 1 \end{matrix}}

It follows from standard elliptic theory and Hopf 's maximum principle that there exists

C_{2}^{'}, δ_{2} > 0

such that

\frac{1}{C_{2}^{'}} d (x, \partial Ω) \leq ψ (x) \leq C_{2}^{'} d (x, \partial Ω) a n d \frac{1}{C_{2}^{'}} \leq | \nabla ψ (x) | \leq C_{2}^{'}

for all

x \in Ω \cap B_{2 δ_{2}} (0)

. Consequently, there exists

C_{2} > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} \frac{1}{C_{2}} d (x, \partial Ω) \leq ψ (x) \leq C_{2} d (x, \partial Ω) a n d \frac{| \nabla ψ (x) |}{ψ (x)} \geq \frac{1}{C_{2} d (x, \partial Ω)} \geq \frac{1}{C_{2} | x |} \end{matrix}

(53)

for all

x \in Ω \cap B_{2 δ_{2}} (0)

. We let the operator

L_{ε} = Δ + (a ε - \frac{| u ε |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε}}{| x |^{s}}) .

Step 4 .1.1: We claim that there exist

δ_{0} > 0

and

R_{0} > 0

such that for any

ν \in (0, 1)

and any

R > R_{0}

δ \in (0, δ_{0})

, we have that

\begin{matrix} L_{ε} H^{1 - ν} > 0, a n d L_{ε} ψ^{1 - ν} > 0 \end{matrix}

(54)

for all

x \in Ω \cap B_{δ} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k ε, N} (0)

and for all

ε > 0

sufficiently small. Indeed, with ( 50 ), we get that

\begin{matrix} \frac{L_{ε} H^{1 - ν}}{H^{1 - ν}} (x) = a ε (x) + ν (1 - ν) \frac{| \nabla H |^{2}}{H^{2}} (x) - \frac{| u ε (x) |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε}}{| x |^{s}} \end{matrix}

(55)

for all

x \in Ω \ {0}

and all

ε > 0

. We let

0 < δ_{0} \leq min {δ_{1}, δ_{2}}

such that

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} 2 δ_{0}^{2} {sup}_{Ω} | a ε | \leq \frac{ν (1 - ν)}{2 \cdot max {C_{1}^{2}, C_{2}^{2}}} \\ 2^{2 ◆ + 1} δ_{0}^{2 - s} ∥ u_{0} ∥_{L^{\infty} (Ω)}^{2 ◆ - 2} < \frac{ν (1 - ν)}{4 \cdot max {C_{1}^{2}, C_{2}^{2}}} \end{matrix}} \end{matrix}

(56)

for all

ε > 0

. This choice is possible thanks to ( 8 ). It follows from point (A5) of Proposition 3.1 that there exists

R_{0} > 0

such that for any

R > R_{0}

, we have that

| x |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} | u ε (x) - u_{0} (x) |^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} \leq {(\frac{ν (1 - ν)}{2^{2 ◆ + 1} max {C_{1}^{2}, C_{2}^{2}}})}^{\frac{1}{2 ◆ - 2}}

for all

x \in Ω \ {\bar{B}}_{R k ε, N} (0)

and all

ε > 0

. We then get that

\begin{matrix} | x |^{2 - s} | u ε (x) |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε} & \leq & 2^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} | x |^{2 - s} | u ε (x) - u_{0} (x) |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + 2^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} | x |^{2 - s} | u_{0} (x) |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & 2^{- p ε} \frac{ν (1 - ν)}{4 \cdot max {C_{1}^{2}, C_{2}^{2}}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + 2^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} δ^{2 - s} ∥ u_{0} ∥_{L^{\infty} (Ω)}^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε} \end{matrix}

for all

x \in Ω \ {\bar{B}}_{R k ε, N} (0)

and all

ε > 0

. We get with the choice ( 56 ) of

δ_{0}

that for any

δ \in (0, δ_{0})

and all

R > R_{0}

\begin{matrix} | x |^{2 - s} | u ε (x) |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε} & \leq & \frac{ν (1 - ν)}{4 \cdot max {C_{1}^{2}, C_{2}^{2}}} + 2^{2 ◆ - 1} δ_{0}^{2 - s} ∥ u_{0} ∥_{L^{\infty} (Ω)}^{2 ◆ - 2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} < & \frac{ν (1 - ν)}{2 \cdot max {C_{1}^{2}, C_{2}^{2}}} \end{matrix}

for all

x \in (B_{δ} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k ε, N} (0)) \cap Ω

and all

ε > 0

small enough. With ( 55 ) and ( 56 ), we get that

\begin{matrix} \frac{L_{ε} H^{1 - ν}}{H^{1 - ν}} (x) & \geq & \frac{ν (1 - ν)}{C_{1}^{2} | x |^{2}} + a ε (x) - \frac{ν (1 - ν)}{2 C_{1}^{2} | x |^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & \frac{ν (1 - ν) - 2 C_{1}^{2} | x |^{2} | a ε (x) |}{2 C_{1}^{2} | x |^{2}} > 0 \end{matrix}

for all

x \in (B_{δ} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k ε, N} (0)) \cap Ω

and all

ε > 0

small enough. We deal with the second inequality of ( 54 ). We have that

\frac{L_{ε} ψ^{1 - ν}}{ψ^{1 - ν}} (x) = a ε (x) + (1 - ν) λ_{1} + ν (1 - ν) \frac{| \nabla ψ |^{2}}{ψ^{2}} (x) - \frac{| u ε (x) |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε}}{| x |^{s}}

for all

x \in Ω

. With ( 53 ) and ( 56 ) we get that

\frac{L_{ε} ψ^{1 - ν}}{ψ^{1 - ν}} (x) \geq \frac{ν (1 - ν) - 2 C_{2}^{2} | a ε (x) | δ^{2} + 2 (1 - ν) λ_{1} | x |^{2} C_{2}^{2}}{2 C_{2}^{2} | x |^{2}} > 0

for all

x \in (B_{δ} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k ε, N} (0)) \cap Ω

and all

ε > 0

. This proves the last inequality of ( 54 ).

Step 4 .1.2: It follows from point (A4) of Proposition 3.1 that there exists

C_{1} (R) > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | u ε (x) | \leq C_{1} (R) μ^{- \frac{n}{2}} ε, N d (x, \partial Ω) \end{matrix}

(57)

for all

x \in Ω \cap \partial B_{R k ε, N} (0)

and all

ε > 0

. It follows from point (A1) of Proposition 3.1 that there exists

C_{2} (δ) > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | u ε (x) | \leq C_{2} (δ) d (x, \partial Ω) \end{matrix}

(58)

for all

x \in Ω \cap \partial B_{δ} (0)

and all

ε > 0

. We let

D_{ε, R, δ} : = (B_{δ} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k ε, N} (0)) \cap Ω .

We let

α_{ε} : = 2 C_{1} (R) C_{1}^{1 - ν} R^{n - (n - 1) ν} α_{N}^{- \frac{n - (n - 1) ν}{2 ◆ - 2}} μ_{ε, N}^{\frac{n}{2} - ν (n - 1)}

and

β_{ε} : = 2 δ^{ν} C_{2} (δ) C_{2}^{1 - ν},

and

φ_{ε} (x) = α_{ε} H^{1 - ν} (x) + β_{ε} ψ^{1 - ν} (x)

for all

x \in \bar{D_{ε, R, δ}}

and all

ε > 0

. Here,

α_{N}

is as in point (A7) of Proposition 3.1 .

We claim that

\begin{matrix} | u ε (x) | \leq φ_{ε} (x) \end{matrix}

(59)

for all

ε > 0

and all

x \in \partial D_{ε, R, δ}

. Indeed, with inequalities ( 51 ) and ( 57 ), we get that for any

x \in Ω \cap \partial B_{R k ε, N} (0)

\begin{matrix} \frac{| u ε (x) |}{α_{ε} H (x)^{1 - ν}} \leq \frac{μ^{ν (n - 1) - n} ε, N d (x, \partial Ω)^{ν} | x |^{n - n ν}}{2 R^{n - (n - 1) ν} α_{N}^{- \frac{n - (n - 1) ν}{2 ◆ - 2}}} \leq \frac{μ^{- \frac{n - (n - 1) ν}{2 ◆ - 2} p ε} ε, N}{2 α_{N}^{- \frac{n - (n - 1) ν}{2 ◆ - 2}}} \leq 1 \end{matrix}

when

ε \to 0

with point (A7) of Proposition 3.1 . Similarly, we have with ( 53 ) and ( 58 ) that

\frac{| u ε (x) |}{β_{ε} ψ (x)^{1 - ν}} \leq \frac{d (x, \partial Ω)^{ν}}{2 δ^{ν}} < 1

for all

x \in Ω \cap \partial B_{δ} (0)

and all

ε > 0

. On

\partial Ω \cap (B_{δ} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k ε, N} (0))

, we clearly have

φ_{ε} (x) > | u ε (x) | = 0

. As easily checked, these assertions prove ( 59 ).

Step 4 .1.3: We claim that

L_{ε}

verifies the following comparison maximum: if

φ \in C^{2} (D_{ε, R, δ}) \cap C^{0} (\bar{D_{ε, R, δ}})

, then

{\begin{matrix} L_{ε} φ \geq 0 & i n D_{ε, R, δ} \\ φ \geq 0 & o n \partial D_{ε, R, δ} \end{matrix}} \Rightarrow φ \geq 0 i n D_{ε, R, δ} .

Indeed, we let

U_{0}

be an open subset of

R n

such that

\bar{Ω} \subset \subset U_{0}

. Since the operator

Δ

is coercive in

U_{0}

(with boundary Dirichlet condition), we let

\tilde{G} \in C^{2} (U_{0} \times U_{0} \ {(x, x) / x \in U_{0}})

be the Green's function for

Δ

with Dirichlet condition in

U_{0}

. In other words,

\tilde{G}

satisfies

Δ \tilde{G} (x, \cdot) = δ_{x}

weakly in

D (U_{0})

. For the existence, we refer to Theorem 9.1 of Appendix B. Moreover, since

0 \in U_{0}

is in the interior of the domain, there exists

{\hat{δ}}_{0} > 0

and

C_{0} > 0

such that

\frac{1}{C_{0} | x |^{n - 2}} \leq \tilde{G} (0, x) \leq \frac{C_{0}}{| x |^{n - 2}}

and

\frac{| \nabla \tilde{G} (0, x) |}{\tilde{G} (0, x)} \geq \frac{C_{0}^{'}}{| x |}

for all

ε > 0

and all

x \in B_{2 {\hat{δ}}_{0}} (0) \ {0}

. The proof of these estimates goes as in the proof of points (G9) and (G10) of Theorem 9.2 . We refer to [15] for the details.

With the same techniques as in Step 4 .1.1, we get that for

R > 0

large enough and

δ > 0

small enough, then

{\tilde{G}}^{1 - ν} > 0 a n d L_{ε} {\tilde{G}}^{1 - ν} > 0

\bar{D_{ε, R, δ}}

for all

ε > 0

. It then follows from [5] that

L_{ε}

verifies the above mentioned comparison principle.

Step 4 .1.4: It follows from ( 54 ) and ( 59 ) that

{\begin{matrix} L_{ε} φ_{ε} \geq 0 = L_{ε} u ε & i n D_{ε, R, δ} \\ φ_{ε} \geq 0 = u ε & o n \partial D_{ε, R, δ} \\ L_{ε} φ_{ε} \geq 0 = - L_{ε} u ε & i n D_{ε, R, δ} \\ φ_{ε} \geq 0 = - u ε & o n \partial D_{ε, R, δ} \end{matrix}} .

It follows from the above comparison principle that

| u ε (x) | \leq φ_{ε} (x)

for all

x \in D_{ε, R, δ}

. With ( 51 ), we then get that ( 49 ) holds on

D_{ε, R, δ} = (B_{δ} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k_{ε, N}} (0)) \cap Ω

for

R

large and

δ

small. It follows from this last assertion, ( 51 ) and points (A1) and (A4) of Proposition 3.1 that ( 49 ) holds on

Ω \ {\bar{B}}_{R k_{ε, N}} (0)

for all

R > 0

□

Step 4 .2: Let

i \in {1, . . ., N - 1}

. We claim that for any

ν \in (0, 1)

and any

R, ρ > 0

, there exists

C (ν, R, ρ) > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | u ε (x) | \leq C (ν, R, ρ) \cdot (\frac{μ_{ε, i}^{\frac{n}{2} - ν (n - 1)} d (x, \partial Ω)^{1 - ν}}{| x |^{n (1 - ν)}} + μ_{i + 1, ε}^{ν - \frac{n}{2}} d (x, \partial Ω)^{1 - ν}) \end{matrix}

(60)

for all

x \in B_{R k_{ε, i + 1}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{ρ k_{ε, i}} (0)

and all

ε > 0

Proof of the Claim: We let

i \in {1, . . ., N - 1}

. We follow the lines of the proof of Step 4 .1. We let

H

and

ψ

as in Step 4 .1. Recall that we then get that there exists

δ_{1} > 0

and

C_{1} > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} \frac{d (x, \partial Ω)}{C_{1} | x |^{n}} \leq H (x) \leq \frac{C_{1} d (x, \partial Ω)}{| x |^{n}} \end{matrix}

(61)

and

\begin{matrix} \frac{| \nabla H (x) |}{H (x)} \geq \frac{1}{C_{1} d (x, \partial Ω)} \geq \frac{1}{C_{1} | x |} \end{matrix}

(62)

for all

x \in B_{2 δ_{1}} (0) \ {0}

. Moreover there exists

C_{2}, δ_{2} > 0

such that

ψ

verifies

\begin{matrix} \frac{1}{C_{2}} d (x, \partial Ω) \leq ψ (x) \leq C_{2} d (x, \partial Ω) a n d \frac{| \nabla ψ (x) |}{ψ (x)} \geq \frac{1}{C_{2} | x |} \end{matrix}

(63)

for all

x \in Ω \cap B_{2 δ_{2}} (0)

. We let the operator

L_{ε} = Δ + (a ε - \frac{| u ε |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε}}{| x |^{s}}) .

Step 4 .2.1: We claim that there exist

ρ_{0} > 0

and

R_{0} > 0

such that for any

ν \in (0, 1)

and any

R > R_{0}

ρ \in (0, ρ_{0})

, we have that

\begin{matrix} L_{ε} H^{1 - ν} > 0 a n d L_{ε} ψ^{1 - ν} > 0 \end{matrix}

(64)

for all

x \in Ω \cap (B_{ρ k_{ε, i + 1}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k_{ε, i}} (0))

and for all

ε > 0

sufficiently small. Indeed, as in Step 4 .1, we get that

\begin{matrix} \frac{L_{ε} H^{1 - ν}}{H^{1 - ν}} (x) = a ε (x) + ν (1 - ν) \frac{| \nabla H |^{2}}{H^{2}} (x) - \frac{| u ε (x) |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε}}{| x |^{s}} \end{matrix}

(65)

for all

x \in Ω \ {0}

and all

ε > 0

. We let

0 < ρ_{0} < 1

such that

\begin{matrix} 2^{2 ◆ + 1} ρ_{0}^{2 - s} ∥ {\tilde{u}}_{i + 1} ∥_{L^{\infty} (B_{2} (0) \cap R n -)}^{2 ◆ - 2} < \frac{ν (1 - ν)}{max {C_{1}^{2}, C_{2}^{2}}} \end{matrix}

(66)

for all

ε > 0

. It follows from point (A6) of Proposition 3.1 that there exists

R_{0} > 0

such that for any

R > R_{0}

| x |^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} {| u ε (x) - μ_{ε, i + 1}^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} {\tilde{u}}_{i + 1} (\frac{φ^{- 1} (x)}{k_{ε, i + 1}}) |}^{1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2}} \leq {(\frac{ν (1 - ν)}{2^{2 ◆ + 1} max {C_{1}^{2}, C_{2}^{2}}})}^{\frac{1}{2 ◆ - 2}}

for all

x \in Ω \cap (B_{k_{ε, i + 1}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k ε, i} (0))

and all

ε > 0

. We then get that

\begin{matrix} | x |^{2 - s} | u ε (x) |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq 2^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} | x |^{2 - s} {| u ε (x) - μ_{ε, i + 1}^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} {\tilde{u}}_{i + 1} (\frac{φ^{- 1} (x)}{k_{ε, i + 1}}) |}^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + 2^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} | x |^{2 - s} μ_{ε, i + 1}^{- \frac{n - 2}{2} (2 ◆ - 2) \cdot (1 - \frac{p ε}{2 ◆ - 2})} {sup}_{B_{2} (0) \cap R n -} | {\tilde{u}}_{i + 1} |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq 2^{- p ε} \frac{ν (1 - ν)}{4 \cdot max {C_{1}^{2}, C_{2}^{2}}} + 2^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} {(\frac{| x |}{k_{ε, i + 1}})}^{2 - s} ∥ {\tilde{u}}_{i + 1} ∥_{L^{\infty} (B_{2} (0) \cap R n -)}^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε} \end{matrix}

for all

x \in Ω \cap (B_{k_{ε, i + 1}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k ε, i} (0))

and all

ε > 0

. We then get with the choice ( 66 ) of

ρ_{0}

that for any

ρ \in (0, ρ_{0})

and all

R > R_{0}

\begin{matrix} | x |^{2 - s} | u ε (x) |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε} & \leq & \frac{ν (1 - ν)}{4 \cdot max {C_{1}^{2}, C_{2}^{2}}} + 2^{2 ◆ - 1} ρ_{0}^{2 - s} ∥ {\tilde{u}}_{i + 1} ∥_{L^{\infty} (B_{2} (0) \cap R n -)}^{2 ◆ - 2} + o (1) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} < & \frac{ν (1 - ν)}{2 \cdot max {C_{1}^{2}, C_{2}^{2}}} \end{matrix}

for all

x \in (B_{ρ k_{ε, i + 1}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k ε, i} (0)) \cap Ω

and all

ε > 0

small enough. Since ( 8 ) holds, we get with ( 65 ) that

\begin{matrix} \frac{L_{ε} H^{1 - ν}}{H^{1 - ν}} (x) & \geq & \frac{ν (1 - ν)}{C_{1}^{2} | x |^{2}} + a ε (x) - \frac{ν (1 - ν)}{2 C_{1}^{2} | x |^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & \frac{ν (1 - ν) + 2 | x |^{2} C_{1}^{2} a ε (x)}{2 C_{1}^{2} | x |^{2}} > 0 \end{matrix}

for all

x \in Ω \cap (B_{ρ k_{ε, i + 1}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k ε, i} (0))

and all

ε > 0

small enough. The proof of the second inequality of ( 64 ) goes similarly (see Step 4 .1 for details). This proves ( 64 ).

Step 4 .2.2: It follows from point (A4) of Proposition 3.1 that there exists

C_{1} (R) > 0

and

C_{2} (ρ)

such that

\begin{matrix} | u ε (x) | \leq C_{1} (R) μ_{ε, i}^{- \frac{n}{2}} d (x, \partial Ω) & f o r a l l x \in Ω \cap \partial B_{R k ε, i} (0) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} | u ε (x) | \leq C_{2} (ρ) μ_{ε, i + 1}^{- \frac{n}{2}} d (x, \partial Ω) & f o r a l l x \in Ω \cap \partial B_{ρ k_{ε, i + 1}} (0) . \end{matrix}

We let

D_{ε, R, ρ} : = (B_{ρ k_{ε, i + 1}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k ε, i} (0)) \cap Ω .

We let

α_{ε} : = 2 C_{1} (R) C_{1}^{1 - ν} R^{n - ν (n - 1)} α_{i}^{- \frac{n - ν (n - 1)}{2 ◆ - 2}} μ_{ε, i}^{\frac{n}{2} - ν (n - 1)}

and

β_{ε} : = 2 C_{2} (ρ) C_{2}^{1 - ν} ρ^{ν} α_{i + 1}^{- \frac{ν}{2 ◆ - 2}} μ_{ε, i + 1}^{- \frac{n}{2} + ν},

and

φ_{ε} (x) : = α_{ε} H^{1 - ν} (x) + β_{ε} ψ^{1 - ν} (x)

for all

x \in \bar{D_{ε, R, δ}}

and all

ε > 0

. Here, the

α_{i}

's are as in Point (A7) of Proposition 3.1 . Similarly to what was done in Step 4 .1, we then get that

\begin{matrix} | u ε (x) | \leq φ_{ε} (x) \end{matrix}

(67)

for all

ε > 0

and all

x \in \partial D_{ε, R, ρ}

. The operator

L_{ε}

verifies the comparison principle on

D_{ε, R, ρ}

as in Step 4 .1.3. It then follows that

| u ε (x) | \leq φ_{ε} (x)

for all

x \in D_{ε, R, ρ}

. With ( 61 ), we then get that ( 60 ) holds on

D_{ε, R, ρ}

for

R

large and

ρ

small. It follows from this last assertion and point (A4) of Proposition 3.1 that ( 60 ) holds on

(B_{ρ k_{ε, i + 1}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k ε, i} (0)) \cap Ω

for all

R, ρ > 0

□

Step 4 .3: As easily checked, it follows from ( 49 ), ( 60 ) and Proposition 3.1 that for any

ν \in (0, 1)

, there exists

C_{ν} > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | u ε (x) | \leq C_{ν} \sum_{i = 1}^{N} \frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2} - (n - 1) ν} ε, i | x |^{1 - ν}}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | x |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2} (1 - ν)}} + C_{ν} | x |^{1 - ν} \end{matrix}

(68)

for all

x \in Ω

and all

ε > 0

. Note that we have used that

d (x, \partial Ω) \leq | x - 0 | = | x |

for all

x \in Ω

. We let

G

be the Green's function of

Δ

Ω

with Dirichlet boundary condition. It follows from Green's representation formula and ( 68 ) that

\begin{matrix} | u ε (x) | & = & | \int_{Ω} G (x, y) (\frac{| u ε (y) |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε} u ε (y)}{| y |^{s}} - a ε (y) u ε (y)) d y | \end{matrix}

(69)

\begin{matrix} \leq & C \int_{Ω} G (x, y) (\frac{| u ε (y) |^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε}}{| y |^{s}} + 1) d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C_{ν} \sum_{i = 1}^{N} \int_{Ω} \frac{G (x, y)}{| y |^{s}} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2} - (n - 1) ν} ε, i | y |^{1 - ν}}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | y |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2} (1 - ν)}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + C_{ν} \int_{Ω} G (x, y) (| y |^{(1 - ν) (2 ◆ - 1 - p ε) - s} + 1) d y \end{matrix}

(70)

Step 4 .4: We claim that there exists

C > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} G (x, y) (| y |^{(1 - ν) (2 ◆ - 1 - p ε) - s} + 1) d y \leq C | x | \end{matrix}

(71)

Proof of the Claim: Indeed, we let

ψ_{ε} \in H_{1, 0}^{p} (Ω)

(

1 < p < \frac{n}{s}

) such that

Δ ψ_{ε} = | y |^{(1 - ν) (2 ◆ - 1 - p ε) - s} + 1 i n D^{'} (Ω) .

Here,

H_{1, 0}^{p} (Ω)

denote the completion of

C_{c}^{\infty} (Ω)

for the norm

∥ \cdot ∥ : = ∥ \nabla \cdot ∥_{p}

. Since

s \in (0, 2)

, it follows from standard elliptic theory that for

ν > 0

small,

ψ_{ε} \in C^{1} (\bar{Ω})

and that there exists

C > 0

such that

∥ ψ_{ε} ∥_{C^{1} (\bar{Ω})} \leq C .

Since

ψ_{ε} (0) = 0

, we get that

| ψ_{ε} (x) | \leq C | x |

for all

x \in Ω

. Moreover, since

s \in (0, 2)

, we get with Green's representation formula that

ψ_{ε} (x) = \int_{Ω} G (x, y) (| y |^{(1 - ν) (2 ◆ - 1 - p ε) - s} + 1) d y

for all

x \in Ω

and all

ε > 0

. Inequation ( 71 ) then follows.

□

Step 4 .5: We let

i \in {1, . . ., N}

. We claim that there exists

C > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} \frac{G (x, y)}{| y |^{s}} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2} - (n - 1) ν} ε, i | y |^{1 - ν}}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | y |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2} (1 - ν)}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C \frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i | x |}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | x |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2}}} \end{matrix}

(72)

for all

x \in Ω

such that

| x | \geq μ ε, i

Proof of the Claim: Indeed, with point (G6) of Theorem 9.1 on the Green's function, we get that

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} \frac{G (x, y)}{| y |^{s}} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2} - (n - 1) ν} ε, i | y |^{1 - ν}}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | y |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2} (1 - ν)}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C \int_{Ω} \frac{| y |}{| x - y |^{n - 1} | y |^{s}} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2} - (n - 1) ν} ε, i | y |^{1 - ν}}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | y |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2} (1 - ν)}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq I_{1, ε} (x) + I_{2, ε} (x) . \end{matrix}

Here,

I_{i, ε} (x) : = C \int_{Ω_{i} (x)} \frac{| y |}{| x - y |^{n - 1} | y |^{s}} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2} - (n - 1) ν} ε, i | y |^{1 - ν}}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | y |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2} (1 - ν)}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y

where

Ω_{1} (x) = Ω \cap {| x - y | > | x | / 2} a n d Ω_{2} (x) = Ω \cap {| x - y | < | x | / 2} .

We compute these two integrals separately. We let

R > 0

such that

Ω \subset B_{R} (0)

We have that

\begin{matrix} I_{1, ε} (x) & \leq & C | x |^{1 - n} \int_{B_{R} (0)} | y |^{1 - s} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2} - (n - 1) ν} ε, i | y |^{1 - ν}}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | y |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2} (1 - ν)}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C | x |^{1 - n} μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i \int_{B_{\frac{R}{μ ε, i}} (0)} | y |^{1 - s} {(\frac{| y |^{1 - ν}}{{(1 + | y |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2} (1 - ν)}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C^{'} | x |^{1 - n} μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i \end{matrix}

(73)

since

s \in (0, 2)

and up to taking

ν > 0

small enough. Note that we have used here point (A7) of Proposition 3.1 .

We deal with the second integral. Note that when

| x - y | \leq | x | / 2

, we have that

\frac{| x |}{2} \leq | y | \leq \frac{3 | x |}{2} .

Taking

ν > 0

small enough, we then get that

\begin{matrix} I_{2, ε} (x) & \leq & C | x |^{1 - s} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2} - (n - 1) ν} ε, i | x |^{1 - ν}}{| x |^{n (1 - ν)}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} \int_{{| x - y | \leq | x | / 2}} | x - y |^{1 - n} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C | x |^{1 - n} μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i \cdot | x |^{n + 1 - s} μ^{- \frac{n}{2}} ε, i {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2} - (n - 1) ν} ε, i | x |^{1 - ν}}{| x |^{n (1 - ν)}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C^{'} | x |^{1 - n} μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i \end{matrix}

(74)

since

| x | \geq μ ε, i

. Plugging together ( 73 ) and ( 74 ), we get that

\int_{Ω} \frac{G (x, y)}{| y |^{s}} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2} - (n - 1) ν} ε, i | y |^{1 - ν}}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | y |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2} (1 - ν)}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y \leq C | x |^{1 - n} μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i

Since

| x | \geq μ ε, i

, we get ( 72 ).

□

Step 4 .6: We let

i \in {1, . . ., N}

. We claim that there exists

C > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} \frac{G (x, y)}{| y |^{s}} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2} - (n - 1) ν} ε, i | y |^{1 - ν}}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | y |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2} (1 - ν)}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C \frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i | x |}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | x |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2}}} \end{matrix}

(75)

for all

x \in Ω

such that

| x | \leq μ ε, i

Proof of the Claim: Indeed, let

p \in (1, n / s)

. We let

φ_{ε, i} \in H_{1, 0}^{p} (Ω)

such that

\begin{matrix} Δ φ_{ε, i} = \frac{1}{| x |^{s}} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2} - (n - 1) ν} ε, i | x |^{1 - ν}}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | x |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2} (1 - ν)}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} i n D^{'} (Ω) . \end{matrix}

(76)

We let

φ : U \to V

defined in ( 13 ) with

y_{0} = 0

. We let

{\tilde{φ}}_{ε, i} (x) = μ^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} ε, i φ_{ε, i} \circ φ (μ ε, i x)

for all

x \in \frac{U}{μ ε, i} \cap R n -

. We let

R > 0

such that

Ω \subset B_{R} (0)

. It follows from Green's representation formula and the estimate (G5) on the Green's function that for any

x \in \frac{U}{μ ε, i} \cap R n -

, we have that

\begin{matrix} | {\tilde{φ}}_{ε, i} (x) | & \leq & μ^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} ε, i \int_{Ω} \frac{G (φ (μ ε, i x), y)}{| y |^{s}} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2} - (n - 1) ν} ε, i | y |^{1 - ν}}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | y |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2} (1 - ν)}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C μ^{\frac{n - 2}{2}} ε, i \int_{Ω} \frac{1}{| φ (μ ε, i x) - y |^{n - 2} | y |^{s}} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2} - (n - 1) ν} ε, i | y |^{1 - ν}}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | y |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2} (1 - ν)}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C \int_{B_{R / μ ε, i} (0)} \frac{1}{{| \frac{φ (μ ε, i x)}{μ ε, i} - y |}^{n - 2} | y |^{s}} {(\frac{| y |^{1 - ν}}{(1 + | y |^{2})^{\frac{n}{2} (1 - ν)}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y . \end{matrix}

Since

s \in (0, 2)

and with the properties ( 13 ) of

φ

, we get that there exists

C > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | {\tilde{φ}}_{ε, i} (x) | \leq C \end{matrix}

(77)

for all

x \in B_{3} (0) \cap R n -

and all

ε > 0

. We let the metric

(\tilde{g} ε)_{k l} = (\partial_{k} φ, \partial_{l} φ) (μ ε, i x)

for

k, l = 1, . . ., n

. Equation ( 76 ) rewrites as

Δ_{\tilde{g} ε} {\tilde{φ}}_{ε, i} = c_{i, ε} \frac{β_{ε, i} (x)^{(1 - ν) (2 ◆ - 1 - p ε) - s}}{{(1 + β_{ε, i} (x)^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2} (1 - ν) (2 ◆ - 1 - p ε)}} i n D^{'} (B_{3} (0) \cap R n -),

where

c_{i, ε} \in R

for all

ε > 0

and

{lim}_{ε \to 0} c_{i, ε} = c_{i} > 0

β_{ε, i} (x) : = | \frac{φ (μ ε, i x)}{μ ε, i} |

for all

x \in B_{3} (0) \cap R n -

. In particular, there exists

C > 0

such that

\frac{| x |}{C} \leq β_{ε, i} (x) \leq C | x |

for all

x \in B_{3} (0) \cap R n -

. Since ( 77 ) holds,

s \in (0, 2)

and

{\tilde{φ}}_{ε, i} \equiv 0

{x_{1} = 0}

, it follows from standard elliptic theory and the equation satisfies by

{\tilde{φ}}_{ε, i}

that there exists

C > 0

such that

∥ {\tilde{φ}}_{ε, i} ∥_{C^{1} (B_{2} (0) \cap \bar{R n -})} \leq C

for all

ε > 0

. Since

{\tilde{φ}}_{ε, i} (0) = 0

, we get that

| {\tilde{φ}}_{ε}^{i} (x) | \leq C | x |

for all

x \in B_{2} (0) \cap R n -

and all

ε > 0

. Coming back to the definition of

{\tilde{φ}}_{ε, i}

, we then get that there exists

C > 0

such that

| φ_{ε, i} (x) | \leq C \frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i | x |}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | x |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2}}}

for all

x \in Ω \cap B_{μ ε, i} (0)

. Inequality ( 75 ) then follows from Green's representation formula.

□

Step 4 .7: Plugging together ( 71 ), ( 72 ) and ( 75 ) into ( 70 ), we get that

| u ε (x) | \leq C \sum_{i = 1}^{N} \frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i | x |}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | x |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2}}} + C | x |

for all

x \in Ω

and all

ε > 0

. This proves ( 48 ).

□

5 Strong pointwise estimates, Part 2

This section is devoted to a refinement and a derivation of Proposition 4.1 :

Proposition 5.1. Let

Ω

be a smooth bounded domain of

R n

n \geq 3

. We let

s \in (0, 2)

. We let

(p ε)_{ε > 0}

such that

p ε \in [0, 2 ◆ - 2)

for all

ε > 0

and ( 9 ) holds. We consider

(u ε)_{ε > 0} \in H 21, 0 (Ω)

such that ( 8 ),

(E_{ε})

and ( 10 ) hold.

We assume that blow-up occurs, that is

{lim}_{ε \to 0} ∥ u ε ∥_{L^{\infty} (Ω)} = + \infty .

We let

μ_{ε, 1}, . . ., μ_{ε, N}

as in Proposition 3.1 . Then, there exists

C > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | u ε (x) | \leq C \sum_{i = 1}^{N} \frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i | x |}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | x |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2}}} + C | x | \end{matrix}

(78)

\begin{matrix} | \nabla u ε (x) | \leq C \sum_{i = 1}^{N} \frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | x |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2}}} + C \end{matrix}

(79)

for all

ε > 0

and all

x \in Ω

Inequality ( 78 ) was proved in Proposition 4.1 . We prove inequality ( 79 ). We let

G

be the Green's function for the operator

Δ

Ω

with Dirichlet boundary condiction.

Derivating Green's representation formula ( 69 ) that

\nabla u ε (x) = \int_{Ω} \nabla_{x} G (x, y) (\frac{| u ε (y) |^{2 ◆ - 2 - p ε} u ε (y)}{| y |^{s}} - a ε (y) u ε (y)) d y

for all

x \in Ω

and all

ε > 0

. It then follows from ( 78 ) that

\begin{matrix} | \nabla u ε (x) | \leq C \int_{Ω} | \nabla_{x} G (x, y) | (\frac{| u ε (y) |^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε}}{| y |^{s}} + 1) d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C \sum_{i = 1}^{N} \int_{Ω} \frac{| \nabla_{x} G (x, y) |}{| y |^{s}} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i | y |}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | y |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2}}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + C \int_{Ω} | \nabla_{x} G (x, y) | \cdot (| y |^{2 ◆ - 1 - s - p ε} + 1) d y \end{matrix}

(80)

for all

x \in Ω

and all

ε > 0

Step 5 .1: We claim that there exists

C > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} | \nabla_{x} G (x, y) | \cdot (| y |^{2 ◆ - 1 - s - p ε} + 1) d y \leq C \end{matrix}

(81)

for all

x \in Ω

and all

ε > 0

Proof of the Claim: Indeed, it follows from property (G7) of Theorem 9.1 that there exists

C > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | \nabla_{x} G (x, y) | \leq C | x - y |^{1 - n} \end{matrix}

(82)

for all

x, y \in Ω

such that

x \neq y

. Since

s \in (0, 2)

, we then obtain that there exists

C > 0

such that

\int_{Ω} | \nabla_{x} G (x, y) | \cdot (| y |^{2 ◆ - 1 - s - p ε} + 1) d y \leq C \int_{Ω} | x - y |^{1 - n} \cdot (| y |^{2 ◆ - 1 - s - p ε} + 1) d y \leq C

for all

x \in Ω

and all

ε > 0

. This proves ( 81 ).

□

Step 5 .2: We let

i \in {1, . . ., N}

. We claim that there exists

C > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} \frac{| \nabla_{x} G (x, y) |}{| y |^{s}} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i | y |}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | y |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2}}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y \leq C \frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i}{(μ^{2} ε, i + | x |^{2})^{\frac{n}{2}}} \end{matrix}

(83)

for all

x \in Ω

such that

| x | \leq μ ε, i

and all

ε > 0

Proof of the Claim: We let

θ_{ε} : = \frac{x}{μ ε, i}

. Note that with our assumption, we have that

| θ_{ε} | \leq 1

. We let

R > 0

such that

Ω \subset B_{R} (0)

. With ( 82 ), and a change of variables, we get that

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} \frac{| \nabla_{x} G (x, y) |}{| y |^{s}} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i | y |}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | y |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2}}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C \int_{B_{R} (0)} | x - y |^{1 - n} | y |^{- s} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i | y |}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | y |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2}}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C μ^{- \frac{n}{2}} ε, i \int_{B_{\frac{R}{μ ε, i}} (0)} \frac{| z |^{2 ◆ - 1 - s - p ε}}{| θ_{ε} - z |^{n - 1} (1 + | z |^{2})^{\frac{n}{2} (2 ◆ - 1 - p ε)}} d z \end{matrix}

Since

s \in (0, 2)

and

| θ_{ε} | \leq 1

, we get that there exists

C > 0

such that

\int_{Ω} \frac{| \nabla_{x} G (x, y) |}{| y |^{s}} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i | y |}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | y |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2}}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y \leq C μ^{- \frac{n}{2}} ε, i .

Since

| x | \leq μ ε, i

, inequality ( 83 ) follows.

□

Step 5 .3: We let

i \in {1, . . ., N}

. We claim that there exists

C > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} \frac{| \nabla_{x} G (x, y) |}{| y |^{s}} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i | y |}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | y |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2}}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y \leq C \frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i}{(μ^{2} ε, i + | x |^{2})^{\frac{n}{2}}} \end{matrix}

(84)

for all

x \in Ω

such that

| x | \geq μ ε, i

and all

ε > 0

Proof of the Claim: We split the integral in two parts:

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} \frac{| \nabla_{x} G (x, y) |}{| y |^{s}} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i | y |}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | y |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2}}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y = I_{ε, 1} (x) + I_{ε, 2} (x) \end{matrix}

(85)

where

I_{ε, j} (x) = \int_{Ω_{ε, j} (x)} \frac{| \nabla_{x} G (x, y) |}{| y |^{s}} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i | y |}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | y |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2}}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y

and

Ω_{ε, 1} (x) = Ω \cap {| x - y | \geq \frac{| x |}{2}} a n d Ω_{ε, 1} (x) = Ω \cap {| x - y | < \frac{| x |}{2}}

Step 5 .3.1: We deal with

I_{ε, 1} (x)

. It follows from point (G8) of Theorem 9.1 that there exists

C > 0

such that

| \nabla_{x} G (x, y) | \leq C \frac{d (y, \partial Ω)}{| x - y |^{n}} \leq C \frac{| y |}{| x - y |^{n}}

for all

x, y \in Ω

x \neq y

. We let

R > 0

such that

Ω \subset B_{R} (0)

. With a change of variable, we get that

\begin{matrix} I_{ε, 1} (x) & \leq & C \int_{Ω \cap {| x - y | \geq \frac{| x |}{2}}} \frac{| y |}{| x - y |^{n} | y |^{s}} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i | y |}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | y |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2}}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C | x |^{- n} \int_{B_{R} (0)} | y |^{1 - s} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i | y |}{{(μ^{2} ε, i + | y |^{2})}^{\frac{n}{2}}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C | x |^{- n} μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i \int_{B_{\frac{R}{μ ε, i}} (0)} \frac{| z |^{2 ◆ - s - p ε}}{(1 + | z |^{2})^{\frac{n}{2} (2 ◆ - 1 - p ε)}} d z . \end{matrix}

Since

| x | \geq μ ε, i

and

s \in (0, 2)

, we then get that

\begin{matrix} I_{ε, 1} (x) \leq C | x |^{- n} μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i \leq C^{'} \frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i}{(μ^{2} ε, i + | x |^{2})^{\frac{n}{2}}} . \end{matrix}

(86)

Step 5 .3.2: We deal with

I_{ε, 2} (x)

. As easily checked, we have that

\begin{matrix} \frac{| x |}{2} \leq | y | \leq \frac{3 | x |}{2} \end{matrix}

(87)

for all

y \in Ω_{ε, 2} (x)

. With ( 82 ) and ( 87 ), we get that

\begin{matrix} I_{ε, 2} (x) & \leq & \frac{C}{| x |^{s}} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i}{| x |^{n - 1}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} \int_{{| x - y | < \frac{| x |}{2}}} | x - y |^{1 - n} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C | x |^{1 - s} {(\frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i}{| x |^{n - 1}})}^{2 ◆ - 1 - p ε} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C | x |^{- n} μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i \frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2} (2 ◆ - 2 - p ε)} ε, i}{| x |^{n (2 ◆ - 1 - p ε) - (2 ◆ - 1 - p ε) - n - 1 + s}} . \end{matrix}

Since

| x | \geq μ ε, i

and

s \in (0, 2)

, we then get that

\begin{matrix} I_{ε, 2} (x) \leq C | x |^{- n} μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i \leq C^{'} \frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i}{(μ^{2} ε, i + | x |^{2})^{\frac{n}{2}}} . \end{matrix}

(88)

Plugging ( 86 ) and ( 88 ) into ( 85 ), we get ( 84 ).

□

Step 5 .4: Plugging ( 81 ), ( 83 ) and ( 84 ) into ( 80 ), we get inequality ( 79 ).

6 Pohozaev identity and proof of compactness

This section is mainly devoted to the proof of the following proposition:

Proposition 6.1. Let

Ω

be a smooth bounded domain of

R n

n \geq 3

, such that

0 \in \partial Ω

. We let

(u ε)

(a ε)

and

(p ε)

such that

(E_{ε})

, ( 8 ), ( 9 ) and ( 10 ) hold. We assume that blow-up occurs, that is

{lim}_{ε \to 0} ∥ u ε ∥_{L^{\infty} (Ω)} = + \infty .

Then we have that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} \frac{p ε}{μ ε, N} = \frac{(n - s) \int_{\partial R n -} I I_{0} (x, x) | \nabla {\tilde{u}}_{N} |^{2} d x}{(n - 2)^{2} α_{N}^{\frac{(n - 1) (n - 2)}{2 (2 - s)}} \sum_{i = 1}^{N} α_{i}^{- \frac{(n - 2)^{2}}{2 (2 - s)}} \int_{R n -} | \nabla \tilde{u} i |^{2} d x}

when

n \geq 3

. In this expression,

I I_{0}

is the second fondamental form at

0

of the oriented boundary

\partial Ω

and

\partial R n -

is the oriented tangent space of

\partial Ω

0

. The sequences and families

μ ε, N > 0

α_{i}

\tilde{u} i

i \in {1, . . ., N}

are as in Proposition 3.1 . In addition, if

u ε \geq 0

for all

ε \geq 0

, we have that

{lim}_{ε \to 0} \frac{p ε}{μ ε, N} = \frac{(n - s) \int_{\partial R n -} | x |^{2} | \nabla {\tilde{u}}_{N} |^{2} d x}{n (n - 2)^{2} α_{N}^{\frac{(n - 1) (n - 2)}{2 (2 - s)}} \sum_{i = 1}^{N} α_{i}^{- \frac{(n - 2)^{2}}{2 (2 - s)}} \int_{R n -} | \nabla \tilde{u} i |^{2} d x} \cdot H (0)

when

n \geq 3

. In this expression,

H (0)

is the mean curvature at

0

of the oriented boundary

\partial Ω

We prove the proposition in Steps 6 .1 to 6 .3. We prove Theorem 1.3 in Step 6 .4.

Step 6 .1: We provide a Pohozaev-type identity for

u ε

. It follows from Proposition 8.1 that

u ε \in C^{1} (\bar{Ω})

and that

Δ u ε \in L^{p} (Ω)

for all

p \in (1, \frac{n}{s})

. We let

\begin{matrix} W_{ε} : = Ω \cap φ (B_{r ε} (0)), w h e r e r ε = \sqrt{μ ε, N} . \end{matrix}

(89)

In the sequel, we denote by

ν (x)

the outward normal vector at

x \in \partial W_{ε}

of the oriented hypersurface

\partial W_{ε}

(oriented as the boundary of

W_{ε}

). Integrating by parts, we get that

\begin{matrix} \int_{W_{ε}} x^{i} \partial_{i} u ε Δ u ε d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = - \int_{\partial W_{ε}} x^{i} \partial_{i} u ε \partial_{ν} u ε d σ + \int_{W_{ε}} \partial_{j} (x^{i} \partial_{i} u ε) \partial_{j} u ε d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = - \int_{\partial W_{ε}} x^{i} \partial_{i} u ε \partial_{ν} u ε d σ + \int_{W_{ε}} | \nabla u ε |^{2} d x + \int_{W_{ε}} x^{i} \partial_{i} \frac{| \nabla u ε |^{2}}{2} d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = (1 - \frac{n}{2}) \int_{W_{ε}} | \nabla u ε |^{2} d x + \int_{\partial W_{ε}} ((x, ν) \frac{| \nabla u ε |^{2}}{2} - x^{i} \partial_{i} u ε \partial_{ν} u ε) d σ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = (1 - \frac{n}{2}) (\int_{\partial W_{ε}} u ε \partial_{ν} u ε d σ + \int_{W_{ε}} u ε Δ u ε d x) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{\partial W_{ε}} ((x, ν) \frac{| \nabla u ε |^{2}}{2} - x^{i} \partial_{i} u ε \partial_{ν} u ε) d σ . \end{matrix}

Using the equation

(E_{ε})

in the RHS, we get that

\begin{matrix} \int_{W_{ε}} x^{i} \partial_{i} u ε Δ u ε d x = (1 - \frac{n}{2}) (\int_{W_{ε}} \frac{| u ε |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| x |^{s}} d x - \int_{W_{ε}} a ε u^{2} ε d x) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{\partial W_{ε}} ((1 - \frac{n}{2}) u ε \partial_{ν} u ε + (x, ν) \frac{| \nabla u ε |^{2}}{2} - x^{i} \partial_{i} u ε \partial_{ν} u ε) d σ . \end{matrix}

(90)

On the other hand, using the equation

(E_{ε})

satisfied by

u ε

, we get that

\begin{matrix} \int_{W_{ε}} x^{i} \partial_{i} u ε Δ u ε d x = \int_{W_{ε}} x^{i} \partial_{i} u ε \frac{| u ε |^{2 ◆ - 2 - ε} u ε}{| x |^{s}} d x - \int_{W_{ε}} x^{i} \partial_{i} u ε a ε u ε d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = \int_{W_{ε}} x^{i} | x |^{- s} \partial_{i} (\frac{| u ε |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{2 ◆ - p ε}) d x - \int_{W_{ε}} x^{i} \partial_{i} u ε a ε u ε d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = - \int_{W_{ε}} (\partial_{i} (x^{i} | x |^{- s}) \frac{| u ε |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{2 ◆ - p ε} + x^{i} \partial_{i} u ε a ε u ε) d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{\partial W_{ε}} \frac{(x, ν)}{2 ◆ - p ε} \cdot \frac{| u ε |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| x |^{s}} d σ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = - \int_{W_{ε}} \frac{n - s}{| x |^{s}} \cdot \frac{| u ε |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{2 ◆ - p ε} d x + \frac{1}{2} \int_{W_{ε}} (n a ε + x^{i} \partial_{i} a ε) u^{2} ε d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{\partial W_{ε}} \frac{(x, ν)}{2 ◆ - p ε} \cdot \frac{| u ε |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| x |^{s}} d σ - \int_{\partial W_{ε}} \frac{(x, ν)}{2} a ε u^{2} ε d σ . \end{matrix}

(91)

Plugging together ( 90 ) and ( 91 ), we get that

\begin{matrix} (\frac{n - 2}{2} - \frac{n - s}{2 ◆ - p ε}) \int_{W_{ε}} \frac{| u ε |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| x |^{s}} d x + \int_{W_{ε}} (a ε + \frac{(x, \nabla a ε)}{2}) u^{2} ε d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = \int_{\partial W_{ε}} (- \frac{n - 2}{2} u ε \partial_{ν} u ε + (x, ν) \frac{| \nabla u ε |^{2}}{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} - x^{i} \partial_{i} u ε \partial_{ν} u ε - \frac{(x, ν)}{2 ◆ - p ε} \cdot \frac{| u ε |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| x |^{s}}) d σ + \int_{\partial W_{ε}} \frac{(x, ν)}{2} a ε u^{2} ε d x \end{matrix}

for all

ε > 0

. Since

\partial W_{ε} = [φ (B_{r ε} (0)) \cap \partial Ω] \cup [Ω \cap φ (\partial B_{r ε} (0))]

and since

u ε \equiv 0

\partial Ω

, we get that

\begin{matrix} \frac{(n - 2) p ε}{2 \cdot (2 ◆ - p ε)} \int_{φ (B_{r ε} (0)) \cap Ω} \frac{| u ε |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| x |^{s}} d x - \int_{φ (B_{r ε} (0)) \cap Ω} (a ε + \frac{(x, \nabla a ε)}{2}) u^{2} ε d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = \frac{1}{2} \int_{φ (B_{r ε} (0)) \cap \partial Ω} (x, ν) | \nabla u ε |^{2} d σ \end{matrix}

(92)

\begin{matrix} - \int_{Ω \cap φ (\partial B_{r ε} (0))} (- \frac{n - 2}{2} u ε \partial_{ν} u ε + (x, ν) \frac{| \nabla u ε |^{2}}{2} - x^{i} \partial_{i} u ε \partial_{ν} u ε \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} - \frac{(x, ν)}{2 ◆ - p ε} \cdot \frac{| u ε |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| x |^{s}} + \frac{(x, ν)}{2} a ε u^{2} ε) d σ . \end{matrix}

It follows from ( 78 ) and ( 79 ) that there exists

C > 0

such that

| u ε (x) | \leq C r ε a n d | \nabla u ε (x) | \leq C

for all

x \in Ω \cap φ (\partial B_{r ε} (0))

(recall that

r ε = \sqrt{μ ε, N}

). We then get that

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω \cap φ (\partial B_{r ε} (0))} (- \frac{n - 2}{2} u ε \partial_{ν} u ε + (x, ν) \frac{| \nabla u ε |^{2}}{2} - x^{i} \partial_{i} u ε \partial_{ν} u ε \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} - \frac{(x, ν)}{2 ◆ - p ε} \cdot \frac{| u ε |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| x |^{s}} - \frac{(x, ν)}{2} a ε u^{2} ε) d σ = O (μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, N) = o (μ ε, N) \end{matrix}

(93)

when

ε \to 0

since

n \geq 3

. With ( 78 ) and Proposition 3.1 , we get that

\begin{matrix} | \int_{φ (B_{r ε} (0)) \cap Ω} (a ε + \frac{(x, \nabla a ε)}{2}) u^{2} ε d x | \leq C \int_{φ (B_{r ε} (0)) \cap Ω} u^{2} ε d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C \sum_{i = 1}^{N} \int_{φ (B_{r ε} (0)) \cap Ω} \frac{μ^{n} ε, i}{(μ^{2} ε, i + | x |^{2})^{n - 1}} d x + C \int_{φ (B_{r ε} (0)) \cap Ω} | x |^{2} d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C \sum_{1 = 1}^{N} μ^{2} ε, i \int_{R n} \frac{d x}{(1 + | x |^{2})^{n - 1}} d x + C r^{n + 2} ε \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = o (μ ε, N) \end{matrix}

(94)

when

ε \to 0

since

n \geq 3

. Plugging ( 93 ) and ( 94 ) in ( 92 ), we get that

\begin{matrix} \frac{(n - 2) p ε}{2 \cdot (2 ◆ - p ε)} \int_{φ (B_{r ε} (0)) \cap Ω} \frac{| u ε |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| x |^{s}} d x = \frac{1}{2} \int_{φ (B_{r ε} (0)) \cap \partial Ω} (x, ν) | \nabla u ε |^{2} d σ + o (μ ε, N) \end{matrix}

(95)

when

ε \to 0

and

n \geq 3

Step 6 .2: We deal with the LHS of ( 95 ). We let

φ

as in ( 13 ). Since

{lim}_{ε \to 0} \frac{r ε}{μ ε, N} = + \infty

(see ( 89 )), with a change of variables, we get for any

R > α > 0

that

\begin{matrix} \int_{φ (B_{r ε} (0)) \cap Ω} \frac{| u ε |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| x |^{s}} d x = \int_{φ (B_{r ε} (0) \cap R n -)} \frac{| u ε |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| x |^{s}} d x \end{matrix}

(96)

\begin{matrix} = \int_{B_{r ε} (0) \cap R n -} \frac{| u ε \circ φ (x) |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| φ (x) |^{s}} \cdot | J a c φ (x) | d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = \int_{B_{R k ε, 1} (0) \cap R n -} \frac{| u ε \circ φ (x) |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| φ (x) |^{s}} \cdot | J a c φ (x) | d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \sum_{i = 1}^{N - 1} [\int_{(B_{R k_{ε, i + 1}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{α k_{ε, i + 1}} (0)) \cap R n -} \frac{| u ε \circ φ (x) |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| φ (x) |^{s}} \cdot | J a c φ (x) | d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{(B_{α k_{ε, i + 1}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k_{ε, i}} (0)) \cap R n -} \frac{| u ε \circ φ (x) |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| φ (x) |^{s}} \cdot | J a c φ (x) | d x] \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{(B_{r ε} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k ε, N} (0)) \cap R n -} \frac{| u ε \circ φ (x) |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| φ (x) |^{s}} \cdot | J a c φ (x) | d x \end{matrix}

It follows from Proposition 3.1 that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{R \to + \infty} {lim}_{ε \to 0} \int_{B_{R k ε, 1} (0) \cap R n -} \frac{| u ε \circ φ (x) |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| φ (x) |^{s}} \cdot | J a c φ (x) | d x = α_{1}^{- \frac{(n - 2)^{2}}{2 (2 - s)}} \int_{R n -} \frac{| {\tilde{u}}_{1} |^{2 ◆}}{| x |^{s}} d x \end{matrix}

(97)

and for any

i \in {1, . . ., N - 1}

that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{R \to + \infty} {lim}_{α \to 0} {lim}_{ε \to 0} \int_{(B_{R k_{ε, i + 1}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{α k_{ε, i + 1}} (0)) \cap R n -} \frac{| u ε \circ φ (x) |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| φ (x) |^{s}} \cdot | J a c φ (x) | d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = α_{i + 1}^{- \frac{(n - 2)^{2}}{2 (2 - s)}} \int_{R n -} \frac{| {\tilde{u}}_{i + 1} |^{2 ◆}}{| x |^{s}} d x . \end{matrix}

(98)

It follows from the pointwise estimate ( 78 ) that there exists

C > 0

such that

| u ε (x) | \leq C μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, N | x |^{1 - n} + C | x |

for all

x \in Ω

. It then follows that there exists

C > 0

independant of

R > 1

such that

\begin{matrix} \int_{(B_{r ε} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k ε, N} (0)) \cap R n -} \frac{| u ε \circ φ (x) |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| φ (x) |^{s}} \cdot | J a c φ (x) | d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C \int_{B_{r ε} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k ε, N} (0)} \frac{1}{| y |^{s}} {(| y | + \frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, N}{| y |^{n - 1}})}^{2 ◆ - p ε} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C \int_{B_{r ε} (0)} | y |^{2 ◆ - s - p ε} d y + C μ^{\frac{n}{2} 2 ◆} ε, N \int_{B_{r ε} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k ε, N} (0)} | y |^{- (n - 1) (2 ◆ - p ε) - s} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C r^{n} ε + \frac{C}{R^{(n - 1) (2 ◆ - p ε) - n + s}} . \end{matrix}

Since

{lim}_{ε \to 0} r ε = 0

, we get that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{R \to + \infty} {lim}_{ε \to 0} \int_{(B_{r ε} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k ε, N} (0)) \cap R n -} \frac{| u ε \circ φ (x) |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| φ (x) |^{s}} \cdot | J a c φ (x) | d x = 0 . \end{matrix}

(99)

We let

i \in {1, . . ., N - 1}

. Using the pointwise estimate ( 78 ), we get that

| u ε (x) | \leq C \frac{μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i}{| x |^{n - 1}} + C μ_{ε, i + 1}^{1 - \frac{n}{2}}

for all

x \in Ω

and all

ε > 0

. With computations similar to the ones provided for the proof of ( 99 ), we get that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{R \to + \infty} {lim}_{α \to 0} {lim}_{ε \to 0} \int_{(B_{α k_{ε, i + 1}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k_{ε, i}} (0)) \cap R n -} \frac{| u ε \circ φ (x) |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| φ (x) |^{s}} \cdot | J a c φ (x) | d x = 0 . \end{matrix}

(100)

Plugging together ( 97 ), ( 98 ), ( 99 ) and ( 100 ) in ( 96 ), using point (A4) of Proposition 3.1 , we get that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{ε \to 0} \int_{φ (B_{r ε} (0)) \cap Ω} \frac{| u ε |^{2 ◆ - p ε}}{| x |^{s}} d x & = & \sum_{i = 1}^{N} α_{i}^{- \frac{(n - 2)^{2}}{2 (2 - s)}} \int_{R n -} \frac{| \tilde{u} i |^{2 ◆}}{| x |^{s}} d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \sum_{i = 1}^{N} α_{i}^{- \frac{(n - 2)^{2}}{2 (2 - s)}} \int_{R n -} | \nabla \tilde{u} i |^{2} d x \end{matrix}

(101)

Step 6 .3: We deal with the RHS of ( 95 ). We have that

\begin{matrix} \int_{φ (B_{r ε} (0)) \cap \partial Ω} (x, ν) | \nabla u ε |^{2} d σ = \int_{φ (B_{R k ε, 1} (0)) \cap \partial Ω} (x, ν) | \nabla u ε |^{2} d σ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \sum_{i = 1}^{N - 2} \int_{φ (B_{R k_{ε, i + 1}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k_{ε, i}} (0)) \cap \partial Ω} (x, ν) | \nabla u ε |^{2} d σ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{φ (B_{α k_{ε, N}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k_{ε, N - 1}} (0)) \cap \partial Ω} (x, ν) | \nabla u ε |^{2} d σ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{φ (B_{R k_{ε, N}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{α k_{ε, N}} (0)) \cap \partial Ω} (x, ν) | \nabla u ε |^{2} d σ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{φ (B_{r ε} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k_{ε, N}} (0)) \cap \partial Ω} (x, ν) | \nabla u ε |^{2} d σ \end{matrix}

(102)

Using the expression of

φ

(see ( 13 )), we get that

ν (φ (x)) = \frac{(1, - \partial_{2} φ_{0} (x), . . ., - \partial_{n} φ_{0} (x))}{\sqrt{1 + \sum_{i = 2}^{n} (\partial_{i} φ_{0} (x))^{2}}}

for all

x \in U \cap {x_{1} = 0}

. With the expression of

φ

, we then get that

\begin{matrix} (ν \circ φ (x), φ (x)) = (1 + O (1) | x |^{2}) \cdot (φ_{0} (x) - \sum_{i = 2}^{n} x^{i} \partial_{i} φ_{0} (x)) \end{matrix}

(103)

for all

x \in U \cap {x_{1} = 0}

. In this expression, there exists

C > 0

such that

| O (1) | \leq C

for all

x \in U \cap {x_{1} = 0}

. Since

φ_{0} (0) = 0

and

\nabla φ_{0} (0) = 0

(see ( 13 )), we then get that there exists

C > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | (φ (x), ν \circ φ (x)) | \leq C | x |^{2} \end{matrix}

(104)

for all

x \in U \cap {x_{1} = 0}

Step 6 .3.1: We deal with the second term in the RHS of ( 102 ). We let

i \in {1, . . ., N - 2}

. It follows from the pointwise estimate ( 79 ) that

\begin{matrix} | \nabla u ε (x) | \leq C μ^{\frac{n}{2}} ε, i | x |^{- n} + C μ_{ε, i + 1}^{- \frac{n}{2}} \end{matrix}

(105)

for all

x \in Ω

. With ( 104 ) and ( 105 ), we get that

\begin{matrix} \int_{φ (B_{R k_{ε, i + 1}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k_{ε, i}} (0)) \cap \partial Ω} (x, ν) | \nabla u ε |^{2} d σ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C \int_{B_{2 R k_{ε, i + 1}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k_{ε, i} / 2} (0) \cap {x_{1} = 0}} | x |^{2} (μ^{n} ε, i | x |^{- 2 n} + μ_{ε, i + 1}^{- n}) d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C μ ε, i + C μ_{ε, i + 1} = o (μ ε, N) \end{matrix}

(106)

when

ε \to 0

when

n \geq 3

. Here, we have used that

i + 1 < N

and point (A3) of Proposition 3.1 . With the same type of arguments, we get that

\begin{matrix} \int_{φ (B_{R k ε, 1} (0)) \cap \partial Ω} (x, ν) | \nabla u ε |^{2} d σ = o (μ ε, N) \end{matrix}

(107)

when

ε \to 0

as soon as

N \geq 2

Step 6 .3.2: We deal with the third term of the RHS of ( 102 ). It follows from the pointwise estimate ( 79 ) that

\begin{matrix} | \nabla u ε (x) | \leq C μ_{ε, N - 1}^{\frac{n}{2}} | x |^{- n} + C μ_{ε, N}^{- \frac{n}{2}} \end{matrix}

(108)

for all

x \in Ω

. With ( 104 ) and ( 108 ), we get that

\begin{matrix} \int_{φ (B_{α k_{ε, N}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k_{ε, N - 1}} (0)) \cap \partial Ω} (x, ν) | \nabla u ε |^{2} d σ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C \int_{B_{2 α k_{ε, N}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k_{ε, N - 1} / 2} (0) \cap {x_{1} = 0}} | x |^{2} (μ_{ε, N - 1}^{n} | x |^{- 2 n} + μ_{ε, N}^{- n}) d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C μ_{ε, N - 1} + C α^{n + 1} μ_{ε, N} \end{matrix}

since

n \geq 3

and where

C > 0

is independant of

α

and

ε > 0

. With point (A3) of Proposition 3.1 , we get that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{α \to 0} {lim}_{ε \to 0} μ_{ε, N}^{- 1} \int_{φ (B_{α k_{ε, N}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k_{ε, N - 1}} (0)) \cap \partial Ω} (x, ν) | \nabla u ε |^{2} d σ = 0 . \end{matrix}

(109)

Step 6 .3.3: We deal with the fifth term of the RHS of ( 102 ). It follows from the pointwise estimate ( 79 ) that

\begin{matrix} | \nabla u ε (x) | \leq C μ_{ε, N}^{\frac{n}{2}} | x |^{- n} + C \end{matrix}

(110)

for all

x \in Ω

. With ( 104 ) and ( 110 ), we get that

\begin{matrix} \int_{φ (B_{r ε} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k_{ε, N}} (0)) \cap \partial Ω} (x, ν) | \nabla u ε |^{2} d σ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C \int_{B_{2 r ε} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k_{ε, N} / 2} (0) \cap {x_{1} = 0}} | x |^{2} (μ_{ε, N}^{n} | x |^{- 2 n} + C) d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C R^{1 - n} μ_{ε, N} + C r^{n + 1} ε \end{matrix}

since

n \geq 3

and where

C > 0

is independant of

R

and

ε > 0

. With the definition ( 89 ) of

r ε

, we get that

r^{n + 1} ε = o (μ ε, N)

when

ε \to 0

. It then follows from point (A3) of Proposition 3.1 that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{R \to + \infty} {lim}_{ε \to 0} μ_{ε, N}^{- 1} \int_{φ (B_{r ε} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{R k_{ε, N}} (0)) \cap \partial Ω} (x, ν) | \nabla u ε |^{2} d σ = 0 \end{matrix}

(111)

when

n \geq 3

Step 6 .3.4: We deal with the fourth term of the RHS of ( 102 ). Since

φ_{0} (0) = 0

and

\nabla φ_{0} (0) = 0

, it follows from the definition ( 13 ) of

φ

and ( 103 ) that

\begin{matrix} (φ (k ε, N x), ν \circ φ (k ε, N x)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = (1 + O (k^{2} ε, N | x |^{2})) (φ_{0} (k ε, N x) - k ε \sum_{i = 2}^{n} x^{i} \partial_{i} φ_{0} (k ε, N x)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = - \frac{1}{2} k^{2} ε, N \sum_{i, j = 2}^{n} \partial_{i j} φ_{0} (0) x^{i} x^{j} + θ_{ε, R} (x) k^{2} ε, N, \end{matrix}

(112)

for all

ε > 0

and all

x \in B_{R} (0) \cap {x_{1} = 0}

and where

{lim}_{ε \to 0} {sup}_{B_{R} (0) \cap {x_{1} = 0}} | θ_{ε, R} | = 0

for any

R > 0

. With a change of variable, ( 112 ) and the definition of

{\tilde{u}}_{ε, N}

(see Proposition 3.1 ), we have that

\begin{matrix} μ^{- 1} ε, N \int_{φ (B_{R k_{ε, N}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{α k_{ε, N}} (0)) \cap \partial Ω} (x, ν) | \nabla u ε |^{2} d σ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = {(\frac{k ε, N}{μ ε, N})}^{n - 1} (- \frac{1}{2} \int_{(B_{R} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{α} (0)) \cap {x_{1} = 0}} \sum_{i, j = 2}^{n} x^{i} x^{j} \partial_{i j} φ_{0} (x) | \nabla {\tilde{u}}_{ε, N} |_{\tilde{g} ε}^{2} d v_{\tilde{g} ε}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + o (1) \end{matrix}

when

ε \to 0

. In this expression,

(\tilde{g} ε)_{i j} = (\partial_{i} φ, \partial_{j} φ) (k ε, N x)

for all

i, j = 2, . . ., n

. It follows from ( 110 ) and the definition of

{\tilde{u}}_{ε, N}

that there exists

C > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | \nabla {\tilde{u}}_{N} (x) | \leq \frac{C}{1 + | x |^{n}} \end{matrix}

(113)

for all

x \in R n -

. With points (A4) and (A7) of Proposition 3.1 and inequality ( 113 ), we get that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{R \to + \infty} {lim}_{α \to 0} {lim}_{ε \to 0} μ^{- 1} ε, N \int_{φ (B_{R k_{ε, N}} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{α k_{ε, N}} (0)) \cap \partial Ω} (x, ν) | \nabla u ε |^{2} d σ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = - \frac{α_{N}^{- \frac{n - 1}{2 ◆ - 2}}}{2} \int_{\partial R n -} \sum_{i, j = 2}^{n} x^{i} x^{j} \partial_{i j} φ_{0} (x) | \nabla {\tilde{u}}_{N} |^{2} d x \end{matrix}

(114)

when

n \geq 3

. Plugging ( 106 ), ( 107 ), ( 109 ), ( 111 ) and ( 114 ) in ( 102 ), we get that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{ε \to 0} μ^{- 1} ε, N \int_{φ (B_{r ε} (0)) \cap \partial Ω} (x, ν) | \nabla u ε |^{2} d σ = - \frac{α_{N}^{- \frac{n - 1}{2 ◆ - 2}}}{2} \int_{\partial R n -} \sum_{i, j = 2}^{n} x^{i} x^{j} \partial_{i j} φ_{0} (x) | \nabla {\tilde{u}}_{N} |^{2} d x \end{matrix}

(115)

We consider the second fondamental form associated to

\partial Ω

, namely

I I_{p} (x, y) = (d ν_{p} x, y)

for all

p \in \partial Ω

and all

x, y \in T_{p} \partial Ω

(recall that

ν

is the outward normal vector at the hypersurface

\partial Ω

). In the canonical basis of

\partial R n - = T_{0} \partial Ω

, the matrix of the bilinear form

I I_{0}

- D_{0}^{2} φ_{0}

, where

D_{0}^{2} φ_{0}

is the Hessian matrix of

φ_{0}

0

. With this remark, plugging ( 101 ) and ( 115 ) into ( 95 ), we get that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{ε \to 0} \frac{p ε}{μ ε, N} = \frac{n - s}{(n - 2)^{2}} \cdot α_{N}^{- \frac{(n - 1) (n - 2)}{2 (2 - s)}} \cdot \frac{\int_{\partial R n -} I I_{0} (x, x) | \nabla {\tilde{u}}_{N} |^{2} d x}{\sum_{i = 1}^{N} α_{i}^{- \frac{(n - 2)^{2}}{2 (2 - s)}} \int_{R n -} | \nabla \tilde{u} i |^{2} d x} \end{matrix}

(116)

when

n \geq 3

. This proves the first part of Proposition 6.1 .

We prove the second part of the Proposition and assume that

u ε \geq 0

for all

ε

It follows that the limit function

{\tilde{u}}_{N}

is nonnegative, and then positive on

R n -

Moreover, we have that

Δ {\tilde{u}}_{N} = \frac{{\tilde{u}}_{N}^{2 ◆ - 1}}{| x |^{s}}

R n -

. It follows from ( 78 ) that there exists

C > 0

such that

| {\tilde{u}}_{N} (x) | \leq \frac{C}{1 + | x |^{n - 1}}

for all

x \in R n -

. It then follows from Proposition 10.1 of Appendix C that there exists

v \in C^{2} (R_{-}^{◆} \times R)

such that

{\tilde{u}}_{N} (x_{1}, x^{'}) = v (x_{1}, | x^{'} |)

for all

(x_{1}, x^{'}) \in R_{-}^{◆} \times R^{n - 1}

In particular,

| \nabla {\tilde{u}}_{N} | (0, x^{'})

is radially symmetrical wrt

x^{'} \in \partial R n -

. Since we have chosen a chart

φ

that is Euclidean at

0

, we get that

\begin{matrix} \int_{\partial R n -} I I_{0} (x, x) | \nabla {\tilde{u}}_{N} |^{2} d x & = & \frac{\sum_{i = 2}^{n} (I I_{0})^{i i}}{n} \int_{\partial R n -} | x |^{2} | \nabla {\tilde{u}}_{N} |^{2} d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \frac{H (0)}{n} \int_{\partial R n -} | x |^{2} | \nabla {\tilde{u}}_{N} |^{2} d x . \end{matrix}

Note that we have used here that in the chart

φ

defined in ( 13 ), the matrix of the first fundamental form at

0

is the identity. The second part of the Proposition then follows.

Step 6 .4: Proof of Theorem 1.3 : We let

(u ε)

(a ε)

and

(p ε)

such that

(E_{ε})

, ( 8 ), ( 9 ) and ( 10 ) hold. Assume that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{ε \to 0} ∥ u ε ∥_{L^{\infty} (Ω)} = + \infty . \end{matrix}

(117)

Then we can apply Proposition 6.1 , and ( 116 ) holds. Since the principal curvatures of

\partial Ω

0

are nonpositive, but do not all vanish, we have that

I I_{0} (x, x) \leq 0

for all

x \in \partial R n -

, but

I I_{0} ≢ 0

. In particular, the RHS of ( 116 ) is negative. A contradiction since

p ε \geq 0

, and then the LHS of ( 116 ) is nonnegative. Then ( 117 ) does not hold, and there exists

C > 0

such that

| u ε (x) | \leq C

for all

ε > 0

and all

x \in Ω

. The first part of Theorem 1.3 then follows from Proposition 2.1 . In the case

u ε \geq 0

for all

ε > 0

, we apply the second part of Proposition 6.1 to recover compactness as soon as

H (0) < 0

, and the second part of Theorem 1.3 is proved.

7 Proof of existence and multiplicity

7.1 Proof of Theorem 1.1

For any subcritical

p

, i.e.,

2 < p < 2 ◆ (s)

we define the corresponding best constant

\begin{matrix} μ_{s, p} (Ω) : = inf {\int_{Ω} | \nabla u |^{2} d x; u \in H 21, 0 (Ω) a n d \int_{Ω} \frac{| u |^{p}}{| x |^{s}} d x = 1} . \end{matrix}

(118)

Because of the compactness of the embedding

H 21, 0 (Ω)

into

L^{p} (Ω; | x |^{- s} d x)

, the infimum

μ_{s, p} (Ω)

is attained at a positive extremal

v_{p}

satisfying

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} Δ u = \frac{u^{p - 1}}{| x |^{s}} & i n D^{'} (Ω) \\ u > 0 & i n Ω \\ u = 0 & o n \partial Ω . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(119)

Moreover, the family

(v_{p})

is uniformly bounded in

H 21, 0 (Ω)

when

p \to 2 ◆

. Part 2 of the main compactness Theorem 1.3 for positive sequences now yields a nontrivial limit

v

that is an extremal for

μ_{s} (Ω)

7.2 Proof of Theorem 1.2

For each

2 < p \leq 2 ◆ (s)

, consider the

C^{2}

-functional

\begin{matrix} I_{p} (u) = \frac{1}{2} \int_{Ω} | \nabla u |^{2} d x - \frac{1}{p} \int_{Ω} \frac{| u |^{p}}{| x |^{s}} d x \end{matrix}

(120)

H 21, 0 (Ω)

whose critical points are the weak solutions of

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} Δ u = \frac{| u |^{p - 2} u}{| x |^{s}} & o n Ω \\ u = 0 & o n \partial Ω . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(121)

First note that for a fixed

u \in H 21, 0 (Ω)

, we have since

I_{p} (λ u) = \frac{λ^{2}}{2} \int_{Ω} | \nabla u |^{2} d x - \frac{λ^{p}}{p} \int_{Ω} \frac{| u |^{p}}{| x |^{s}} d x

that

l i m i t_{λ \to \infty} I (λ u) = - \infty

, which means that for each finite dimensional subspace

E_{k} \subset E : = H 21, 0 (Ω)

, there exists

R_{k} > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} sup {I_{p} (u); u \in E_{k}, ∥ u ∥ > R_{k}} < 0 \end{matrix}

(122)

when

p \to 2 ◆

. Let

(E_{k})_{k = 1}^{\infty}

be an increasing sequence of subspaces of

H 21, 0 (Ω)

such that

dim E_{k} = k

and

\bar{\cup_{k = 1}^{\infty} E_{k}} = E : = H 21, 0 (Ω)

and define the min-max values:

c_{p, k} = {inf}_{h \in H_{k}} {sup}_{x \in E_{k}} I_{p} (h (x)),

where

H_{k} = {h \in C (E, E); h i s o d d a n d h (v) = v f o r ∥ v ∥ > R_{k} f o r s o m e R_{k} > 0} .

Proposition 7.1. With the above notation and assuming

n \geq 3

, we have:

(1) For each $k \in N$ , $c_{p, k} > 0$ and ${lim}_{p \to 2 ◆} c_{p, k} = c_{2 ◆, k} : = c_{k} .$
(2) If $2 < p < 2 ◆$ , there exists for each $k$ , functions $u_{p, k} \in H 21, 0 (Ω)$ such that $I_{p}^{'} (u_{p, k}) = 0$ , and $I_{p} (u_{p, k}) = c_{p, k}$ .
(3) For each $2 < p < 2 ◆$ , we have $c_{p, k}$ satisfy $c_{p, k} \geq D_{n, p} k^{\frac{p + 1}{p - 1} \frac{2}{n}}$ where $D_{n, p} > 0$ is such that ${lim}_{p \to 2 ◆} D_{n, p} = 0$ .
(4) ${lim}_{k \to \infty} c_{k} = {lim}_{k \to \infty} c_{2 ◆, k} = + \infty$ .

Proof: (1) First note that in view of the Hardy-Sobolev inequality, we have

I_{p} (u) \geq \frac{1}{2} ∥ \nabla u ∥_{2}^{2} - C ∥ \nabla u ∥_{2}^{p} = ∥ \nabla u ∥_{2}^{2} (\frac{1}{2} - C ∥ \nabla u ∥_{2}^{p - 2}) \geq α > 0

provided

∥ u ∥_{H 21, 0 (Ω)} = ρ

for some

ρ > 0

small enough. A standard intersection lemma gives that the sphere

S_{ρ} = {u \in E; ∥ u ∥_{H 21, 0 (Ω)} = ρ}

must intersect every image

h (E_{k})

by an odd continuous function

h

. It follows that

c_{p, k} \geq inf {I_{p} (u); u \in S_{ρ}} \geq α > 0 .

In view of ( 122 ), it follows that for each

h \in H_{k}

, we have that

{sup}_{x \in E_{k}} I_{p_{i}} (h (x)) = {sup}_{x \in D_{k}} I_{p} (h (x))

where

D_{k}

denotes the ball in

E_{k}

of radius

R_{k}

. Consider now a sequence

p_{i} \to 2 ◆

and note first that for each

u \in E

, we have that

I_{p_{i}} (u) \to I_{2 ◆} (u)

. Since

h (D_{k})

is compact and the family of functionals

(I_{p})_{p}

is equicontinuous, it follows that

{sup}_{x \in E_{k}} I_{p} (h (x)) \to {sup}_{x \in E_{k}} I_{2 ◆} (h (x))

, from which follows that

{limsup}_{i \in N} c_{p_{i}, k} \leq {sup}_{x \in E_{k}} I_{2 ◆} (h (x))

. Since this holds for any

h \in H_{k}

, it follows that

{limsup}_{i \in N} c_{p_{i}, k} \leq c_{2 ◆, k} = c_{k} .

On the other hand, the function

f (r) = \frac{1}{p} r^{p} - \frac{1}{2^{*}} r^{2^{*}}

attains its maximum on

[0, + \infty)

r = 1

and therefore

h (r) \leq \frac{1}{p} - \frac{1}{2^{*}}

for all

r > 0

. It follows

I_{2 ◆} (u) = I_{p} (u) + \int_{Ω} \frac{1}{| x |^{s}} (\frac{1}{p} | u (x) |^{p} - \frac{1}{2 ◆} | u (x) |^{2 ◆}) d x \leq I_{p} (u) + \int_{Ω} \frac{1}{| x |^{s}} (\frac{1}{p} - \frac{1}{2 ◆}) d x

from which follows that

c_{k} \leq {liminf}_{i \in N} c_{p_{i}, k}

, and claim (1) is proved.

If now

p < 2 ◆

, we are in the subcritical case, that is we have compactness in the Sobolev embedding

H 21, 0 (Ω) \to L^{p} (Ω; | x |^{- s} d x)

and therefore

I_{p}

has the Palais-Smale condition. It is then standard to find critical points

u_{p, k}

for

I_{p}

at each level

c_{p, k}

(see for example [20] ). Now there are many ways to establish growth estimates for

c_{p, k}

k \to + \infty

, and we shall use here the one based on the Morse indices of these variationally obtained solutions, a method first used by by Bahri-Lions [4] and independently by Tanaka [41] . We need the following key estimate of Li-Yau [34] .

Lemma 7.1. Let

V \in L^{n / 2} (Ω)

and denote by

m^{*} (V)

the number of non-positive eigenvalues of the following eigenvalue problem:

{\begin{matrix} Δ u - V u = λ u & o n Ω \\ u = 0 & o n \partial Ω . \end{matrix}

n \geq 3

, then there is a constant

C_{n} > 0

such that

m^{*} (V) \leq C_{n} ∥ V ∥_{n / 2}^{n / 2}

To prove the growth estimates on the critical values

c_{p, k}

, one can follow [41] (see also [20] ) and identify a cohomotopic family of sets

F_{k}

of dimension

k

in such a way that if

D_{k}

denotes the ball in

E_{k}

of radius

R_{k}

and if

γ \in H_{k}

, then

γ (D_{k}) \in F_{k}

. It then follows that there exists

v_{p, k} \in H 21, 0 (Ω)

such that

I_{p} (v_{p, k}) \leq c_{p, k}

I^{'} (v_{p, k}) = 0

and

m^{*} (v_{p, k}) \geq k

, where

m^{*} (v_{p, k})

is the augmented Morse index of

I_{p}

v_{p, k}

. In other words, since

\begin{matrix} I_{p}^{''} (v) (h, h) & = \int_{Ω} | \nabla h |^{2} d x - (p - 1) \int_{Ω} \frac{| v |^{p - 2}}{| x |^{s}} h^{2} d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = 〈 (Δ - (p - 1) \frac{| v |^{p - 2}}{| x |^{s}}) h, h 〉, \end{matrix}

H^{- 1} (Ω)

, this means that the operator

(Δ - (p - 1) \frac{| v_{p, k} |^{p - 2}}{| x |^{s}})

possesses at least

k

non-positive eigenvalues. Applying the above lemma, we get that the number of these non-positive eigenvalues is bounded above by

C_{n} \int_{Ω} [(p - 1) \frac{| v_{p, k} |^{p - 2}}{| x |^{s}}]^{\frac{n}{2}} d x)

Since

p < \frac{2 n}{n - 2}

, we have

q : = \frac{2 p}{n (p - 2)} > 1

, as well as its conjugate

q^{'}

. Moreover, since

p < \frac{2 (n - s)}{n - 2}

, we have that

\frac{2 s n}{2 p - n p + 2 n} < n

. It then follows from Holder's inequality that:

\begin{matrix} k & \leq & C_{n} \int_{Ω} | p - 1 |^{\frac{n}{2}} \frac{| v_{p, k} |^{(p - 2) \frac{n}{2}}}{| x |^{s \frac{n}{2}}} d x \end{matrix}

(123)

\begin{matrix} \leq & C_{n} | p - 1 |^{\frac{n}{2}} {(\int_{Ω} \frac{1}{| x |^{\frac{2 s n}{2 p - n p + 2 n}}} d x)}^{\frac{1}{q^{'}}} {(\int_{Ω} \frac{| v_{p, k} |^{p}}{| x |^{s}} d x)}^{\frac{n (p - 2)}{2 p}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C_{n, p} {(\int_{Ω} \frac{| v_{p, k} |^{p}}{| x |^{s}} d x)}^{\frac{n (p - 2)}{2 p}} \end{matrix}

where

C_{n, p} = C_{n} | p - 1 |^{\frac{n}{2}} {(\int_{Ω} \frac{1}{| x |^{\frac{2 s n}{2 p - n p + 2 n}}} d x)}^{\frac{1}{q^{'}}}

Since

〈 I^{'} (v_{p, k}), v_{p, k} 〉 = 0

, it follows that

\int_{Ω} | \nabla v_{p, k} |^{2} d x = \int_{Ω} \frac{| v_{p, k} |^{p}}{| x |^{s}} d x,

which finally implies that

\begin{matrix} c_{p, k} \geq I (v_{p, k}) & = & \frac{1}{2} \int_{Ω} | \nabla v_{p, k} |^{2} d x - \frac{1}{p} \int_{Ω} \frac{| v_{p, k} |^{p}}{| x |^{s}} d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & (\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{p}) \int_{Ω} \frac{| v_{p, k} |^{p}}{| x |^{s}} d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & D_{n, p} k^{\frac{2 p}{n (p - 2)}}, \end{matrix}

where

D_{n, p} = (\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{p}) C_{n, p}^{- \frac{2 p}{n (p - 2)}} .

To prove 4) we proceed by contradiction and assume that

(c_{k})_{k}

is bounded so that a subsequence of which converges to some real number

c

. Using the first claim of the proposition, there exists for each

k \in N

2 < p_{k} < 2 ◆

such that

| c_{p_{k}, k} - c_{k} | < \frac{1}{k}

in such a way that

{lim}_{k \to + \infty} p_{k} = 2 ◆

and

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{k \to + \infty} c_{p_{k}, k} = {lim}_{k \to + \infty} c_{k} = c . \end{matrix}

(124)

As above, there exists

v_{p_{k}, k} \in H 21, 0 (Ω)

such that

I_{p_{k}} (v_{p_{k}, k}) \leq c_{p_{k}, k}

I_{p_{k}}^{'} (v_{p_{k}, k}) = 0

and

m^{*} (v_{p_{k}, k}) \geq k

, where

m^{*} (v_{p_{k}, k})

is the augmented Morse index of

I_{p_{k}}

v_{p_{k}, k}

But ( 124 ) gives that the energies of

(v_{p_{k}, k})_{k}

are uniformly bounded and therefore

(v_{p_{k}, k})_{k}

is bounded in

H 21, 0 (Ω)

. It follows from Proposition 8.1 and the compactness Theorem 1.3 that they converge to a solution

v

of ( 121 ) with energy below level

c

In particular, there exists

C > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | v_{p_{k}, k} (x) | \leq C \end{matrix}

(125)

for all

x \in Ω

and all

k \in N

. With ( 123 ) applied to

v_{p_{k}, k}

, we get that

k \leq C_{n} \int_{Ω} | p_{k} - 1 |^{\frac{n}{2}} \frac{| v_{p_{k}, k} |^{(p - 2) \frac{n}{2}}}{| x |^{s \frac{n}{2}}} d x .

With ( 125 ), we get that there exists a constant

C > 0

independant of

k

such that

k \leq C \int_{Ω} \frac{d x}{| x |^{\frac{s n}{2}}} .

In particular, since

s \in (0, 2)

, the integral is finite and there existe

C > 0

such that

k \leq C

for all

k \in N

. A contradiction, and we are done with the proposition.

To complete the proof of Theorem 1.3, notice that since for each

k

, we have

{lim}_{p_{i} \to 2 ◆} I_{p_{i}} (u_{p_{i}, k}) = {lim}_{p_{i} \to 2 ◆} c_{p_{i}, k} = c_{k}

, it follows that the sequence

(u_{p_{i}, k})_{i}

is uniformly bounded in

H 21, 0 (Ω)

. Moreover, since

I_{p_{i}}^{'} (u_{p_{i}, k}) = 0

, it follows from Proposition 8.1 and the compactness Theorem 1.3 that by letting

p_{i} \to 2 ◆

, we get a solution

u_{k}

of ( 121 ) in such a way that

I_{2 ◆} (u_{k}) = {lim}_{p \to 2 ◆} I_{p} (u_{p, k}) = {lim}_{p \to 2 ◆} c_{p, k} = c_{k}

. Since the latter sequence goes to infinity, it follows that ( 121 ) has an infinite number of critical levels. The result for the equation

Δ u + a u = \frac{| u |^{2 ◆ - 2} u}{| x |^{s}}

when

Δ + a

is coercive goes the same way, and Theorem 1.2 is proved.

8 Appendix A: Regularity of weak solutions

In this appendix, we prove the following regularity result. Note that such a

C^{1} -

regularity was first proved out by Egnell [17] . We include the proof for completeness.

Proposition 8.1. Let

Ω

be a smooth domain of

R n

n \geq 3

. We assume that either

Ω

is bounded, or

Ω = R n -

. We let

s \in (0, 2)

and

a \in C^{0} (\bar{Ω})

. We let

ε \in [0, 2 ◆ - 2)

and consider

u \in H 21, 0 (Ω)

a weak solution of

Δ u + a u = \frac{| u |^{2 ◆ - 2 - ε} u}{| x |^{s}} i n D^{'} (Ω) .

Then

u \in C^{1, θ} (\bar{Ω})

for all

θ \in (0, min {1, 2 ◆ - ε - s})

Ω

is bounded, and

u \in C_{l o c}^{1, θ} (\bar{R n -})

for all

θ \in (0, min {1, 2 ◆ - ε - s})

Ω = R n -

. In addition, in all the cases, we have that

u \in C^{2} (\bar{Ω} \ {0})

a \in C^{0, α} (\bar{Ω})

for some

α \in (0, 1)

Proof. We prove the result when

Ω

is bounded. The arguments and the results are basically local, and the proof goes the same way when

Ω = R n -

Step 8 .1: We follow the strategy developed by Trudinger ([42] , and [28] for an exposition in book form). Let

β \geq 1

, and

L > 0

. We let

G_{L} (t) = {\begin{matrix} | t |^{β - 1} t & i f | t | \leq L \\ β L^{β - 1} (t - L) + L^{β} & i f t \geq L \\ β L^{β - 1} (t + L) - L^{β} & i f t \leq - L \end{matrix}

and

H_{L} (t) = {\begin{matrix} | t |^{\frac{β - 1}{2}} t & i f | t | \leq L \\ \frac{β + 1}{2} L^{\frac{β - 1}{2}} (t - L) + L^{\frac{β + 1}{2}} & i f t \geq L \\ \frac{β + 1}{2} L^{\frac{β - 1}{2}} (t + L) - L^{\frac{β + 1}{2}} & i f t \leq - L \end{matrix}

As easily checked,

0 \leq t G_{L} (t) \leq H_{L} (t)^{2} a n d G_{L}^{'} (t) = \frac{4 β}{(β + 1)^{2}} (H_{L}^{'} (t))^{2}

for all

t \in R

and all

L > 0

. Let

η \in C_{c}^{\infty} (R n)

. As easily checked,

η^{2} G_{L} (u), η H_{L} (u) \in H 21, 0 (Ω)

. With the equation verified by

u

, we get that

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} \nabla u \nabla (η^{2} G_{L} (u)) d x = \int_{Ω} \frac{| u |^{2 ◆ - 2 - ε}}{| x |^{s}} η^{2} u G_{L} (u) d x - \int_{Ω} a η^{2} u G_{L} (u) d x . \end{matrix}

(126)

We let

J_{L} (t) = \int_{0}^{t} G_{L} (τ) d τ

for all

t \in R

. Integrating by parts, we get that

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} \nabla u \nabla (η^{2} G_{L} (u)) d x = \int_{Ω} η^{2} G_{L}^{'} (u) | \nabla u |^{2} d x + \int_{Ω} \nabla η^{2} \nabla J_{L} (u) d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = \frac{4 β}{(β + 1)^{2}} \int_{Ω} η^{2} | \nabla H_{L} (u) |^{2} d x + \int_{Ω} (Δ η^{2}) J_{L} (u) d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = \frac{4 β}{(β + 1)^{2}} \int_{Ω} | \nabla (η H_{L} (u)) |^{2} d x - \frac{4 β}{(β + 1)^{2}} \int_{Ω} η Δ η | H_{L} (u) |^{2} d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{Ω} (Δ η^{2}) J_{L} (u) d x \end{matrix}

(127)

On the other hand, with Hölder's inequality and the definition of

μ_{s} (R n)

, we get that

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} (\frac{| u |^{2 ◆ - 2 - ε}}{| x |^{s}} - a) \cdot η^{2} u G_{L} (u) d x \leq \int_{Ω} (| a | + \frac{| u |^{2 ◆ - 2 - ε}}{| x |^{s}}) \cdot (η H_{L} (u))^{2} d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq {(\int_{Ω \cap S u p p η} \frac{(| a | \cdot | x |^{s} + | u |^{2 ◆ - 2 - ε})^{\frac{2 ◆ - ε}{2 ◆ - 2 - ε}}}{| x |^{s}} d x)}^{1 - \frac{2}{2 ◆ - ε}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \times {(\int_{Ω} \frac{| η H_{L} (u) |^{2 ◆}}{| x |^{s}} d x)}^{\frac{2}{2 ◆}} \times {(\int_{Ω \cap S u p p η} \frac{d x}{| x |^{s}})}^{\frac{2 ε}{2 ◆ (2 ◆ - ε)}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq α \int_{Ω} | \nabla (η H_{L} (u)) |^{2} d x \end{matrix}

(128)

where

\begin{matrix} α & : = & {(\int_{Ω \cap S u p p η} \frac{(| a | \cdot | x |^{s} + | u |^{2 ◆ - 2 - ε})^{\frac{2 ◆ - ε}{2 ◆ - 2 - ε}}}{| x |^{s}} d x)}^{1 - \frac{2}{2 ◆ - ε}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \times μ_{s} (R n)^{- 1} {(\int_{Ω \cap S u p p η} \frac{d x}{| x |^{s}})}^{\frac{2 ε}{2 ◆ (2 ◆ - ε)}} \end{matrix}

Plugging ( 127 ) and ( 128 ) into ( 126 ), we get that

\begin{matrix} A \cdot \int_{Ω} | \nabla (η H_{L} (u)) |^{2} d x \leq \frac{4 β}{(β + 1)^{2}} \int_{Ω} | η Δ η | | H_{L} (u) |^{2} d x + \int_{Ω} | Δ (η^{2}) J_{L} (u) | d x \end{matrix}

(129)

where

\begin{matrix} A & : = & \frac{4 β}{(β + 1)^{2}} - {(\int_{Ω \cap S u p p η} \frac{(| a | \cdot | x |^{s} + | u |^{2 ◆ - 2 - ε})^{\frac{2 ◆ - ε}{2 ◆ - 2 - ε}}}{| x |^{s}} d x)}^{1 - \frac{2}{2 ◆ - ε}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \times μ_{s} (R n)^{- 1} {(\int_{Ω \cap S u p p η} \frac{d x}{| x |^{s}})}^{\frac{2 ε}{2 ◆ (2 ◆ - ε)}} \end{matrix}

Step 8 .2: We let

p_{0} = sup {p \geq 1 / u \in L^{p} (Ω)} .

It follows from Sobolev's embedding theorem that

p_{0} \geq \frac{2 n}{n - 2}

. We claim that

p_{0} = + \infty .

We proceed by contradiction and assume that

p_{0} < \infty .

Let

p \in (2, p_{0})

. It follows from the definition of

p_{0}

that

u \in L^{p} (Ω)

. Let

β = p - 1 > 1

. For any

x \in \bar{Ω}

, we let

δ_{x} > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} {(\int_{Ω \cap B_{2 δ_{x}} (x)} \frac{(| a | \cdot | y |^{s} + | u |^{2 ◆ - 2 - ε})^{\frac{2 ◆ - ε}{2 ◆ - 2 - ε}}}{| y |^{s}} d y)}^{1 - \frac{2}{2 ◆ - ε}} μ_{s} (R n)^{- 1} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \times {(\int_{Ω \cap B_{2 δ_{x}} (x)} \frac{d y}{| y |^{s}})}^{\frac{2 ε}{2 ◆ (2 ◆ - ε)}} \leq \frac{2 β}{(β + 1)^{2}} . \end{matrix}

(130)

Since

\bar{Ω}

is compact, we get that there exists

x_{1}, . . ., x_{N} \in \bar{Ω}

such that

Ω \subset^{N} ⋃_{i = 1} B_{δ_{x_{i}}} (x_{i}) .

We fix

i \in {1, . . ., N}

and let

η \in C^{\infty} (B_{2 δ_{x_{i}}} (x_{i}))

such that

η (x) = 1

for all

x \in B_{δ_{x_{i}}} (x_{i})

. We then get with ( 129 ) and ( 130 ) that

\begin{matrix} \frac{2 β}{(β + 1)^{2}} \int_{Ω} | \nabla (η H_{L} (u)) |^{2} d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq \frac{4 β}{(β + 1)^{2}} \int_{Ω} | η Δ η | | H_{L} (u) |^{2} d x + \int_{Ω} | Δ η^{2} | | J_{L} (u) | d x . \end{matrix}

(131)

Recall that it follows from Sobolev's inequality that there exists

K (n, 2) > 0

that depends only on

n

such that

\begin{matrix} {(\int_{R n} | f |^{\frac{2 n}{n - 2}} d x)}^{\frac{n - 2}{n}} \leq K (n, 2) \int_{R n} | \nabla f |^{2} d x \end{matrix}

(132)

for all

f \in H 21, 0 (R n)

. It follows from ( 131 ) and ( 132 ) that

\begin{matrix} \frac{2 β}{(β + 1)^{2}} K (n, 2)^{- 1} {(\int_{Ω} | η H_{L} (u) |^{\frac{2 n}{n - 2}} d x)}^{\frac{n - 2}{n}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq \frac{4 β}{(β + 1)^{2}} \int_{Ω} | η Δ η | | H_{L} (u) |^{2} d x + \int_{Ω} | Δ η^{2} | \cdot | J_{L} (u) | d x \end{matrix}

for all

L > 0

. As easily checked, there exists

C_{0} > 0

such that

| J_{L} (t) | \leq C_{0} | t |^{β + 1}

for all

t \in R

and all

L > 0

. Since

u \in L^{β + 1} (Ω)

, we get that there exists a constant

C = C (η, u, β, Ω)

independant of

L

such that

\int_{Ω \cap B_{δ_{x_{i}}} (x_{i})} | H_{L} (u) |^{\frac{2 n}{n - 2}} d x \leq \int_{Ω} | η H_{L} (u)) |^{\frac{2 n}{n - 2}} d x \leq C

for all

L > 0

. Letting

L \to + \infty

, we get that

\int_{Ω \cap B_{δ_{x_{i}}} (x_{i})} | u |^{\frac{n}{n - 2} (β + 1)} d x < + \infty,

for all

i = 1 . . . N

. We then get that

u \in L^{\frac{n}{n - 2} (β + 1)} (Ω) = L^{\frac{n}{n - 2} p} (Ω)

. And then,

\frac{n}{n - 2} p \leq p_{0}

for all

p \in (2, p_{0})

. Letting

p \to p_{0}

, we get a contradiction. Then

p_{0} = + \infty

and

u \in L^{p} (Ω)

for all

p \geq 1

. This ends Step 8 .2.

Step 8 .3: We claim that

u \in C^{0, α} (\bar{Ω})

for all

α \in (0, 1)

. Indeed, it follows from Step 8 .2 and the assumption

0 < s < 2

that there exists

p > \frac{n}{2}

such that

f ε : = \frac{| u |^{2 ◆ - 2 - ε} u}{| x |^{s}} - a u \in L^{p} (Ω) .

It follows from standard elliptic theory that, in this case,

u \in C^{0, α} (\bar{Ω})

for all

α \in (0, min {2 - s, 1})

. We let

α_{0} = sup {α \in (0, 1) / u \in C^{0, α} (\bar{Ω})} .

Note that it follows from the preceding remark that

α_{0} > 0

. We let

α \in (0, α_{0})

Then

u \in C^{0, α} (\bar{Ω})

. Since

u (0) = 0

, we then get that

\begin{matrix} | u (x) | \leq | u (x) - u (0) | \leq C | x |^{α} . \end{matrix}

(133)

We then get with ( 133 ) that

| f ε (x) | = | \frac{| u (x) |^{2 ◆ - 1 - ε} u}{| x |^{s}} - a u | \leq \frac{C}{| x |^{s - (2 ◆ - 1 - ε) α}} + C

for all

x \in Ω

. We distinguish 2 cases:

Case 8 .3.1:

s - (2 ◆ - 1 - ε) α_{0} \leq 0

. In this case, for any

p > 1

, up to taking

α

close enough to

α_{0}

, we get that

f ε \in L^{p} (Ω) .

Since

Δ u = f ε

and

u \in H 21, 0 (Ω)

, it follows from standard elliptic theory that for any

θ \in (0, 1)

, we have that

u \in C^{1, θ} (\bar{Ω})

. It follows that

α_{0} = 1

. This proves the claim in Case 8 .3.1.

Case 8 .3.2:

s - (2 ◆ - 1 - ε) α_{0} > 0

. In this case, for any

p < \frac{n}{s - (2 ◆ - 1 - ε) α_{0}}

, up to taking

α

close enough to

α_{0}

, we get that

f ε \in L^{p} (Ω) .

We distinguish 3 subcases.

Case 8 .3.2.1:

s - (2 ◆ - 1 - ε) α_{0} < 1

. In this case, up to taking

α

close enough to

α_{0}

, there exists

p > n

such that

f ε \in L^{p} (Ω) .

Since

Δ u = f ε

and

u \in H 21, 0 (Ω)

, it follows from standard elliptic theory that there exist exists

θ \in (0, 1)

such that

u \in C^{1, θ} (\bar{Ω})

. It follows that

α_{0} = 1

. This proves the claim in Case 8 .3.2.1.

Case 8 .3.2.2:

s - (2 ◆ - 1 - ε) α_{0} = 1

. In this case, for any

p < n

, up to taking

α

close enough to

α_{0}

, we get that

f ε \in L^{p} (Ω) .

Since

Δ u = f ε

and

u \in H 21, 0 (Ω)

, it follows from standard elliptic theory that

u \in C^{0, \tilde{α}} (\bar{Ω})

for all

\tilde{α} \in (0, 1)

. It follows that

α_{0} = 1

. This proves the claim in Case 8 .3.2.2.

Case 8 .3.2.3:

s - (2 ◆ - 1 - ε) α_{0} > 1

. In this case, it follows from standard elliptic theory that

u \in C^{0, \tilde{α}} (\bar{Ω})

for all

\tilde{α} \leq 2 - (s - (2 ◆ - 1 - ε) α_{0}) .

It follows from the definition of

α_{0}

that

α_{0} \geq 2 - (s - (2 ◆ - 1 - ε) α_{0}),

and then

0 \geq 2 - s + (2 ◆ - 2 - ε) α_{0} > 0,

a contradiction since

s < 2

and

ε < 2 ◆ - 2

. This proves that Case 8 .3.2.3 does not occur, and we are back to the other cases.

Clearly, theses cases end Step 8 .3.

Step 8 .4: We claim that

u \in C^{1, θ} (\bar{Ω})

for all

θ \in (0, min {1, 2 ◆ - ε - s})

. We proceed as in Step 8 .3. We let

α \in (0, 1)

(note that

α_{0} = 1

). We then get that

| f ε (x) | = | \frac{| u |^{2 ◆ - 1 - ε} u}{| x |^{s}} - a u | \leq \frac{C}{| x |^{s - (2 ◆ - 1 - ε) α}} + C

for all

x \in Ω

. We distinguish 2 cases:

Case 8 .4.1:

s - (2 ◆ - 1 - ε) \leq 0

. In this case, for any

p > 1

, up to taking

α

close enough to

α_{0}

, we get that

f ε \in L^{p} (Ω) .

Since

Δ u = f ε

and

u \in H 21, 0 (Ω)

, it follows from standard elliptic theory that

u \in C^{1, θ} (\bar{Ω})

for all

θ \in (0, 1)

. It follows that

α_{0} = 1

. This proves the claim in Case 8 .4.1.

Case 8 .4.2:

s - (2 ◆ - 1 - ε) > 0

. In this case, for any

p < \frac{n}{s - (2 ◆ - 1 - ε)}

, up to taking

α

close enough to

1

, we get that

f ε \in L^{p} (Ω) .

As easily checked,

1 - (s - (2 ◆ - 1 - ε)) = 2 - s + (2 ◆ - 1 - ε) - 1 > 2 ◆ - 2 - ε > 0

We then get that there exists

p > n

such that

f ε \in L^{p} (Ω)

. Since

Δ u = f ε

and

u \in H 21, 0 (Ω)

, it follows from standard elliptic theory that

u \in C^{1, θ} (\bar{Ω})

for all

θ \in (0, min {1, 2 ◆ - ε - s})

. This proves the claim in Case 8 .4.2.

Combining Case 8 .4.1 and Case 8 .4.2, we obtain Step 8 .4. Proposition 8.1 follows from Step 8 .4. □

9 Appendix B: Properties of the Green's function

This section is devoted to the proof of some useful properties of the Green's function for a coercive operator. Concerning notations, for any function

F : X \times Y \to R

and any

x \in X

, we let

F_{x} : Y \to R

such that

F_{x} (y) = F (x, y)

for all

y \in Y

We prove the following:

Theorem 9.1. Let

Ω

be a bounded domain of

R n

n \geq 3

. Let

K, λ > 0

Let

θ \in (0, 1)

and

a \in C^{0, θ} (\bar{Ω})

such that

\begin{matrix} | a (x) | \leq K a n d | a (x) - a (y) | \leq K | x - y |^{θ} \end{matrix}

(134)

for all

x, y \in \bar{Ω}

and

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} (| \nabla φ |^{2} + a φ^{2}) d x \geq λ \int_{Ω} φ^{2} d x \end{matrix}

(135)

for all

φ \in C_{c}^{\infty} (Ω)

. Then there exists

G : \bar{Ω} \times \bar{Ω} \ {(x, x) / x \in \bar{Ω}} \to R

such that (G1) For any

x \in Ω

G_{x} \in L^{1} (Ω)

and

G_{x} \in C^{2, θ} (\bar{Ω} \ {x})

(G2) For any

x \in Ω

G_{x} > 0

Ω \ {x}

and

G_{x} = 0

\partial Ω

(G3) For any

φ \in C^{2} (\bar{Ω})

such that

φ \equiv 0

\partial Ω

, we have that

φ (x) = \int_{Ω} G (x, y) (Δ φ + a φ) (y) d y

for all

x \in Ω

(G4)

G (x, y) = G (y, x)

for all

x, y \in Ω

x \neq y

(G5) There exists

C = C (Ω, K, λ) > 0

such that

| x - y |^{n - 2} | G (x, y) | \leq C (Ω, K, λ)

for all

x, y \in Ω

x \neq y

(G6) There exists

C = C (Ω, K, λ) > 0

such that

| x - y |^{n - 1} | G (x, y) | \leq C (Ω, K, λ) d (y, \partial Ω)

for all

x, y \in Ω

x \neq y

(G7) There exists

C = C (Ω, K, λ) > 0

such that

| x - y |^{n - 1} | \nabla G_{x} (y) | \leq C (Ω, K, λ)

for all

x, y \in Ω

x \neq y

(G8) There exists

C = C (Ω, K, λ) > 0

such that

| x - y |^{n} | \nabla_{y} G_{x} (y) | \leq C (Ω, K, λ) d (x, \partial Ω)

for all

x, y \in Ω

x \neq y

Some similar properties are available for the normal derivative of

G

at the boundary.

Namely,

Theorem 9.2. Let

Ω

be a bounded domain of

R n

n \geq 3

. We assume

0 \in \partial Ω

. Let

K, λ > 0

. Let

θ \in (0, 1)

and

a \in C^{0, θ} (\bar{Ω})

such that ( 134 ) and ( 135 ) hold. We let

G

as in Theorem 9.1 . We let

H (x) = - \partial_{ν} G_{x} (0)

for all

x \in \bar{Ω} \ {x}

. Then the following assertions hold:

(G9)

H \in C^{2} (\bar{Ω} \ {0})

H > 0

Ω

and

H \equiv 0

\partial Ω \ {0}

, (G10)

Δ H + a H = 0

Ω

, (G11) There exists

C = C (Ω, K, λ) > 0

such that

\frac{d (x, \partial Ω)}{C | x |^{n}} \leq H (x) \leq \frac{C d (x, \partial Ω)}{| x |^{n}}

for all

x \in Ω

(G12) There exists

C = C (Ω, K, λ) > 0

and

δ = δ (Ω, K, λ) > 0

such that

\frac{1}{C | x |^{n}} \leq | \nabla H (x) | \leq \frac{C}{| x |^{n}}

for all

x \in B_{δ} (0) \cap Ω

The proof of Theorem 9.1 is very close to the proof of the existence of the Green's function on a compact manifold without boundary provided in [15] . We just give the main steps of the proof and outline the difference with [15] when necessary. We prove Theorem 9.2 in details.

Step 9 .1: This Step is devoted to the proof of points (G1)-(G5) of Theorem 9.1 .

We only sketch the proof. Details are available in [15] . We define

ℋ (x, y) = \frac{1}{(n - 2) ω_{n - 1} | x - y |^{n - 2}}

for all

x, y \in R n

such that

x \neq y

. In this expression,

ω_{n - 1}

denotes the volume of the standard

(n - 1) -

sphere. The function

ℋ

is the standard Green kernel of the Laplacian in

R n

. We define the functions

Γ_{i}

's by induction. Given

x, y \in \bar{Ω}

x \neq y

, we let

\begin{matrix} Γ_{1} (x, y) = - a (y) ℋ (x, y) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} Γ_{i + 1} (x, y) = \int_{Ω} Γ_{i} (x, z) Γ_{1} (z, y) d z & f o r a l l i \geq 1 . \end{matrix}

As easily checked,

Γ_{i} \in C^{0} (\bar{Ω} \times \bar{Ω} \ {(x, x) / x \in \bar{Ω}})

for all

i \geq 1

. Standard computations yield that there exists

C (Ω, n, K) > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | Γ_{i} (x, y) | \leq C (Ω, n, K) | x - y |^{2 i - n} & i f 2 i < n \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} | Γ_{i} (x, y) | \leq C (Ω, n, K) (1 + | ln | x - y | |) & i f 2 i = n \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} | Γ_{i} (x, y) | \leq C (Ω, n, K) & i f 2 i > n, i \leq n . \end{matrix}

for all

x, y \in \bar{Ω}

x \neq y

. In addition,

Γ_{i}

can be extended to a continuous function in

\bar{Ω} \times \bar{Ω}

for all

i > n / 2

. We let

x \in Ω

. We let

U_{x} \in H_{1, 0}^{2} (Ω)

such that

Δ U_{x} + a U_{x} = Γ_{n + 1} (x, \cdot) i n D^{'} (Ω) .

Since

Γ_{n + 1}

is uniformly bounded in

L^{\infty}

, it follows from standard elliptic theory that

U_{x} \in H_{2}^{p} (Ω)

for all

p > 1

and that there exists

C (Ω, K, λ) > 0

such that

∥ U_{x} ∥_{C^{1} (\bar{Ω})} \leq C (Ω, K, λ)

for all

x \in Ω

. We let

V_{x} \in H_{1}^{2} (Ω)

such that

{\begin{matrix} Δ V_{x} + a V_{x} = 0 & i n D^{'} (Ω) \\ V_{x} (y) = - ℋ (x, y) - \sum_{i = 1}^{n} \int_{Ω} Γ_{i} (x, z) ℋ (z, y) d z & f o r a l l y \in \partial Ω . \end{matrix}

It follows from standard elliptic theory that for any

x \in Ω

V_{x} \in C^{1} (Ω)

. Moreover, it follows from the explicit expression of

ℋ

and the

Γ_{i}

's that there exists

C (Ω, K, λ)^{'} > 0

such that

V_{x} (y) \leq C (Ω, K, λ)^{'}

for all

x \in Ω

and all

y \in \partial Ω

. Since

Δ + a

is coercive, it follows from the comparison principle that there exists

C (Ω, K, λ) > 0

such that

V_{x} (y) \leq C (Ω, K, λ)

for all

x \in Ω

and all

y \in Ω

. We let

G_{x} (y) : = ℋ (x, y) + \sum_{i = 1}^{n} \int_{Ω} Γ_{i} (x, z) ℋ (z, y) d z + U_{x} (y) + V_{x} (y)

for all

y \in Ω

. It follows from the construction of

G

that there exists

C (Ω, K, λ) > 0

such that

G (x, y) \leq C (Ω, K, λ) \cdot | x - y |^{2 - n}

for all

x, y \in Ω

x \neq y

and that

G_{x}

vanishes on

\partial Ω

for all

x \in Ω

. This prove point (G5). We let

φ \in C^{2} (\bar{Ω})

such that

φ \equiv 0

\partial Ω

. Noting that

φ (z) = \int_{Ω} ℋ (z, y) Δ φ (y) d y + \int_{\partial Ω} ℋ (x, y) \partial_{ν} φ (y) d σ (y)

for all

z \in Ω

, we get with some integrations by parts that

φ (x) = \int_{Ω} G (x, y) (Δ φ + a φ) (y) d y .

This proves point (G3). It then follows that

Δ G_{x} + a G_{x} = 0 i n D^{'} (Ω \ {x}) .

Since

G_{x} \equiv 0

\partial Ω

, we get that

G_{x} \in C_{l o c}^{2, θ} (\bar{Ω} \ {x})

. It the follows from the construction and the maximum principle that

G_{x} > 0

Ω \ {x}

. This proves points (G2) and (G1). Point (G4) is standard, we refer to [2] or [15] .

Step 9 .2: We prove points (G6) and (G7) of Theorem 9.1 . We proceed by contradiction and assume that there exists a sequence

(a_{k})_{k \in N} \in C^{0, θ} (\bar{Ω})

and sequences

(x_{k})_{k \in N}, (y_{k})_{k \in N} \in Ω

such that ( 134 ) and ( 135 ) hold and

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{k \to + \infty} [| x_{k} - y_{k} |^{n - 1} | \nabla G_{x_{k}} (y_{k}) | + \frac{| x_{k} - y_{k} |^{n - 1} G_{x_{k}} (y_{k})}{d (y_{k}, \partial Ω)}] = + \infty \end{matrix}

(136)

where

G_{x_{k}}

is the Green's function for

Δ + a_{k}

x_{k}

. We let

x_{\infty} = {lim}_{k \to + \infty} x_{k}

and

y_{\infty} = {lim}_{k \to + \infty} y_{k}

(these limits exist up to a subsequence).

Case 1:

x_{\infty} \neq y_{\infty}

. We let

0 < δ < | x_{\infty} - y_{\infty} | / 4

. It follows from point (G5) that there exists

C > 0

independant of

k

such that

| G_{x_{k}} (y) | \leq C

for all

y \in Ω \cap B_{y_{\infty}} (2 δ)

Since

Δ G_{x_{k}} + a_{k} G_{x_{k}} = 0

and

G_{x_{k}} = 0

\partial Ω

, it follows from standard elliptic theory that

∥ G_{x_{k}} ∥_{C^{1} (\bar{Ω} \cap B_{y_{\infty}} (δ))} = O (1)

when

k \to + \infty

. Since

G_{x_{k}}

vanishes on

\partial Ω

, we get that there exists

C > 0

such that

| G_{x_{k}} (y) | \leq C d (y, \partial Ω) a n d | \nabla G_{x_{k}} (y) | \leq C

for all

y \in \bar{Ω} \cap B_{y_{\infty}} (δ)

and all

ε > 0

. A contradiction with ( 136 ).

Case 2:

x_{\infty} = y_{\infty}

Case 2.1: We assume that

\begin{matrix} d (x_{k}, \partial Ω) \geq 2 | y_{k} - x_{k} | \end{matrix}

(137)

up to a subsequence. We let

{\tilde{G}}_{k} (z) = | y_{k} - x_{k} |^{n - 2} G (x_{k}, x_{k} + | y_{k} - x_{k} | z)

for all

z \in B_{3 / 2} (0)

. With our assumption, this is well defined. It follows from (G5) that there exists

C > 0

such that

| {\tilde{G}}_{k} (z) | \leq C

for all

z \in B_{3 / 2} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{1 / 4} (0)

. Moreover,

{\tilde{G}}_{k}

verifies the equation

Δ {\tilde{G}}_{k} + | y_{k} - x_{k} |^{2} a_{k} (x_{k} + | y_{k} - x_{k} | z) {\tilde{G}}_{k} (z) = 0

B_{3 / 2} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{1 / 4} (0)

. It follows from standard elliptic theory that

∥ {\tilde{G}}_{k} ∥_{C^{1} (B_{5 / 4} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{1 / 2} (0))} = O (1)

when

k \to + \infty

. Taking

z = \frac{y_{k} - x_{k}}{| y_{k} - x_{k} |}

and coming back to

G_{x_{k}}

, we get that

\begin{matrix} | x_{k} - y_{k} |^{n - 1} | \nabla G_{x_{k}} (y_{k}) | = O (1) \end{matrix}

(138)

when

k \to + \infty

. Moreover, it follows from point (G5) of Theorem 9.1 and ( 137 ) that there exists

C > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | x_{k} - y_{k} |^{n - 1} G_{x_{k}} (y_{k}) \leq C d (y_{k}, \partial Ω) \end{matrix}

(139)

when

k \to + \infty

. Inequations ( 138 ) and ( 139 ) contradict ( 136 ).

Case 2.2: We assume that

\begin{matrix} d (x_{k}, \partial Ω) \leq 2 | y_{k} - x_{k} | \end{matrix}

(140)

up to a subsequence. In particular,

x_{\infty} \in \partial Ω

. We let a chart

φ : U \to V

as in ( 13 ) with

y_{0} = x_{\infty}

and where

U, V

are open neighborhoods of

0

and

x_{\infty}

respectively.

We let

{\tilde{x}}_{k}, {\tilde{y}}_{k} \in U \cap {x_{1} < 0}

such that

x_{k} = φ ({\tilde{x}}_{k})

and

y_{k} = φ ({\tilde{y}}_{k})

. As a remark,

{lim}_{k \to + \infty} {\tilde{x}}_{k} = {lim}_{k \to + \infty} {\tilde{y}}_{k} = 0

. We let

{\tilde{x}}_{k, 1} < 0

be the first coordinate of

{\tilde{x}}_{k}

. As in Step 3 .2, we have that

d (x_{k}, \partial Ω) = (1 + o (1)) | {\tilde{x}}_{k, 1} |

when

k \to + \infty

. We then get with ( 140 ) that

{\tilde{x}}_{k, 1} = O (| {\tilde{y}}_{k} - {\tilde{x}}_{k} |)

when

k \to + \infty

. We let

ρ_{k} = \frac{{\tilde{x}}_{k, 1}}{| {\tilde{y}}_{k} - {\tilde{x}}_{k} |} a n d ρ_{\infty} = {lim}_{k \to + \infty} ρ_{k}

(this limit exists up to a subsequence). We let

R > 0

and we let

{\tilde{G}}_{k} (z) = | {\tilde{y}}_{k} - {\tilde{x}}_{k} |^{n - 2} G (x_{k}, φ ({\tilde{x}}_{k} + | {\tilde{y}}_{k} - {\tilde{x}}_{k} | (z - ρ_{k} {\vec{e}}_{1})))

for all

k

and all

z \in B_{R} (0) \cap {z_{1} \leq 0}

. Here

{\vec{e}}_{1}

denotes the first vector of the canonical basis of

R n

. Note that

{\tilde{G}}_{k}

vanishes on

B_{R} (0) \cap {z_{1} = 0}

. It follows of the pointwise estimate (G5) that for any

R, δ > 0

, there exists

C (R, δ) > 0

such that

| {\tilde{G}}_{k} (z) | \leq C (R, δ)

for all

z \in [B_{R} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{δ} ((ρ_{\infty}, 0, . . ., 0))] \cap {z_{1} \leq 0}

. The function

{\tilde{G}}_{k}

verifies the equation

Δ_{g_{k}} {\tilde{G}}_{k} + | {\tilde{y}}_{k} - {\tilde{x}}_{k} |^{2} a_{k} (φ ({\tilde{x}}_{k} + | {\tilde{y}}_{k} - {\tilde{x}}_{k} | (z - (ρ_{k}, 0, . ., 0)))) {\tilde{G}}_{k} = 0

[B_{R} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{δ} ((ρ_{\infty}, 0, . . ., 0))] \cap {z_{1} \leq 0}

. It then follows from standard elliptic theory that

∥ {\tilde{G}}_{k} ∥_{C^{1} ([B_{R / 2} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{2 δ} (ρ_{\infty}, . . ., 0)] \cap {z_{1} \leq 0})} = O (1)

when

k \to + \infty

. As in Case 2.1, we get that

\begin{matrix} | x_{k} - y_{k} |^{n - 1} | \nabla G_{x_{k}} (y_{k}) | = O (1) \end{matrix}

(141)

when

k \to + \infty

. Moreover, since

{\tilde{G}}_{k}

vanishes on

\partial R n -

, there exists

C > 0

such that

| {\tilde{G}}_{k} (z) | \leq C | z_{1} |

for all

z \in [B_{R / 2} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{2 δ} (ρ_{\infty}, . . ., 0)] \cap {z_{1} \leq 0}

. Taking

z = (ρ_{k}, . . ., 0) + \frac{{\tilde{y}}_{k} - {\tilde{x}}_{k}}{| {\tilde{y}}_{k} - {\tilde{x}}_{k} |}

, we get that

\begin{matrix} | x_{k} - y_{k} |^{n - 1} G_{x_{k}} (y_{k}) \leq C d (y_{k}, \partial Ω) \end{matrix}

(142)

for all

k

large enough. A contradiction with ( 136 ).

In all the cases, we have contradicted ( 136 ). This proves points (G6) and (G7) of Theorem 9.1 .

Step 9 .3: We prove point (G8) of Theorem 9.1 . More precisely, we claim that there exists

C = C (Ω, K, λ) > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | x - y |^{n} G (x, y) \leq C d (y, \partial Ω) d (x, \partial Ω) \end{matrix}

(143)

and

| x - y |^{n} | \nabla_{y} G (x, y) | \leq C d (x, \partial Ω)

for all

x, y \in Ω

x \neq Ω

. Indeed we proceed as in the proof of points (G6) and (G7).

We proceed by contradiction and assume that there exist a sequence

(a_{k})_{k \in N} \in C^{0, θ} (\bar{Ω})

and sequences

(x_{k})_{k \in N}, (y_{k})_{k \in N} \in Ω

such that ( 134 ) and ( 135 ) hold and

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{k \to + \infty} | x_{k} - y_{k} |^{n} \frac{| G (x_{k}, y_{k}) |}{d (x_{k}, \partial Ω) d (y_{k}, \partial Ω)} + | x_{k} - y_{k} |^{n} \frac{| \nabla G_{x_{k}} (y_{k}) |}{d (x_{k}, \partial Ω)} = + \infty \end{matrix}

(144)

where

G_{x_{k}}

is the Green's function for

Δ + a_{k}

x_{k}

. We let

x_{\infty} = {lim}_{k \to + \infty} x_{k}

and

y_{\infty} = {lim}_{k \to + \infty} y_{k}

(these limits exist up to a subsequence).

Case 1:

x_{\infty} \neq y_{\infty}

. We let

0 < δ < | x_{\infty} - y_{\infty} | / 4

. We let

{\tilde{G}}_{k} (z) = \frac{G_{k} (x_{k}, z)}{d (x_{k}, \partial Ω)}

for all

z \in Ω

. As in Case 1 of the proof of (G6)-(G7), using (G6), we get that

∥ {\tilde{G}}_{k} ∥_{C^{1} (\bar{Ω} \cap B_{y_{\infty}} (δ))} = O (1)

when

k \to + \infty

. It then follows that

{\tilde{G}}_{k} (y_{k}) \leq C d (y_{k}, \partial Ω) a n d | \nabla {\tilde{G}}_{k} (y_{k}) | \leq C

when

k \to + \infty

. A contradiction with ( 144 ).

Case 2:

x_{\infty} = y_{\infty}

Case 2.1: We assume that

d (x_{k}, \partial Ω) \geq 2 | y_{k} - x_{k} |

up to a subsequence. We then obtain that

| x_{k} - y_{k} | \leq d (y_{k}, \partial Ω)

. This inequality and (G6)-(G7) yield to a contradiction with ( 144 ).

Case 2.2: We assume that

d (x_{k}, \partial Ω) \leq 2 | y_{k} - x_{k} |

up to a subsequence. In particular,

x_{\infty} \in \partial Ω

. We let a chart

φ : U \to V

as in ( 13 ) with

y_{0} = x_{\infty}

and where

U, V

are open neighborhoods of

0

and

x_{\infty}

respectively.

We let

{\tilde{x}}_{k}, {\tilde{y}}_{k} \in U \cap {x_{1} < 0}

such that

x_{k} = φ ({\tilde{x}}_{k})

and

y_{k} = φ ({\tilde{y}}_{k})

. We let

{\tilde{G}}_{k} (z) = | {\tilde{y}}_{k} - {\tilde{x}}_{k} |^{n - 1} \frac{G [x_{k}, φ ({\tilde{x}}_{k} + | {\tilde{y}}_{k} - {\tilde{x}}_{k} | (z - (\frac{{\tilde{x}}_{k, 1}}{| {\tilde{y}}_{k} - {\tilde{x}}_{k} |}, 0, . ., 0)))]}{d (x_{k}, \partial Ω)}

for all

z \in [B_{R} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{δ} (ρ_{\infty}, 0, . . ., 0)] \cap {z_{1} \leq 0}

. As in Case 2.2 of the proof of (G6)-(G7), we get with (G6) that for any

R > 4 δ > 0

, we have that

∥ {\tilde{G}}_{k} ∥_{C^{1} ([B_{R / 2} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{2 δ} (ρ_{\infty}, 0, . . ., 0)] \cap {z_{1} \leq 0})} = O (1)

when

k \to + \infty

, where

ρ_{\infty} = {lim}_{k \to + \infty} \frac{{\tilde{x}}_{k, 1}}{| {\tilde{y}}_{k} - {\tilde{x}}_{k} |}

. Since

{\tilde{G}}_{k}

vanishes on

{z_{1} = 0}

, it then follows that there exists

C > 0

such that

| {\tilde{G}}_{k} (z) | \leq C | z_{1} |

for all

z \in [B_{R / 2} (0) \ {\bar{B}}_{2 δ} (ρ_{\infty}, 0, . . ., 0)] \cap {z_{1} \leq 0}

. Coming back to the definition of

{\tilde{G}}_{k}

and noting that

d (y_{k}, \partial Ω) = (1 + o (1)) | {\tilde{y}}_{k, 1} |

when

k \to + \infty

, we get a contradiction with ( 144 ) as in Case 2.2 of Step 9 .2.

In all the cases, we have contradicted ( 144 ). This proves the claim and ends Step 9 .3.

The proof of Theorem 9.1 is complete. We prove Theorem 9.2 .

Step 9 .4: We let

H (x) = - \partial_{ν} G_{x} (0)

for any

x \in \bar{Ω} \ {0}

. It follows from ( 143 ) that there exists

C = C (Ω, K, λ) > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} 0 \leq H (x) \leq \frac{C d (x, \partial Ω)}{| x |^{n}} \leq \frac{C}{| x |^{n - 1}} \end{matrix}

(145)

for all

x \in Ω

. Since

Δ G_{x} + a G_{x} = 0

Ω \ {x}

, using the symetry (G4) of

G

and ( 145 ), we get that

H \in C^{2} (\bar{Ω} \ {0})

and that

Δ H + a H = 0

Ω

and

H (x) = 0

for all

x \in \partial Ω \ {0}

. Derivating (G3), we get that

\begin{matrix} \partial_{ν} φ (0) = - \int_{Ω} H (x) (Δ φ + a φ) (x) d x \end{matrix}

(146)

for all

φ \in C^{2} (\bar{Ω})

such that

φ \equiv 0

\partial Ω

Step 9 .5: Assume that there exists a sequence

(a_{k})_{k > 0} \in C^{0, θ} (\bar{Ω})

such that ( 135 ) and ( 134 ) hold, that there exists a sequence

(r_{k})_{k > 0} \in R

such that

r_{k} > 0

{lim}_{k \to + \infty} r_{k} = 0

and

{lim}_{k \to + \infty} {sup}_{| x | = r_{k}} \frac{H_{k} (x) | x |^{n}}{d (x, \partial Ω)} = 0,

where

H_{k}

comes from the Green's function of

Δ + a_{k}

. We claim that in this situation, we have that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{k \to + \infty} {sup}_{\frac{1}{2} r_{k} \leq | x | \leq 3 r_{k}} (\frac{H_{k} (x) | x |^{n}}{d (x, \partial Ω)} + | x |^{n} | \nabla H_{k} (x) |) = 0 . \end{matrix}

(147)

Indeed, we let

φ : U \to V

as in ( 13 ) where

U, V

are open neighborhoods of

0

. We let

{\tilde{H}}_{k} (x) = r_{k}^{n - 1} H_{k} (φ (r_{k} x))

for all

x \in \frac{U}{r_{k}} \cap {x_{1} \leq 0}

. It follows from ( 145 ) that for any

R > δ > 0

, there exists

C (R, δ) > 0

such that

| {\tilde{H}}_{k} (x) | \leq C (R, δ)

for all

x \in [B_{R} (0) \ B_{δ} (0)] \cap {x_{1} \leq 0}

. In addition

{\tilde{H}}_{k}

vanishes when

x_{1} = 0

. Moreover, we have that

Δ_{g_{k}} {\tilde{H}}_{k} + r_{k}^{2} a_{k} (φ (r_{k} x)) {\tilde{H}}_{k} = 0,

where

(g_{k})_{i j} = (\partial φ, \partial_{j} φ) (r_{k} x)

for

i, j \in {1, . . ., n}

. It then follows from standard elliptic theory that there exists

\tilde{H} \in C^{2} (\bar{R n -} \ {0})

such that

Δ \tilde{H} = 0

R n - \ {0}

and

{lim}_{k \to + \infty} {\tilde{H}}_{k} = \tilde{H}

C_{l o c}^{2} (\bar{R n -} \ {0})

. As easily checked, we have that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{k \to + \infty} {sup}_{\frac{1}{2} r_{k} \leq | x | \leq 3 r_{k}} (\frac{H_{k} (x) | x |^{n}}{d (x, \partial Ω)} + | x |^{n} | \nabla H_{k} (x) |) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = {sup}_{\frac{1}{2} \leq | x | \leq 3} (\frac{\tilde{H} (x) | x |^{n}}{| x_{1} |} + | x |^{n} | \nabla \tilde{H} (x) |) \end{matrix}

(148)

and

\begin{matrix} 0 = {lim}_{k \to + \infty} {sup}_{| x | = r_{k}} \frac{H_{k} (x) | x |^{n}}{d (x, \partial Ω)} = {sup}_{| x | = 1} (\frac{\tilde{H} (x) | x |^{n}}{| x_{1} |}) . \end{matrix}

(149)

Assume that

\tilde{H} ≢ 0

. Then, since

\tilde{H} \geq 0

vanishes on

\partial R n -

, we have that

\tilde{H} > 0

R n -

and

\partial_{1} \tilde{H} < 0

\partial R n - \ {0}

. It then follows that the RHS of ( 149 ) is positive.

A contradiction, since the LHS is

0

. Then

\tilde{H} \equiv 0

, and ( 147 ) follows from ( 148 ).

This ends Step 9 .5.

Step 9 .6: We claim that there exists

ε (Ω, K, λ) > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} {liminf}_{r \to 0} {sup}_{| x | = r} \frac{H (x) | x |^{n}}{d (x, \partial Ω)} \geq ε (Ω, K, λ) . \end{matrix}

(150)

Indeed, we argue by contradiction and assume that there exists a sequence

(a_{k})_{k > 0} \in C^{0, θ} (\bar{Ω})

such that ( 135 ) and ( 134 ) hold, that there exists a sequence

(r_{k})_{k > 0} \in R

such that

r_{k} > 0

{lim}_{k \to + \infty} r_{k} = 0

and

{lim}_{k \to + \infty} {sup}_{| x | = r_{k}} \frac{H_{k} (x) | x |^{n}}{d (x, \partial Ω)} = 0,

where

H_{k}

comes from the Green's function of

Δ + a_{k}

. It then follows from Step 9 .5. that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{k \to + \infty} m_{k} = 0 . \end{matrix}

(151)

where

m_{k} : = {sup}_{\frac{1}{2} r_{k} \leq | x | \leq 3 r_{k}} (\frac{H_{k} (x) | x |^{n}}{d (x, \partial Ω)} + | x |^{n} | \nabla H_{k} (x) |) .

We let

\tilde{η} \in C^{\infty} (R n)

such

\tilde{η} \equiv 0

B_{1} (0)

and

\tilde{η} \equiv 1

R n \ B_{2} (0)

. We let

η_{k} (x) = \tilde{η} (x / r_{k})

for all

x \in R n

and all

k > 0

. We let

φ_{k} \in C^{2} (\bar{Ω})

such that

Δ φ_{k} + a_{k} φ_{k} = 1 i n Ω a n d φ_{k} \equiv 0 o n \partial Ω .

It follows from standard elliptic theory that

{lim}_{k \to + \infty} φ_{k} = φ ≢ 0

C^{2} (\bar{Ω})

. It then follows from Hopf 's maximum principle that

\begin{matrix} \partial_{ν} φ (0) < 0 . \end{matrix}

(152)

Integrating by parts and using that

Δ H_{k} + a_{k} H_{k} = 0

, we obtain that

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} H_{k} (x) (Δ φ_{k} + a_{k} φ_{k}) (x) d x & = & \int_{Ω} (η_{k} H_{k}) (x) (Δ φ_{k} + a_{k} φ_{k}) (x) d x + o (1) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \int_{Ω} (Δ (η_{k} H_{k}) + a η_{k} H_{k}) φ_{k} d x + o (1) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \int_{Ω} ((Δ η_{k}) H_{k} - 2 \nabla η_{k} \nabla H_{k}) φ_{k} d x + o (1) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \int_{Ω \cap B_{2 r_{k}} (0) \ B_{r_{k}} (0)} ((Δ η_{k}) H_{k} - 2 \nabla η_{k} \nabla H_{k}) φ_{k} d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + o (1) \end{matrix}

where

{lim}_{k \to + \infty} o (1) = 0

. Since

φ_{k} (0) = 0

and

{lim}_{k \to + \infty} φ_{k} = φ

C^{1} (\bar{Ω})

, using the definition of

m_{k}

we get that

\begin{matrix} \int_{Ω} H_{k} (x) (Δ φ_{k} + a_{k} φ_{k}) (x) d x & = & O (r_{k}^{n} (m_{k} r_{k}^{- 2} r_{k}^{1 - n} r_{k})) + o (1) = O (m_{k}) + o (1) . \end{matrix}

With ( 151 ), letting

k \to + \infty

, and using ( 146 ) we get that

\partial_{ν} φ (0) = \partial_{ν} φ_{k} (0) + o (1) = - \int_{Ω} H_{k} (x) (Δ φ_{k} + a_{k} φ_{k}) (x) d x + o (1) = 0 .

A contradiction with ( 152 ), and the claim is proved.

Step 9 .7: We claim that there exists

ε (Ω, K, λ) > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} {liminf}_{r \to 0} {inf}_{| x | = r} \frac{H (x) | x |^{n}}{d (x, \partial Ω)} \geq ε (Ω, K, λ) . \end{matrix}

(153)

Indeed, we argue by contradiction and assume that there exists a sequence

(a_{k})_{k > 0} \in C^{0, θ} (\bar{Ω})

such that ( 135 ) and ( 134 ) hold, that there exists a sequence

(r_{k})_{k > 0} \in R

such that

r_{k} > 0

{lim}_{k \to + \infty} r_{k} = 0

and

{lim}_{k \to + \infty} {inf}_{| x | = r_{k}} \frac{H_{k} (x) | x |^{n}}{d (x, \partial Ω)} = 0,

where

H_{k}

comes from the Green's function of

Δ + a_{k}

. Mimicking the proof of Step 9 .5, we obtain that

{\tilde{H}}_{k} (x) : = r_{k}^{n - 1} H_{k} (φ (r_{k} x))

converges to

\tilde{H}

C_{l o c}^{1} (\bar{R n -} \ {0})

We get that

{inf}_{| x | = 1} \frac{\tilde{H} (x) | x |^{n}}{| x_{1} |} = {lim}_{k \to + \infty} {inf}_{| x | = r_{k}} \frac{H_{k} (x) | x |^{n}}{d (x, \partial Ω)} = 0 .

Since

\tilde{H} \geq 0

is harmonic and vanishes on

\partial R n - \ {0}

, it follows from Hopf 's maximum principle that

\tilde{H} \equiv 0

. We then get that

{lim}_{k \to + \infty} {sup}_{| x | = r_{k}} \frac{H_{k} (x) | x |^{n}}{d (x, \partial Ω)} = {sup}_{| x | = 1} \frac{\tilde{H} (x) | x |^{n}}{| x_{1} |} = 0 .

A contradiction with Step 9 .6. This proves the claim.

Step 9 .8: We claim that there exists

C = C (Ω, K, λ) > 0

such that

\frac{d (x, \partial Ω)}{C | x |^{n}} \leq H (x) \leq \frac{C d (x, \partial Ω)}{| x |^{n}}

for all

x \in Ω \ {0}

. Indeed, this claim is a consequence of ( 145 ), Step 9 .7 and standard elliptic theory. This proves point (G11).

Step 9 .9: We claim that there exists

C (Ω, K, λ) > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | x |^{n} | \nabla H (x) | \leq C (Ω, K, λ) \end{matrix}

(154)

for all

x \in Ω \ {0}

. We proceed by contradiction and assume that that there exists a sequence

(a_{k})_{k > 0} \in C^{0, θ} (\bar{Ω})

such that ( 135 ) and ( 134 ) hold, that there exists a sequence

(x_{k})_{k > 0} \in Ω

such that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{k \to + \infty} | x_{k} |^{n} | \nabla H_{k} (x_{k}) | = + \infty, \end{matrix}

(155)

where

H_{k}

comes from the Green's function of

Δ + a_{k}

Case 1:

{lim}_{k \to + \infty} x_{k} \neq 0

. In this case, since

Δ H_{k} + a_{k} H_{k} = 0

, it follows from ( 145 ) and standard elliptic theory that

| \nabla H_{k} (x_{k}) | = O (1)

when

k \to + \infty

Case 2:

{lim}_{k \to + \infty} x_{k} = 0

. We consider

φ : U \to V

as in ( 13 ) with

y_{0} = 0

and

U, V

are open neighborhoods of

0

. We let

x_{k} = φ ({\tilde{x}}_{k})

. We let

{\tilde{H}}_{k} (x) = | {\tilde{x}}_{k} |^{n - 1} H_{k} (φ (| {\tilde{x}}_{k} | x))

for all

x \in \frac{U}{| {\tilde{x}}_{k} |} \cap {x_{1} \leq 0}

. As in Step 9 .5, we get that there exists

C > 0

such that

∥ {\tilde{H}}_{k} ∥_{C^{1} ({x_{1} \leq 0} \cap B_{2} (0) \ B_{1 / 2} (0))} \leq C .

Estimating the gradient at

{\tilde{x}}_{k} / | {\tilde{x}}_{k} |

, we get that

| x_{k} |^{n} | \nabla H_{k} (x_{k}) | = O (1)

when

k \to + \infty

In both cases, we have contradicted ( 155 ). This proves ( 154 ).

Step 9 .10: We claim that there exists

δ (Ω, K, λ), C (Ω, K, λ) > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | x |^{n} | \nabla H (x) | \geq C (Ω, K, λ) \end{matrix}

(156)

for all

x \in Ω \ {0}

such that

| x | \leq δ (Ω, K, λ)

. We proceed by contradiction and assume that that there exists a sequence

(a_{k})_{k > 0} \in C^{0, θ} (\bar{Ω})

such that ( 135 ) and ( 134 ) hold, that there exists a sequence

(x_{k})_{k > 0} \in Ω

such that

{lim}_{k \to + \infty} x_{k} = 0

and

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{k \to + \infty} | x_{k} |^{n} | \nabla H_{k} (x_{k}) | = 0, \end{matrix}

(157)

where

H_{k}

comes from the Green's function of

Δ + a_{k}

. We let

x_{k} = φ ({\tilde{x}}_{k})

and

y_{k} = φ ({\tilde{y}}_{k})

. We let

{\tilde{H}}_{k} (x) = | {\tilde{x}}_{k} |^{n - 1} H_{k} (φ (| {\tilde{x}}_{k} | x))

for all

x \in \frac{U}{| {\tilde{x}}_{k} |} \cap {x_{1} \leq 0}

. Mimicking the proof of Steps 9 .5 and 9 .9, we get that there exists

\tilde{H} \in C^{2} (\bar{R n -} \ {0})

such that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{k \to + \infty} {\tilde{H}}_{k} = \tilde{H} \end{matrix}

(158)

C_{l o c}^{2} (\bar{R n -} \ {0})

. In particular, we have that

\tilde{H}

is harmonic. It follows from Step 9 .8 and ( 158 ) that there exists

C > 0

such that

\frac{| x_{1} |}{C | x |^{n}} \leq \tilde{H} (x) \leq \frac{C | x_{1} |}{| x |^{n}}

for all

x \in R n - \ {0}

. It then follows from the rigidity Property 9.1 below that

\nabla \tilde{H} (x) \neq 0

for all

x \in \bar{R n -} \ {0}

. It follows from ( 157 ) and ( 158 ) that there exists

\hat{x} \in \bar{R n -} \ {0}

such that

\nabla \tilde{H} (\hat{x}) = 0

. A contradiction. This proves ( 156 ).

Clearly Theorem 9.2 is a consequence of Steps 9 .4 to 9 .10.

Step 9 .11: Our last step is the proof of the following rigidity result:

Proposition 9.1. Let

h \in C^{2} (\bar{R n -} \ {0})

. We assume that

h

is nonnegative in a neighborhood of

0

, harmonic and vanishes on

\partial R n - \ {0}

. We assume that there exists

C > 0

such that

| h (x) | \leq C | x |^{1 - n}

for all

x \in R n - \ {0}

. Then there exists

α \geq 0

such that

h (x) = α \frac{| x_{1} |}{| x |^{n}}

for all

x \in R n - \ {0}

Proof. Up to rescaling, we assume that

h \geq 0

B_{2} (0) \ {0}

. We let

α : = max {λ \geq 0 / h (x) \geq λ \frac{| x_{1} |}{| x |^{n}} f o r a l l x \in R n - \cap {\bar{B}}_{1} (0)} .

We let

\tilde{h} (x) = h (x) - α \frac{| x_{1} |}{| x |^{n}}

for all

x \in R n -

. The new function

\tilde{h}

satisfies the hypothesis of Proposition 9.1 . In addition, it follows from the definition of

α

and Hopf 's maximum principle that

{liminf}_{r \to 0} {inf}_{| x | = r} \frac{\tilde{h} (x) | x |^{n}}{- x_{1}} = 0 .

Mimicking what was done in Steps 9 .5 and 9 .7, we get that

{liminf}_{r \to 0} {sup}_{| x | = r, x \in R n -} \frac{\tilde{h} (x) | x |^{n}}{- x_{1}} = 0 .

We let

\hat{h} (x_{1}, \tilde{x}) : = {\begin{matrix} \tilde{h} (x_{1}, \tilde{x}) & i f x_{1} \leq 0 a n d (x_{1}, \tilde{x}) \neq 0 \\ - \tilde{h} (- x_{1}, \tilde{x}) & i f x_{1} > 0 . \end{matrix}

As easily checked, we have that

\hat{h} \in C^{2} (R n \ {0})

and

Δ \hat{h} = 0

R n \ {0}

. With the definition of

\hat{h}

, we immediately get that

{liminf}_{r \to 0} {sup}_{| x | = r} \frac{| \hat{h} (x) | \cdot | x |^{n}}{| x_{1} |} = 0 .

We let

(r_{k})_{k > 0}

such that

{lim}_{k \to + \infty} r_{k} = 0

and

{liminf}_{k \to + \infty} {sup}_{| x | = r_{k}} \frac{| \hat{h} (x) | \cdot | x |^{n}}{| x_{1} |} = 0 .

We let

\tilde{η} \in C^{\infty} (R n)

such that

\tilde{η} \equiv 0

B_{1} (0)

and

\tilde{η} \equiv 1

R n \ B_{2} (0)

. We let

η_{k} (x) : = \tilde{η} (x / r_{k})

. Mimicking what was done in Step 9 .6, we let

φ \in C_{c}^{\infty} (R n)

and get that

\begin{matrix} \int_{R n} \hat{h} Δ φ d x & = & \int_{R n} η_{k} \hat{h} Δ φ d x + o (1) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \int_{R n} Δ (η_{k} \hat{h}) \cdot (φ - φ (0)) d x + φ (0) \int_{R n} Δ (η_{k} \hat{h}) d x + o (1) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & o (1) + φ (0) \int_{R n} Δ (η_{k} \hat{h}) d x \end{matrix}

We let

R > 3

, and choose

k_{0}

such that

0 < r_{k} < 1

for

k > k_{0}

. We then get that

\begin{matrix} | \int_{R n} Δ (η_{k} \hat{h}) d x | & = & | \int_{B_{R} (0)} Δ (η_{k} \hat{h}) d x | = | \int_{\partial B_{R} (0)} \partial_{ν} (η_{k} \hat{h}) d σ | \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & | \int_{\partial B_{R} (0)} \partial_{ν} \hat{h} d σ | \leq C R^{n - 1} R^{- n} \leq \frac{C}{R} \end{matrix}

Letting

R \to + \infty

, we get that

\int_{R n} Δ (η_{k} \hat{h}) d x = 0

. We finally get that

\int_{R n} \hat{h} Δ φ d x = 0

for all

φ \in C_{c}^{\infty} (R n)

. As a consequence,

Δ \hat{h} = 0

D^{'} (R n)

, and

\hat{h} \in C^{2} (R n)

. Since there exists

C > 0

such that

| \hat{h} (x) | \leq C | x |^{1 - n}

, we then get that

\hat{h}

is uniformly bounded on

R n

. Since

Δ \hat{h} = 0

, we get that

\hat{h} \equiv 0

. In particular,

h (x) = α \frac{| x_{1} |}{| x |^{n}}

for all

x \in R n - \ {0}

. □

10 Appendix C: Symmetry of the positive solutions to the limit equation

This section is devoted to the proof of a symmetry property for the positive solutions to the limit equations involved in Proposition 3.1 .

Proposition 10.1. Let

n \geq 3

and

s \in (0, 2)

. We let

u \in C^{2} (R n -) \cap C^{1} (\bar{R n -})

such that

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} Δ u = \frac{u^{2 ◆ - 1}}{| x |^{s}} & i n R n - \\ u > 0 & i n R n - \\ u = 0 & o n \partial R n -, \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(159)

where

2 ◆ = \frac{2 (n - s)}{n - 2}

. We assume that there exists

C > 0

such that

u (x) \leq C (1 + | x |)^{1 - n}

for all

x \in R n -

. Then we have that

u \circ σ = u

for all isometry of

R n

such that

σ (R n -) = R n -

. In particular, there exists

v \in C^{2} (R_{-}^{◆} \times R) \cap C^{1} (R_{-} \times R)

such that for all

x_{1} < 0

and all

x^{'} \in R^{n - 1}

, we have that

u (x_{1}, x^{'}) = v (x_{1}, | x^{'} |)

We prove the Proposition in the sequel. We let

u \in C^{2} (R n -) \cap C^{1} (\bar{R n -})

that verifies the system ( 159 ) and such that there exists

C > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} u (x) \leq \frac{C}{(1 + | x |)^{n - 1}} \end{matrix}

(160)

for all

x \in R n -

. We

{\vec{e}}_{1}

be the first vector of the canonical basis of

R n

. We let the open ball

D : = B_{1 / 2} (- \frac{1}{2} {\vec{e}}_{1}) .

We define

\begin{matrix} v (x) : = | x |^{2 - n} u ({\vec{e}}_{1} + \frac{x}{| x |^{2}}) \end{matrix}

(161)

for all

x \in \bar{D} \ {0}

. We prolongate

v

0

0

. Clearly, this is well-defined.

Step 10 .1: We claim that

\begin{matrix} v \in C^{2} (D) \cap C^{1} (\bar{D}) a n d \frac{\partial v}{\partial ν} < 0 o n \partial D \end{matrix}

(162)

where

\partial / \partial ν

denotes the outward normal derivative.

Proof. It follows from the assumptions on

u

that

v \in C^{2} (D) \cap C^{1} (\bar{D} \ {0})

. Moreover,

v (x) > 0

for all

x \in D

and

v (x) = 0

for all

x \in \partial D \ {0}

. It follows from the estimate ( 160 ) that there exists

C > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} v (x) \leq C | x | \end{matrix}

(163)

for all

x \in \bar{D} \ {0}

. Since

v (0) = 0

, we have that

v \in C^{0} (\bar{D})

. The function

v

verifies the equation

\begin{matrix} Δ v = \frac{v^{2 ◆ - 1}}{| x + | x |^{2} {\vec{e}}_{1} |^{s}} = \frac{v^{2 ◆ - 1}}{| x |^{s} {| x + {\vec{e}}_{1} |}^{s}} \end{matrix}

(164)

D

. Since

- {\vec{e}}_{1} \in \partial D \ {0}

and

v \in C^{1} (\bar{D} \ {0}) \cap C^{0} (\bar{D})

, there exists

C > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} v (x) \leq C | x + {\vec{e}}_{1} | \end{matrix}

(165)

for all

x \in \bar{D}

. It then follows from ( 163 ), ( 164 ), ( 165 ) and standard elliptic theory that

v \in C^{1} (\bar{D})

. Since

v > 0

D

, it follows from Hopf 's Lemma that

\frac{\partial v}{\partial ν} < 0

\partial D

. □

We prove the symmetry of

u

by proving a symmetry property of

v

, which is defined on a ball. Our proof uses the moving plane method. We take largely inspiration in [25] and [8] . Classically, for any

μ \geq 0

and any

x = (x^{'}, x_{n}) \in R n

(

x^{'} \in R^{n - 1}

and

x_{n} \in R

), we let

x_{μ} = (x^{'}, 2 μ - x_{n}) a n d D_{μ} = {x \in D / x_{μ} \in D} .

It follows from Hopf 's Lemma (see ( 162 )) that there exists

ε_{0} > 0

such that for any

μ \in (\frac{1}{2} - ε_{0}, \frac{1}{2})

, we have that

D_{μ} \neq \emptyset

and

v (x) \geq v (x_{μ})

for all

x \in D_{μ}

such that

x_{n} \leq μ

. We let

μ \geq 0

. We say that

(P_{μ})

holds if

D_{μ} \neq \emptyset

and

v (x) \geq v (x_{μ})

for all

x \in D_{μ}

such that

x_{n} \leq μ

. We let

\begin{matrix} λ : = min {μ \geq 0 / (P_{ν}) h o l d s f o r a l l ν \in (μ, \frac{1}{2})} . \end{matrix}

(166)

Step 10 .2: We claim that

λ = 0

Proof. We proceed by contradiction and assume that

λ > 0

. We then get that

D_{λ} \neq \emptyset

and that

(P_{λ})

holds. We let

w (x) : = v (x) - v (x_{λ})

for all

x \in D_{λ} \cap {x_{n} < λ}

. Since

(P_{λ})

holds, we have that

w (x) \geq 0

for all

x \in D_{λ} \cap {x_{n} < λ}

. With the equation ( 164 ) of

v

and

(P_{λ})

, we get that

\begin{matrix} Δ w & = & \frac{v (x)^{2 ◆ - 1}}{| x + | x |^{2} {\vec{e}}_{1} |^{s}} - \frac{v (x_{λ})^{2 ◆ - 1}}{| x_{λ} + | x_{λ} |^{2} {\vec{e}}_{1} |^{s}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & v (x_{λ})^{2 ◆ - 1} (\frac{1}{| x + | x |^{2} {\vec{e}}_{1} |^{s}} - \frac{1}{| x_{λ} + | x_{λ} |^{2} {\vec{e}}_{1} |^{s}}) \end{matrix}

for all

x \in D_{λ} \cap {x_{n} < λ}

. With straightforward computations, we have that

\begin{matrix} | x_{λ} |^{2} - | x |^{2} = 4 λ (λ - x_{n}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} | x_{λ} + | x_{λ} |^{2} {\vec{e}}_{1} |^{2} - | x + | x |^{2} {\vec{e}}_{1} |^{2} = (| x_{λ} |^{2} - | x |^{2}) (1 + | x_{λ} |^{2} + | x |^{2} + 2 x_{1})) \end{matrix}

for all

x \in R n

. It follows that

Δ w (x) > 0

for all

x \in D_{λ} \cap {x_{n} < λ}

. Note that we have used that

λ > 0

. It then follows from Hopf 's Lemma and the strong comparison principle that

\begin{matrix} w > 0 i n D_{λ} \cap {x_{n} < λ} a n d \frac{\partial w}{\partial ν} < 0 o n D_{λ} \cap {x_{n} = λ} . \end{matrix}

(167)

By definition, there exists a sequence

(λ_{i})_{i \in N} \in R

and a sequence

(x^{i})_{i \in N} \in D

such that

λ_{i} < λ

x^{i} \in D_{λ_{i}}

(x^{i})_{n} < λ_{i}

{lim}_{i \to + \infty} λ_{i} = λ

and

\begin{matrix} v (x^{i}) < v ((x^{i})_{λ_{i}}) \end{matrix}

(168)

for all

i \in N

. Up to extraction a subsequence, we assume that there exists

x \in \bar{(D_{λ} \cap {x_{n} < λ})}

such that

{lim}_{i \to + \infty} x^{i} = x

with

x_{n} \leq λ

. Passing to the limit

i \to + \infty

in ( 168 ), we get that

v (x) \leq v (x_{λ})

. It follows from this last inequality and ( 167 ) that

v (x) - v (x_{λ}) = w (x) = 0

, and then

x \in \partial (D_{λ} \cap {x_{n} < λ})

Case 1: We assume that

x \in \partial D

. Then

v (x_{λ}) = 0

and

x_{λ} \in \partial D

. Since

D

is a ball and

λ > 0

, we get that

x = x_{λ} \in \partial D

. Since

v

C^{1}

, we get that there exists

τ_{i} \in ((x^{i})_{n}, 2 λ_{i} - (x^{i})_{n})

such that

v (x^{i}) - v ((x^{i})_{λ_{i}}) = \partial_{n} v ((x^{'})^{i}, τ_{i}) \times 2 ((x^{i})_{n} - λ_{i})

Letting

i \to + \infty

, using that

(x^{i})_{n} < λ_{i}

and ( 168 ), we get that

\partial_{n} v (x) \geq 0

. On the other hand, we have that

\partial_{n} v (x) = \frac{\partial v}{\partial ν} (x) \cdot (ν (x) | {\vec{e}}_{n}) = \frac{λ}{| x + {\vec{e}}_{1} / 2 |} \frac{\partial v}{\partial ν} (x) < 0 .

A contradiction.

Case 2: We assume that

x \in D

. Since

v (x_{λ}) = v (x)

, we then get that

x_{λ} \in D

Since

x \in \partial (D_{λ} \cap {x_{n} < λ})

, we then get that

x \in D \cap {x_{n} = λ}

. With the same argument as in the preceding step, we get that

\partial_{n} v (x) \geq 0

. On the other hand, since

x_{n} = λ

, we get with ( 167 ) that

\partial_{n} v (x) = \frac{\partial_{n} w (x)}{2} < 0

. A contradiction.

In all the cases, we have obtained a contradiction. This proves that

λ = 0

. □

Step 10 .3: Here goes the final argument. Since

λ = 0

, it follows from the definition ( 166 ) of

λ

that

v (x^{'}, x_{n}) \geq v (x^{'}, - x_{n})

for all

x \in D

such that

x_{n} \leq 0

. With the same technique, we get the reverse inequality, and then, we get that

v (x^{'}, x_{n}) = v (x^{'}, - x_{n})

for all

x = (x^{'}, x_{n}) \in D

. In other words,

v

is symmetric with respect to the hyperplane

{x_{n} = 0}

. The same analysis holds for any hyperplane containing

{\vec{e}}_{1}

Coming back to the initial function

u

, this proves the Theorem. References

Atkinson, F.V.; Peletier, L.A. Elliptic equations with nearly critical growth. J. Diff. Equ., 70, 349-365, 1987.
Aubin, T. Nonlinear analysis on manifolds, Monge-Ampere equations. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, 252, Springer, New-York, 1982.
Bahri A.; Coron J.M. On a nonlinear elliptic equation involving the critical Sobolev exponent: the effect of the topology of the domain, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 41 (1988), 253-294.
Bahri, A.; Lions P. L. Morse index of some min-max critical points I. Application to multiplicity results. Commun. Pure & App. Math. 41 (1988), 1027-1037.
Berestycki, H.; Nirenberg, L.; Varadhan, S.R.S. The principal eigenvalue and maximum principle for second order elliptic operators in general domains. Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 47, 47-92, 1994.
Brezis, H.; Nirenberg, L. Positive solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations involving critical exponents, Comm. Pure Appl. Math 36 (1983), 437-477.
Brézis, H.; Peletier, L.A. Asymptotics for elliptic equations involving critical Sobolev exponent. In Partial Differential equations and the calculus of variations, eds. F.Colombini, A.Marino, L.Modica, and S.Spagnolo, Birkhaüser, Basel, 1989.
Caffarelli, L.; Gidas, B.; Spruck, J. Asymptotic symmetry and local behavior of semilinear elliptic equations with critical Sobolev growth. Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 42, (1989), 271-297.
Caffarelli, L.; Kohn R. ; Nirenberg, L. First order interpolation inequality with weights, Compositio. Math. 53 (1984), 259-275
Catrina, F.; Wang, Z. On the Caffarelli-Kohn-Nirenberg inequalities: sharp constants, existence (and non existence) and symmetry of extremal functions, Comm. Pure Appl. Math 2 (2001) 229-258
Devillanova, G.; Solimini, S. Concentration estimates and multiple solutions to elliptic problems at critical growth. Adv. Differential Equations, 7, (2002), 1257-1280.
Druet, O. The best constants problem in Sobolev inequalities. Math. Ann., 314, 1999, 327-346.
Druet, O. Elliptic equations with critical Sobolev exponent in dimension 3. Ann. I.H.P., Analyse non-linaire, 19, 2, 2002, 125-142.
Druet, O. From one bubble to several bubbles : the low-dimensional case. Journal of Differential Geometry, 63, 2003, 399-473.
Druet, O.; Hebey, E.; Robert, F. Blow up theory for elliptic PDE's in Riemannian geometry. Mathematical Notes, Princeton University Press, 45. Announcement in A $C_{0}$ -theory for the blow up of second order elliptic equations of critical Sobolev growth. E.R.A./A.M.S., 9, 2003.
Druet, O.; Robert, F. Asymptotic profile for the sub-extremals of the sharp Sobolev inequality on the sphere. Communications in Partial Differential Equations, 26, (2001), 743-778.
Egnell, H., Positive solutions of semilinear equations in cones, Tran. Amer. Math. Soc 11 (1992), 191-201.
I. Ekeland, N. Ghoussoub, Selected new aspects of the calculus of variations in the large, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 39 (2002), no. 2, 207–265
Gallot, S.; Hulin D.; and Lafontaine, J. Riemannian geometry, Springer-Verlag, 1987
Ghoussoub N. Duality and Perturbation Methods in Critical Point Theory, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, Cambridge University Press (1993).
Ghoussoub, N.; Kang X.S. Hardy-Sobolev Critical Elliptic Equations with Boundary Singularities, AIHP-Analyse non linéaire, Vol 21 (2004) p. 767-793
Ghoussoub, N.; Robert, F. Concentration estimates for borderline equations with large sets of boundary singularities, 2005, submitted.
Ghoussoub, N.; Robert, F. The effect of curvature on the best constant in the Hardy-Sobolev inequality, 2005, submitted.
Ghoussoub, N.; Yuan, C. Multiple solutions for quasi-linear PDEs involving the critical Sobolev and Hardy exponents, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 12 (2000), 5703-5743.
Gidas, B.; Ni, W.M.; Nirenberg, L. Symmetry and related properties via the maximum principle. Comm. Math. Phys., 68, (1979), 209-243.
Gilbarg, G.; Trudinger, N.,S. Elliptic partial differential equations of second order. Second edition. Grundlehren der mathematischen nWissenschaften, 224, Springer, Berlin, 1983.
Han, Z.C. Asymptotic approach to singular solutions for nonlinear elliptic equations involving critical Sobolev exponent. Ann. Inst. H.Poincaré. Anal. Non Linéaire, 8, 159-174, 1991.
Hebey, E. Introduction à l'analyse non-linéaire sur les variétés. Diderot Editeur, Arts et Sciences, 1997.
Hebey, E. Asymptotics for some quasilinear elliptic equations. Differential Integral Equations, 9, (1996), no. 1, 71–88.
Hebey, E.; Robert, F. Compactness and global estimates for the geometric Paneitz equation in high dimensions. Electron. Res. Announc. Amer. Math. Soc., 10, (2004), 135-141.
Hebey, E.; Robert, F; Wen, Y. Compactness and global estimates for a fourth order equation of critical Sobolev growth arising from conformal geometry. Communications in Contemporary Mathematics, to appear.
Hebey, E.; Vaugon, M. The best constant problem in the Sobolev embedding theorem for complete Riemannian manifolds. Duke Math. J., 79, 235-279, 1995.
Hebey, E.; Vaugon, M. From best constants to critical functions. Math. Z., 237, 737-767.
Li P.; Yau S.-T. , On the parabolic kernel of the Schrodinger operator, Acta. Math. 156, (1986) 153-201.
Marques, F. PhD Thesis, (2003).
Robert, F. Asymptotic behaviour of a nonlinear elliptic equation with critical Sobolev exponent. The radial case. Advances in Differential Equations, 6, (2001), 821-846.
Robert, F. Critical functions and optimal Sobolev inequalities. Mathematische Zeischrift, 249, (2005), 485-492.
Struwe, M. Variational methods, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1990.
Schoen, R. Variational theory for the total scalar curvature functional for Riemannian metrics and related topics, in Topics in calculus of variations (Montecatini Terme, 1987). Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1365, Springer, Berlin, 1989, 120-154.
Schoen, R.; Zhang, D. Prescribed scalar curvature on the $n$ -sphere. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, 4, (1996), 1-25.
Tanaka, K. Morse indices at critical points related to the symmetric mountain pass theorem and applications, Comm. in part. diff. equations, 14 (1), (1989), 99-128.
Trudinger, N.S. Remarks concerning the conformal deformation of Riemannian structures on compact manifolds. Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa, 22, (1968), 265-274.

Nassif Ghoussoub, Department of Mathematics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada E-mail address : nassif@math.ubc.ca Frederic Robert, Laboratoire J.A.Dieudonne, Universite de Nice Sophia-Antipolis, Parc Valrose, 06108 Nice cedex 2, France E-mail address : frobert@math.unice.fr

March, 13th 2005

N. Ghoussoub

F. Robert