March, 13th 2005

Both authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the hospitality of the University of British Columbia where this work was initiated.
<ph f="cmbx">Concentration estimates for Emden-Fowler equations with boundary singularities and critical growth</ph>

N. Ghoussoub

F. Robert

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

1 Introduction and statement of the results

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   of R n   , n 3   :
{ Δ u = | u | 2 2 u | x | s i n D ( Ω ) u = 0 o n Ω . (1)
where here and throughout the paper, Δ = i i i   is the Laplacian with minus sign convention, and 2 : = 2 * ( s ) = 2 ( n s ) n 2   with s [ 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 [6followed 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 ) 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 ( Ω )   , the set of smooth functions compactly supported in Ω   , for the norm u H 21 , 0 ( Ω ) = Ω | 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
μ s ( Ω ) : = inf { Ω | u | 2 d x ; u H 21 , 0 ( Ω ) a n d Ω | u | 2 | x | s d x = 1 } (2)
satisfies 0 < μ s ( Ω ) < +   . This in turn allows for a variational approach for the problem of finding solutions in H 21 , 0 ( Ω ) C 0 ( 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
{ Δ u = | u | 2 2 u i n D ( Ω ) u = 0 o n Ω . (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 ) 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
{ Δ u = | u | 2 2 u + λ u i n D ( Ω ) u = 0 o n Ω . (4)
improves the situation dramatically, especially when 0 < λ < λ 1   , since there is then a positive solution for any smooth bounded domain Ω   in R n   as long as n 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 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 [24as one can prove essentially the same results with a suitable adaptation of the same techniques. However, the situation is much different when 0 Ω   .
1) Indeed, Egnell showed in [17that for open cones of the form C = { x R n ; x = r θ , θ D a n d r > 0 }   where the base D   is a connected domain of the unit sphere S n 1   of R n   , the best constant μ s ( C )   is attained for 0 < s < 2   even when C ¯ R n   .
The case where Ω   is smooth at 0   was tackled in [21and 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 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 [22that for dimension n 4   , the negativity of the mean curvature of Ω   at 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 3   , such that 0 Ω   and assume s ( 0 , 2 )   . If the mean curvature of Ω   at 0   is negative, then μ s ( Ω )   is achieved by a positive function which is –a positive multiple of– a solution for
{ Δ u = | u | 2 2 u | x | s i n D ( Ω ) u > 0 i n Ω u = 0 o n Ω . (5)
2) As to the question of multiplicity of solutions for ( 1 ), we note that Ghoussoub-Kang had shown in [21the 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   of Ω   at 0   are finite, the oriented boundary Ω   near the origin can then be represented (up to rotating the coordinates if necessary) by x 1 = φ 0 ( x ) = 1 2 i = 2 n α i 1 x i 2 + o ( | x | 2 )   , where x = ( x 2 , . . . , x n ) B δ ( 0 ) { 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
max 1 i n 1 α i < 0 , (6)
then the sectional curvature at 0   is negative and therefore 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   of 0   in Ω   , such that the whole of U   lies on one side of a hyperplane H   that is tangent to Ω   at 0   and U 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   at 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:
max 1 i n 1 α i 0 a n d min 1 i n 1 α i < 0 . (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 3   , such that 0 Ω   . Let s ( 0 , 2 )   and a C 1 ( Ω ¯ )   be such that the operator Δ + a   is coercive in Ω   . If the principal curvatures of Ω   at 0   are non-positive, but not all vanishing, then there exists an infinite number of solutions u H 21 , 0 ( Ω ) C 1 ( Ω ¯ )   for { Δ u + a u = | u | 2 2 u | x | s i n D ( Ω ) u = 0 o n Ω .  
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 R n / x 1 < 0 }   , where x 1   denotes the first coordinate of a generic point x 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 ( Ω ¯ )   if it can be extended to a C 1   function in a open neighborhood of Ω ¯   , and consider a family ( a ε ) ε > 0 C 1 ( Ω ¯ )   and a function a C 1 ( Ω ¯ )   such that there exists an open subset U R n   such that a ε , a   can be extended to U   by C 1   functions that we still denote by a ε , a   . We assume that they satisfy
Ω ¯ U a n d lim ε 0 a ε = a i n C 1 ( U ) . (8)
Here is the main result of this paper.
Theorem 1.3. Let Ω   be a smooth bounded oriented domain of R n   , n 3   , such that 0 Ω   . Assume s ( 0 , 2 )   and consider ( a ε ) ε > 0 C 1 ( Ω ¯ )   such that ( 8 ) hold. We let ( p ε ) ε > 0   such that p ε [ 0 , 2 2 )   for all ε > 0   and lim ε 0 p ε = 0   . We assume that the principal curvatures of Ω   at 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 { Δ u ε + a ε u ε = | u ε | 2 2 p ε | x | s u ε i n D ( Ω ) u ε = 0 o n Ω .   1) The family ( u ε ) ε > 0   is then pre-compact in the C 1   topology. In particular, there exists u 0 H 21 , 0 ( Ω )   such that, up to a subsequence, we have that lim ε 0 u ε = u 0   in C 1 ( 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 Ω   at 0   is negative.
The proof of this last theorem uses the machinery developed in Druet-Hebey-Robert [15and 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 [39and 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, [33and Robert [37). We also mention the study of the asymptotics for solutions to nonlinear pde's (Han [27, Hebey [29, Druet-Robert [16and 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 [14and Marques [35. One can also find compactness results for fourth order equations in the work of Hebey-Robert [30and 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 Ω   in such a way that the normal vectors of 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 3   , such that 0 Ω   . For s ( 0 , 2 )   , we write 2 = 2 ( s ) : = 2 ( n s ) n 2   and for each ε > 0   , we consider p ε [ 0 , 2 2 )   such that
lim ε 0 p ε = 0 . (9)
We let a C 1 ( Ω ¯ )   and a family ( a ε ) ε > 0 C 1 ( Ω ¯ )   such that ( 8 ) holds. For any ε > 0   , we consider u ε H 21 , 0 ( Ω )   to be a solution to the system
{ Δ u ε + a ε u ε = | u ε | 2 2 p ε | x | s u ε i n D ( Ω ) u ε = 0 o n Ω (E − ε)
for all ε > 0   . Note that it follows from Proposition  8.1 of the Appendix that u ε C 1 , θ ( Ω ¯ ) C 2 ( Ω ¯ \ { 0 } )   for all θ ( 0 , min { 1 , 2 s } )   . In addition, we assume that there exists Λ > 0   such that
u ε H 21 , 0 ( Ω ) Λ (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 H 21 , 0 ( Ω )   such that
u ε u 0 (11)
weakly in H 21 , 0 ( Ω )   when ε 0   . Note that u 0   verifies Δ u 0 + a u 0 = | u 0 | 2 2 | x | s u 0 i n D ( Ω ) .   It follows from the Appendix that u 0 C 1 , θ ( Ω ¯ ) C 2 ( Ω ¯ \ { 0 } )   for all θ ( 0 , min { 1 , 2 s } )   . The following Proposition addresses the case when u ε   is uniformly bounded in L   . 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 3   , such that 0 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 ) | C   for all x Ω   . Then up to a subsequence, lim ε 0 u ε = u 0   in C 1 ( 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 ( 0 , min { 1 , 2 s } )   , there exists C > 0   such that u ε C 1 , θ ( Ω ¯ ) 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
lim ε 0 u ε L ( Ω ) = + . (12)
Throughout the paper, we shall say that blow-up occurs whenever ( 12 ) holds. We define R n = { x 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 Ω   . Since Ω   is smooth and y 0 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 U = I × U   and y 0 V   . There exist φ C ( U , V )   and φ 0 C ( U )   such that, up to rotating the coordinates if necessary,
( i ) φ : U V i s a C 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 { x 1 < 0 } ) = φ ( U ) Ω a n d φ ( U { x 1 = 0 } ) = φ ( U ) Ω . ( v ) φ ( x 1 , y ) = y 0 + ( x 1 + φ 0 ( y ) , y ) f o r a l l ( x 1 , y ) I × U = U ( v i ) φ 0 ( 0 ) = 0 a n d φ 0 ( 0 ) = 0 . (13)
Here D x φ   denotes the differential of φ   at 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 3   . We assume that 0 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 Ω   . Let ν ε : = | u ε ( y ε ) | 2 n 2 a n d β ε : = | y ε | s 2 | u ε ( y ε ) | 2 + p ε 2 2 .   We assume that lim ε 0 ν ε = 0   . In particular, lim ε 0 β ε = 0   . We assume that for any R > 0   , there exists C ( R ) > 0   such that
| u ε ( x ) | C ( R ) | u ε ( y ε ) | (14)
for all x B R β ε ( y ε ) Ω   and all ε > 0   . Then we have that y ε = O ( ν 1 p ε 2 2 ε )   when ε 0   . In particular, lim ε 0 y ε = 0   .
Proof of Lemma  2.1 : We proceed by contradiction and assume that
lim ε 0 | y ε | ε = + . (15)
where ε : = ν 1 p ε 2 2 ε   for all ε > 0   . In particular, it follows from the definition of β ε   and ( 15 ) that
lim ε 0 β ε = 0 , lim ε 0 β ε ε = + a n d lim ε 0 β ε | y ε | = 0 . (16)
Case 1: We assume that there exists ρ > 0   such that d ( y ε , Ω ) β ε 3 ρ   for all ε > 0   . For x B 2 ρ ( 0 )   and ε > 0   , we define v ε ( x ) : = u ε ( y ε + β ε x ) u ε ( y ε ) .   Note that this is well defined since y ε + β ε x Ω   for all x B 2 ρ ( 0 )   . It follows from ( 14 ) that there exists C ( ρ ) > 0   such that
| v ε ( x ) | C ( ρ ) (17)
for all ε > 0   and all x 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 = | v ε | 2 2 p ε v ε | y ε | y ε | + β ε | y ε | x | s   weakly in B 2 ρ ( 0 )   . Since ( 16 ) holds, we have that
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 (18)
weakly in B 2 ρ ( 0 )   , where lim ε 0 o ( 1 ) = 0   in C l o c 0 ( B 2 ρ ( 0 ) )   . It follows from ( 17 ), ( 18 ) and standard elliptic theory that there exists v C 1 ( B 2 ρ ( 0 ) )   such that v ε v   in C l o c 1 ( B 2 ρ ( 0 ) )   when ε 0   . In particular,
v ( 0 ) = lim ε 0 v ε ( 0 ) = 1 (19)
and v 0   . With a change of variables and the definition of β ε   , we get that
Ω B ρ β ε ( y ε ) | u ε | 2 p ε | x | s d x = | u ε ( y ε ) | 2 p ε β n ε | y ε | s B ρ ( 0 ) | v ε | 2 p ε | y ε | y ε | + β ε | y ε | x | s d x
( | y ε | ε ) s n 2 2 B ρ ( 0 ) | v ε | 2 p ε | y ε | y ε | + β ε | y ε | x | s d x .
Using the equation ( E ε )   , ( 10 ), ( 15 ) and ( 16 ) and passing to the limit ε 0   , we get that B ρ ( 0 ) | v | 2 d x = 0 ,   and then v 0   in B ρ ( 0 )   . A contradiction with ( 19 ). Then ( 15 ) does not hold in Case 1.
Case 2: We assume that, up to a subsequence,
lim ε 0 d ( y ε , Ω ) β ε = 0 . (20)
In this case, lim ε 0 y ε = y 0 Ω .   Since y 0 Ω   , we let φ : U V   as in ( 13 ), where U , V   are open neighborhoods of 0   and y 0   respectively. We let u ~ ε = u ε φ   , which is defined on U { x 1 0 }   . For any i , j = 1 , . . . , n   , we let g i j = ( i φ , j φ )   , where ( , )   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 ( )   the Laplace-Beltrami operator with respect to the metric g   . In our basis, we have that Δ g = g i j ( i j Γ i j k 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 u ~ ε + a ε φ ( x ) u ~ ε = | u ~ ε | 2 2 p ε u ~ ε | φ ( x ) | s   weakly in U { x 1 < 0 }   . We let z ε Ω   such that
| z ε y ε | = d ( y ε , Ω ) . (21)
We let y ~ ε , z ~ ε U   such that
φ ( y ~ ε ) = y ε a n d φ ( z ~ ε ) = z ε . (22)
It follows from the properties ( 13 ) of φ   that
lim ε 0 y ~ ε = lim ε 0 z ~ ε = 0 , ( y ~ ε ) 1 < 0 a n d ( z ~ ε ) 1 = 0 . (23)
At last, we let v ~ ε ( x ) : = u ~ ε ( z ~ ε + β ε x ) u ~ ε ( y ~ ε )   for all x U z ~ ε β ε { x 1 < 0 }   . With ( 23 ), we get that v ~ ε   is defined on B R ( 0 ) { 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
| v ~ ε ( x ) | C ( R ) (24)
for all ε > 0   and all x B R ( 0 ) { x 1 0 }   . The function v ~ ε   verifies Δ g ~ ε v ~ ε + β 2 ε a ε φ ( z ~ ε + β ε x ) v ~ ε = | v ~ ε | 2 2 p ε v ~ ε | φ ( z ~ ε + β ε x ) | y ε | | s   weakly in B R ( 0 ) { x 1 < 0 }   . In this expression, g ~ ε = g ( z ~ ε + β ε x )   and Δ g ~ ε   is the Laplace-Beltrami operator with respect to the metric g ~ ε   . With ( 20 ), ( 21 ) and ( 22 ), we get that φ ( z ~ ε + β ε x ) = y ε + O R ( 1 ) β ε ,   for all x B R ( 0 ) { x 1 0 }   and all ε > 0   , where there exists C R > 0   such that | O R ( 1 ) | C R   for all x B R ( 0 ) { x 1 < 0 }   . With ( 16 ), we then get that lim ε 0 | φ ( z ~ ε + β ε x ) | | y ε | = 1   in C 0 ( B R ( 0 ) { x 1 0 } )   . It then follows that Δ g ~ ε v ~ ε + β 2 ε a ε φ ( z ~ ε + β ε x ) v ~ ε = ( 1 + o ( 1 ) ) | v ~ ε | 2 2 p ε v ~ ε   weakly in B R ( 0 ) { x 1 < 0 }   , where lim ε 0 o ( 1 ) = 0   in C 0 ( B R ( 0 ) { x 1 0 } )   .
Since v ~ ε   vanishes on B R ( 0 ) { x 1 = 0 }   and ( 24 ) holds, it follows from standard elliptic theory that there exists v ~ C 1 ( B R ( 0 ) { x 1 0 } )   such that lim ε 0 v ~ ε = v ~   in C 0 ( B R 2 ( 0 ) { x 1 0 } )   . In particular,
v ~ 0 o n B R 2 ( 0 ) { x 1 = 0 } . (25)
Moreover, it follows from ( 20 ), ( 21 ) and ( 22 ) that v ~ ε ( y ~ ε z ~ ε β ε ) = 1 a n d lim ε 0 y ~ ε z ~ ε β ε = 0 .   In particular, 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 ( ε )   when ε 0   , which proves the Lemma.  
Lemma 2.2. We let Ω   be a smooth bounded domain of R n   , n 3   . We assume that 0 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 ( ε ) ε > 0   such that ν ε , ε > 0   for all ε > 0   and ε = ν 1 p ε 2 2 ε a n d lim ε 0 ν ε = 0 .   Since 0 Ω   , we let φ : U V   as in ( 13 ) with y 0 = 0   , where U , V   are open neighborhoods of 0   . We let u ~ ε ( x ) : = ν n 2 2 ε u ε φ ( ε x )   for all x U ε { x 1 0 }   and all ε > 0   . We assume that either (L1) for all R > 0   , there exists C ( R ) > 0   such that | u ~ ε ( x ) | C ( R )   for all x B R ( 0 ) { x 1 < 0 }   , or (L2) for all R > δ > 0   , there exists C ( R , δ ) > 0   such that | u ~ ε ( x ) | C ( R , δ )   for all x ( B R ( 0 ) \ B ¯ δ ( 0 ) ) { x 1 < 0 }   .
Then there exists u ~ H 21 , 0 ( R n ) C 1 ( R n ¯ )   such that Δ u ~ = | u ~ | 2 2 u ~ | x | s i n D ( R n )   and lim ε 0 u ~ ε = u ~ i n { C l o c 1 ( R n ¯ ) i f ( L 1 ) h o l d s C l o c 1 ( R n ¯ \ { 0 } ) i f ( L 2 ) h o l d s  
Proof of Lemma  2.2 : Let η C ( R n )   . As easily checked, we have that η u ~ ε H 21 , 0 ( R n )   for all ε > 0   small enough, and ( η u ~ ε ) ( x ) = u ~ ε η + η ε ν n 2 2 ε D ( ε x ) φ [ ( u ε ) ( φ ( ε x ) ) ] ,   for all ε > 0   and all x R n   . In this expression, D x φ   is the differential of the function φ   at x   . We get that
R n | ( η u ~ ε ) | 2 d x 2 R n | η | 2 u ~ 2 ε d x
+ 2 2 ε ν n 2 ε R n S u p p η | D ( ε x ) φ [ ( u ε ) ( φ ( ε x ) ) ] | 2 d x .
With Hölder's inequality and a change of variables, we get that
R n | ( η u ~ ε ) | 2 d x 2 ( R n | η | n d x ) 2 n ( R n S u p p η | u ~ ε | 2 n n 2 d x ) n 2 n
+ 4 n ε ( ν ε ε ) n 2 R n S u p p η | u ε | 2 ( φ ( ε x ) ) d x
2 η n 2 u ~ ε L 2 n n 2 ( S u p p η ) 2
+ C ν p ε ( n 2 ) 2 2 ε Ω | u ε | 2 d x (26)
With another change of variables, we get that
R n | ( η u ~ ε ) | 2 d x C ν ( n 2 ) p ε 2 2 ε η n 2 u ε L 2 n n 2 ( Ω ) 2
+ C ν p ε ( n 2 ) 2 2 ε Ω | u ε | 2 d x (27)
for all ε > 0   , where C   is independant of ε   . With ( 10 ), Sobolev's inequality and since ν p ε ε 1   for all ε > 0   small enough, we get with ( 27 ) that η u ~ ε H 21 , 0 ( R n ) = O ( 1 )   when ε 0   . It then follows that there exists u ~ η H 21 , 0 ( R n )   such that, up to a subsequence, η u ~ ε u ~ η   weakly in H 21 , 0 ( R n )   when ε 0   . We let η 1 C c ( R n )   such that η 1 1   in B 1 ( 0 )   and η 1 0   in R n \ B ¯ 2 ( 0 )   . For any R N   , we let η R ( x ) = η 1 ( x R )   for all x R n   .
With a diagonal argument, we can assume that, up to a subsequence, for any R > 0   , there exists u ~ R H 21 , 0 ( R n )   such that η R u ~ ε u ~ R   weakly in H 21 , 0 ( R n )   when ε 0   . Letting ε 0   in ( 27 ), with ( 10 ), Sobolev's inequality and since ν p ε ε 1   for all ε > 0   small enough, we get that there exists a constant C > 0   independant of R   such that R n | u ~ R | 2 d x C η R n 2 + C   for all R > 0   . Since η R n 2 = η 1 n 2   for all R > 0   , we get that there exists C > 0   independant of R   such that R n | u ~ R | 2 d x C   for all R > 0   . It then follows that there exists u ~ H 21 , 0 ( R n )   such that u ~ R u ~   weakly in H 21 , 0 ( R n )   when R +   . As easily checked, we then obtain that u ~ η = η u ~   (we omit the proof of this fact. It is straightforward). For any i , j = 1 , . . . , n   , we let ( g ~ ε ) i j = ( i φ ( ε x ) , j φ ( ε x ) )   , where ( , )   denotes the Euclidean scalar product on R n   . We consider g ~ ε   as a metric on R n   . We let Δ g ~ ε = g ~ ε i j ( i j Γ i j k ( g ~ ε ) k ) ,   where g ~ i j ε : = ( g ~ 1 ε ) i j   are the coordinates of the inverse of the tensor g ~ ε   and the Γ i j k ( g ~ ε )   's are the Christoffel symbols of the metric g ~ ε   . With a change of variable, equation ( E ε )   rewrites as
Δ g ~ ε ( η R u ~ ε ) + 2 ε a ε φ ( ε x ) η R u ~ ε = | η R u ~ ε | 2 2 p ε η R u ~ ε | φ ( ε x ) ε | s i n D ( B R ( 0 ) { x 1 < 0 } ) (28)
for all ε > 0   . Passing to the weak limit ε 0   and then R +   in this equation, we get that Δ u ~ = | u ~ | 2 2 u ~ | x | s i n D ( R n ) .   Since u ~ H 21 , 0 ( R n )   , it follows from Proposition  8.1 of the Appendix that u ~ C 1 , θ ( R n ¯ )   for all θ ( 0 , min { 1 , 2 s } )   .
We deal with case (L1). Since s ( 0 , 2 )   , (L1) and ( 28 ) hold and u ~ ε 0   on { x 1 = 0 }   , it follows from arguments similar to the ones developed in the Appendix that for any θ ( 0 , min { 1 , 2 s } )   and any R > 0   , there exists C ( θ , R ) > 0   independant of ε > 0   small such that u ~ ε C 1 , θ ( B R ( 0 ) { x 1 0 } ) C ( θ , R )   for all ε > 0   small. It then follows from Ascoli's theorem that for any θ ( 0 , min { 1 , 2 s } )   , lim ε 0 u ~ ε = u ~   in C l o c 1 , θ ( 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 3   .
We assume that 0 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 0 u ε L ( Ω ) = + .   Then there exists N N   , there exists N   families of points ( μ ε , i ) ε > 0   such that we have that (A1) lim ε 0 u ε = u 0   in C l o c 2 ( Ω ¯ \ { 0 } )   where u 0   is as in ( 11 ), (A2) 0 < μ ε , 1 < . . . < μ ε , N   for all ε > 0   , (A3) lim ε 0 μ ε , N = 0 a n d lim ε 0 μ ε , i + 1 μ ε , i = + f o r a l l i = 1 . . . N 1   (A4) For all i = 1 . . . N   , there exists u ~ i H 21 , 0 ( R n ) C 1 ( R n ¯ ) \ { 0 }   such that Δ u ~ i = | u ~ i | 2 2 u ~ i | x | s i n D ( R n )   and lim ε 0 u ~ ε , i = u ~ i   in C l o c 1 ( R n ¯ \ { 0 } )   , where u ~ ε , i ( x ) : = μ n 2 2 ε , i u ε ( φ ( k ε , i x ) )   for all x U k ε , i { x 1 0 }   and k ε , i = μ 1 p ε 2 2 ε , i   . Moreover, lim ε 0 u ~ ε , 1 = u ~ 1   in C l o c 1 ( R n ¯ )   .
(A5) lim R + lim ε 0 sup | x | R k ε , N | x | n 2 2 | u ε ( x ) u 0 ( x ) | 1 p ε 2 2 = 0   (A6) For any δ > 0   and any i = 1 . . . N 1   , we have that lim R + lim ε 0 sup δ k ε , i + 1 | x | R k ε , i | x | n 2 2 | u ε ( x ) μ ε , i + 1 n 2 2 u i + 1 ( φ 1 ( x ) k ε , i + 1 ) | 1 p ε 2 2 = 0 .   (A7) For any i { 1 , . . . , N }   , there exists α i ( 0 , 1 ]   such that lim ε 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 Ω   and μ ε , 1 , k ε , 1 > 0   such that
max Ω | u ε | = | u ε ( x ε , 1 ) | = μ n 2 2 ε , 1 a n d k ε , 1 = μ 1 p ε 2 2 ε , 1 . (29)
We claim that
| x ε , 1 | = O ( k ε , 1 ) (30)
when ε 0   , and in particular that lim ε 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 0   .
From now on, we let φ : U V   as in ( 13 ) with y 0 = 0   and U , V   are open neighborhoods of 0   in R n   . We then let
x ε , 1 = φ ( a ε , b ε ) , (31)
where a ε { x 1 < 0 }   , b ε R n 1   and ( a ε , b ε ) U   . Note that lim ε 0 ( a ε , b ε ) = ( 0 , 0 )   .
Step  3 .2: We claim that
d ( x ε , 1 , Ω ) = ( 1 + o ( 1 ) ) | a ε | = O ( k ε , 1 ) (32)
where lim ε 0 o ( 1 ) = 0   .
Proof of the Claim: Indeed, since 0 Ω   , we get with ( 30 ) that
d ( x ε , 1 , Ω ) | x ε , 1 0 | = O ( k ε , 1 ) (33)
when ε 0   . We first remark that d ( x ε , 1 , Ω ) d ( x ε , 1 , φ ( 0 , b ε ) ) = | a ε | .   We let γ ε R n 1   such that ( 0 , γ ε ) U { x 1 = 0 }   and Y ε = φ ( 0 , γ ε ) Ω   such that d ( x ε , 1 , Ω ) = | x ε , 1 Y ε |   . Since d ( x ε , 1 , Ω ) | a ε |   , we get that b ε γ ε = O ( | a ε | ) ,   when ε 0   . Since 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 0   . Moreover,
d ( x ε , 1 , Ω ) = | x ε , 1 Y ε |
= | ( a ε + φ 0 ( b ε ) φ 0 ( γ ε ) , b ε γ ε ) |
= | ( a ε + o ( a ε ) , b ε γ ε ) | | a ε |
when ε 0   . It then follows that b ε γ ε = o ( | a ε | )   and d ( x ε , 1 , Ω ) = ( 1 + o ( 1 ) ) | a ε |   when ε 0   . This prove ( 32 ).   The classical Hardy-Sobolev inequality asserts that there exists C > 0   such that
( R n | u | 2 | x | s d x ) 2 2 C R n | u | 2 d x (34)
for all u H 21 , 0 ( R n )   . We define
μ s ( R n ) : = inf R n | u | 2 d x ( R n | u | 2 | x | s d x ) 2 2 (35)
where the infimum is taken over functions u 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 u ~ ε , 1 ( x ) : = μ n 2 2 ε , 1 u ε φ ( k ε , 1 x )   for all ε > 0   and all x U k ε , 1 { x 1 0 }   . Then, there exists u ~ 1 H 21 , 0 ( R n ) C 1 ( R n ¯ )   such that (B1) lim ε 0 u ~ ε , 1 = u ~ 1   in C l o c 1 ( R n ¯ )   , (B2) Δ u ~ 1 = | u ~ 1 | 2 2 u ~ 1 | x | s i n D ( R n ) ,   (B3) R n | u ~ 1 | 2 d x μ s ( R n ) 2 2 2 .   Moreover, there exists α 1 ( 0 , 1 ]   such that lim ε 0 μ p ε ε , 1 = α 1   .
Proof of Lemma  3.1 : Indeed, since | u ~ ε , 1 ( x ) | 1   for all x U k ε , 1 { x 1 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 = a ε k ε , 1 > 0   and θ ε = b ε k ε , 1 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 0   and θ 0 R n 1   such that lim ε 0 ( λ ε , θ ε ) = ( λ 0 , θ 0 )   . It then follows from the definition of u ~ ε , 1   and ( 29 ) that | u ~ ε , 1 ( λ ε , θ ε ) | = 1 .   Passing to the limit ε 0   and using point (B1), we get that | u ~ 1 ( λ 0 , θ 0 ) | = 1   .
In particular u ~ 1 0   and λ 0 0   . Multiplying (B2) by u ~ 1   and integrating by parts over R n   , we get that R n | u ~ 1 | 2 d x = R n | u | 2 | x | s d x .   Using the Hardy-Sobolev inequality ( 35 ) and that u ~ 1 0   , we get (B3). At last, with ( 10 ), ( 27 ) and Sobolev's inequality, we get that for any η C c ( R n )   , there exists C > 0   such that R n | ( η u ~ ε , 1 ) | 2 d x C μ ( n 2 ) p ε 2 2 ε , 1   for all ε > 0   . Letting ε 0   and using that u ~ 1 0   , we get that lim ε 0 μ p ε ε , 1 > 0   .   Step  3 .4: We claim that there exists C > 0   such that
| x | n 2 2 | u ε ( x ) | 1 p ε 2 2 C (36)
for all ε > 0   and all x Ω   .
Proof of the Claim: We argue by contradiction and we let ( y ε ) ε > 0 Ω   such that
sup x Ω | x | n 2 2 | u ε ( x ) | 1 p ε 2 2 = | y ε | n 2 2 | u ε ( y ε ) | 1 p ε 2 2 + (37)
when ε 0   . We let ν ε : = | u ε ( y ε ) | 2 n 2 a n d ε : = ν 1 p ε 2 2 ε   for all ε > 0   . It follows from ( 37 ) that
lim ε 0 | y ε | ε = + a n d lim ε 0 ν ε = 0 . (38)
We let β ε : = | y ε | s 2 | u ε ( y ε ) | 2 + p ε 2 2 .   It follows from ( 37 ) that
lim ε 0 β ε | y ε | = 0 . (39)
We let R > 0   . We let x B R ( 0 )   such that y ε + β ε x Ω   . It follows from the definition ( 37 ) of y ε   that | y ε + β ε x | n 2 2 | u ε ( y ε + β ε x ) | | y ε | n 2 2 | u ε ( y ε ) | ,   and then ( | u ε ( y ε + β ε x ) | | u ε ( y ε ) | ) 1 p ε 2 2 ( 1 1 β ε | y ε | R ) n 2 2   for all ε > 0   and all x B R ( 0 )   such that y ε + β ε x Ω   . With ( 39 ), we get that there exists ε ( R ) > 0   such that | u ε ( y ε + β ε x ) | 2 | u ε ( y ε ) |   for all x B R ( 0 )   such that y ε + β ε x Ω   and all 0 < ε < ε ( R )   . It then follows from Lemma  2.1 that y ε = O ( ε )   when ε 0   . A contradiction with ( 38 ). This proves ( 36 ).   As a remark, it follows from ( E ε )   , ( 11 ), ( 36 ) and standard elliptic theory that
lim ε 0 u ε = u 0 i n C l o c 2 ( Ω ¯ \ { 0 } ) . (40)
We let p N   . We consider the following assertions:
(C1) 0 < μ ε , 1 < . . . < μ ε , p   (C2) lim ε 0 μ ε , p = 0 a n d lim ε 0 μ ε , i + 1 μ ε , i = + f o r a l l i = 1 . . . p 1   (C3) For all i = 1 . . . p   , there exists u ~ i H 21 , 0 ( R n ) C 1 ( R n ¯ ) \ { 0 }   such that Δ u ~ i = | u ~ i | 2 2 u ~ i | x | s i n D ( R n ) , R n | u ~ i | 2 d x μ s ( R n ) 2 2 2   and lim ε 0 u ~ ε , i = u ~ i   in C l o c 1 ( R n ¯ \ { 0 } )   , where u ~ ε , i ( x ) : = μ n 2 2 ε , i u ε ( φ ( k ε , i x ) )   for all x U k ε , i { x 1 0 }   and k ε , i : = μ 1 p ε 2 2 ε , i   .
(C4) For any i { 1 , . . . , p }   , there exists α i ( 0 , 1 ]   such that lim ε 0 μ p ε ε , i = α i .   We say that 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 1   holds with the improvement that the convergence in (C3) holds in C l o c 1 ( R n ¯ )   .
Step  3 .5: We prove the following proposition:
Proposition 3.2. Let Ω   be a smooth bounded domain of R n   , n 3   , such that 0 Ω   . We let ( u ε )   , ( a ε )   and ( p ε )   such that ( E ε )   , ( 8 ), ( 9 ) and ( 10 ) hold. Let p 1   . We assume that p   holds. Then either lim R + lim ε 0 sup | x | R k ε , p | x | n 2 2 | u ε ( x ) u 0 ( x ) | 1 p ε 2 2 = 0   or p + 1   holds.
Proof of Proposition  3.2 : We assume that lim R + lim ε 0 sup | x | R k ε , p | x | n 2 2 | u ε ( x ) u 0 ( x ) | 1 p ε 2 2 0 .   It then follows that there exists a family ( y ε ) ε > 0 Ω   such that
lim ε 0 | y ε | k ε , p = + a n d lim ε 0 | y ε | n 2 2 | u ε ( y ε ) u 0 ( y ε ) | 1 p ε 2 2 = α > 0 . (41)
We claim that lim ε 0 y ε = 0   . Otherwise, it follows from ( 40 ) that lim ε 0 | u ε ( y ε ) u 0 ( y ε ) | = 0   . A contradiction.
Since u 0 C 0 ( Ω ¯ )   and lim ε 0 y ε = 0   , we get that
lim ε 0 | y ε | n 2 2 | u ε ( y ε ) | 1 p ε 2 2 = α > 0 . (42)
In particular, lim ε 0 | u ε ( y ε ) | = +   . We let μ ε , p + 1 : = | u ε ( y ε ) | 2 n 2 a n d k ε , p + 1 : = μ ε , p + 1 1 p ε 2 2 .   As a consequence, lim ε 0 μ ε , p + 1 = 0   . We define u ~ ε , p + 1 ( x ) : = μ ε , p + 1 n 2 2 u ε ( φ ( k ε , p + 1 x ) )   for all x U k ε , p + 1 { x 1 0 }   . It follows from ( 36 ) that | φ ( k ε , p + 1 x ) | n 2 2 | u ε ( φ ( k ε , p + 1 x ) ) | 1 p ε 2 2 C   for all x U k ε , p + 1 { x 1 0 }   . With the definition of u ~ ε , p + 1   and the properties ( 13 ) of φ   , we get that there exists C > 0   such that | x | n 2 2 | u ~ ε , p + 1 ( x ) | 1 p ε 2 2 C   for all x U k ε , p + 1 { x 1 0 }   . It then follows that hypothesis (L2) of Lemma  2.2 is satisfied. It then follows from Lemma  2.2 that there exists u ~ p + 1 H 21 , 0 ( R n ) C 1 ( R n ¯ )   such that Δ u ~ p + 1 = | u ~ p + 1 | 2 2 u ~ p + 1 | x | s i n D ( R n ) ,   and
lim ε 0 u ~ ε , p + 1 = u ~ ε , p + 1 (43)
in C l o c 1 ( R n ¯ \ { 0 } )   . It follows from ( 42 ) and the definition of k ε , p + 1   that lim ε 0 | y ε | k ε , p + 1 = α > 0 .   We let y ~ ε { x 1 < 0 }   such that y ε = φ ( k ε , p + 1 y ~ ε )   . It then exists y ~ 0 R n ¯   such that lim ε 0 y ~ ε = y ~ 0 0   . It then follows from ( 43 ) that | u ~ p + 1 ( y 0 ) | = lim ε 0 | u ~ ε , p + 1 ( y ~ ε ) | = 1 ,   and then u ~ p + 1 0   . With arguments similar to the ones developed in the proof of Lemma  3.1 , we then get that R n | u ~ p + 1 | 2 d x μ s ( R n ) 2 2 2   and there exists α p + 1 ( 0 , 1 ]   such that lim ε 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 0 μ ε , p + 1 μ ε , p = + a n d lim ε 0 μ ε , p + 1 = 0 .   As easily checked, the families ( μ ε , i ) ε > 0   , i { 1 , . . . , p + 1 }   satisfy 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 3   , such that 0 Ω   . We let ( u ε )   , ( a ε )   and ( p ε )   such that ( E ε )   , ( 8 ), ( 9 ) and ( 10 ) hold. Let p 1   . We assume that p   holds. Then either for any i { 1 , . . . , p 1 }   and for any δ > 0   lim R + lim ε 0 sup x B δ k ε , i + 1 ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , i ( 0 ) | x | n 2 2 | u ε ( x ) μ ε , i + 1 n 2 2 u ~ i + 1 ( φ 1 ( x ) k ε , i + 1 ) | 1 p ε 2 2 = 0   or p + 1   holds.
Proof of Proposition  3.3 : We assume that there exist i p 1   , δ > 0   such that lim R + lim ε 0 sup x B δ k ε , i + 1 ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , i ( 0 ) | x | n 2 2 | u ε ( x ) μ ε , i + 1 n 2 2 u ~ i + 1 ( φ 1 ( x ) k ε , i + 1 ) | 1 p ε 2 2 > 0 .   It then follows that there exists a family ( y ε ) ε > 0 Ω   such that
lim ε 0 | y ε | k ε , i = + , | y ε | δ k ε , i + 1 f o r a l l ε > 0 (44)
lim ε 0 | y ε | n 2 2 | u ε ( y ε ) μ ε , i + 1 n 2 2 u ~ i + 1 ( φ 1 ( y ε ) k ε , i + 1 ) | 1 p ε 2 2 = α > 0 . (45)
We let y ~ ε R n   such that y ε = φ ( k ε , i + 1 y ~ ε )   . It follows from ( 44 ) that | y ~ ε | 2 δ   for all ε > 0   . We claim that lim ε 0 y ~ ε = 0   . Indeed, we rewrite ( 45 ) as lim ε 0 | y ~ ε | n 2 2 | u ~ ε , i + 1 ( y ~ ε ) u ~ i + 1 ( y ~ ε ) | 1 p ε 2 2 = α > 0 .   A contradiction with point (C3) of p   in case y ~ ε ↛ 0   when ε 0   . Since u ~ i + 1 C 0 ( R n ¯ )   , we then get that | y ε | n 2 2 | μ ε , i + 1 n 2 2 u ~ i + 1 ( φ 1 ( y ε ) k ε , i + 1 ) | 1 p ε 2 2 = O ( | y ε | k ε , i + 1 ) n 2 2 = o ( 1 )   when ε 0   . We rewrite ( 45 ) as
lim ε 0 | y ε | n 2 2 | u ε ( y ε ) | 1 p ε 2 2 = α > 0 . (46)
We let ν ε : = | u ε ( y ε ) | 2 n 2 a n d ε : = ν 1 p ε 2 2 ε .   We define u ~ ε ( x ) : = ν n 2 2 ε u ε ( φ ( ε x ) )   for all x U ε { x 1 0 }   . It follows from ( 36 ) that | φ ( ε x ) | n 2 2 | u ε ( φ ( ε x ) ) | 1 p ε 2 2 C   for all x U ε { x 1 0 }   . With the definition of u ~ ε   and the properties ( 13 ) of φ   , we get that there exists C > 0   such that | x | n 2 2 | u ~ ε ( x ) | 1 p ε 2 2 C   for all x U ε { x 1 0 }   . It then follows that hypothesis (L2) of Lemma  2.2 is satisfied. It then follows from Lemma  2.2 that there exists u ~ H 21 , 0 ( R n ) C 1 ( R n ¯ )   such that Δ u ~ = | u ~ | 2 2 u ~ | x | s i n D ( R n ) ,   and
lim ε 0 u ~ ε = u ~ (47)
in C l o c 1 ( R n ¯ \ { 0 } )   . It follows from ( 46 ) and the definition of ε   that lim ε 0 | y ε | ε = α > 0 .   We let y ¯ ε { x 1 < 0 }   such that y ε = φ ( ε y ¯ ε )   . It then exists y ¯ 0 R n ¯   such that lim ε 0 y ¯ ε = y ¯ 0 0   . It follows from ( 47 ) and the definition of u ~ ε   and y ~ ε   that | u ~ ( y ¯ 0 ) | = lim ε 0 | u ~ ε ( y ¯ ε ) | = 1 ,   and then u ~ 0   . With arguments similar to the ones developed in the proof of Lemma  3.1 , we then get that R n | u ~ | 2 d x μ s ( R n ) 2 2 2   and there exists α ( 0 , 1 ]   such that lim ε 0 ν p ε ε = α   . Moreover, it follows from ( 46 ), ( 44 ) and the definition of ν ε   that lim ε 0 ν ε μ ε , i = + a n d lim ε 0 μ ε , i + 1 ν ε = + .   As easily checked, the families ( μ ε , 1 )   ,..., ( μ ε , i )   , ( ν ε )   , ( μ ε , i + 1 )   ,..., ( μ ε , N ) ε > 0   satisfy 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 3   , such that 0 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 / p h o l d s }   . Then N 0 < +   and the conclusion of Proposition  3.1 holds with N = N 0   .
Proof of Proposition  3.4 : Indeed, assume that p   holds. Let δ , R > 0   . Since μ ε , i = o ( μ ε , i + 1 )   for all i { 1 , . . . , N 1 }   , we then get with a change of variable and the definition of u ~ ε , i   (see (C3)) that
Ω | u ε | 2 d x i = 1 N φ ( B R k ε , i ( 0 ) \ B ¯ δ k ε , i ( 0 ) ) | u ε | 2 d x
i = 1 N μ n 2 2 2 p ε ε , i B R ( 0 ) \ B ¯ δ ( 0 ) | u ~ ε , i | g ε , i 2 d v g ε , i
i = 1 N B R ( 0 ) \ B ¯ δ ( 0 ) | u ~ ε , i | g ε , i 2 d v g ε , i
where g ε , i   is the metric such that ( g ε , i ) q r = ( q φ ( k ε , i x ) , r φ ( k ε , i x ) )   for all q , r { 1 , . . . , p }   . Passing to the limit ε 0   and using point (C3) of p   , we get that Ω | u ε | 2 d x p μ s ( R n ) 2 2 2 + o ( 1 )   when ε 0   . With ( 10 ), we get that there exists C > 0   such that p Λ 2 μ s ( R n ) 2 2 2 .   It then follows that N 0 < +   exists.
We let families ( μ ε , 1 ) ε > 0   ,..., ( μ ε , N 0 ) ε > 0   such that 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 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 3   . We let s ( 0 , 2 )   . We let ( p ε ) ε > 0   such that p ε [ 0 , 2 2 )   for all ε > 0   and ( 9 ) holds. We consider ( u ε ) ε > 0 H 21 , 0 ( Ω )   such that ( 8 ), ( E ε )   and ( 10 ) hold.
We assume that blow-up occurs, that is lim ε 0 u ε L ( Ω ) = + .   We let μ ε , 1 , . . . , μ ε , N   as in Proposition  3.1 . Then, there exists C > 0   such that
| u ε ( x ) | C i = 1 N μ n 2 ε , i | x | ( μ 2 ε , i + | x | 2 ) n 2 + C | x | (48)
for all ε > 0   and all x Ω   .
The proof of this estimate goes through seven steps. We let s ( 0 , 2 )   . We let ( p ε ) ε > 0   such that p ε [ 0 , 2 2 )   for all ε > 0   and ( 9 ) holds. We consider ( u ε ) ε > 0 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 ( 0 , 1 )   and any R > 0   , there exists C ( ν , R ) > 0   such that
| u ε ( x ) | C ( ν , R ) ( μ n 2 ν ( n 1 ) ε , N d ( x , Ω ) 1 ν | x | n ( 1 ν ) + d ( x , Ω ) 1 ν ) (49)
for all x Ω \ 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   in Ω   with Dirichlet boundary condition. We let H ( x ) = ν G ( x , 0 )   for all x Ω ¯ \ { 0 }   . Here ν   denotes the outward normal vector at Ω   . It follows from Theorem  9.2 of the Appendix that H C 2 ( Ω ¯ \ { 0 } )   , that
Δ H = 0 (50)
in Ω   and that there exist δ 1 , C 1 > 0   such that
d ( x , Ω ) C 1 | x | n H ( x ) C 1 d ( x , Ω ) | x | n (51)
and
| H ( x ) | H ( x ) 1 C 1 d ( x , Ω ) 1 C 1 | x | (52)
for all x Ω B 2 δ 1 ( 0 )   . Since Δ   is coercive, we let λ 1 > 0   be the first eigenvalue of Δ   on Ω   , and we let ψ C 2 ( Ω ¯ )   be the unique eigenfunction such that { Δ ψ = λ 1 ψ i n Ω ψ > 0 i n Ω ψ = 0 o n Ω Ω ψ 2 d x = 1 }   It follows from standard elliptic theory and Hopf 's maximum principle that there exists C 2 , δ 2 > 0   such that 1 C 2 d ( x , Ω ) ψ ( x ) C 2 d ( x , Ω ) a n d 1 C 2 | ψ ( x ) | C 2   for all x Ω B 2 δ 2 ( 0 )   . Consequently, there exists C 2 > 0   such that
1 C 2 d ( x , Ω ) ψ ( x ) C 2 d ( x , Ω ) a n d | ψ ( x ) | ψ ( x ) 1 C 2 d ( x , Ω ) 1 C 2 | x | (53)
for all x Ω B 2 δ 2 ( 0 )   . We let the operator L ε = Δ + ( a ε | 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 ( 0 , 1 )   and any R > R 0   , δ ( 0 , δ 0 )   , we have that
L ε H 1 ν > 0 , a n d L ε ψ 1 ν > 0 (54)
for all x Ω B δ ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , N ( 0 )   and for all ε > 0   sufficiently small. Indeed, with ( 50 ), we get that
L ε H 1 ν H 1 ν ( x ) = a ε ( x ) + ν ( 1 ν ) | H | 2 H 2 ( x ) | u ε ( x ) | 2 2 p ε | x | s (55)
for all x Ω \ { 0 }   and all ε > 0   . We let 0 < δ 0 min { δ 1 , δ 2 }   such that
{ 2 δ 0 2 sup Ω | a ε | ν ( 1 ν ) 2 max { C 1 2 , C 2 2 } 2 2 + 1 δ 0 2 s u 0 L ( Ω ) 2 2 < ν ( 1 ν ) 4 max { C 1 2 , C 2 2 } } (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 | n 2 2 | u ε ( x ) u 0 ( x ) | 1 p ε 2 2 ( ν ( 1 ν ) 2 2 + 1 max { C 1 2 , C 2 2 } ) 1 2 2   for all x Ω \ B ¯ R k ε , N ( 0 )   and all ε > 0   . We then get that
| x | 2 s | u ε ( x ) | 2 2 p ε 2 2 1 p ε | x | 2 s | u ε ( x ) u 0 ( x ) | 2 2 p ε
+ 2 2 1 p ε | x | 2 s | u 0 ( x ) | 2 2 p ε
2 p ε ν ( 1 ν ) 4 max { C 1 2 , C 2 2 }
+ 2 2 1 p ε δ 2 s u 0 L ( Ω ) 2 2 p ε
for all x Ω \ B ¯ R k ε , N ( 0 )   and all ε > 0   . We get with the choice ( 56 ) of δ 0   that for any δ ( 0 , δ 0 )   and all R > R 0  
| x | 2 s | u ε ( x ) | 2 2 p ε ν ( 1 ν ) 4 max { C 1 2 , C 2 2 } + 2 2 1 δ 0 2 s u 0 L ( Ω ) 2 2
< ν ( 1 ν ) 2 max { C 1 2 , C 2 2 }
for all x ( B δ ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , N ( 0 ) ) Ω   and all ε > 0   small enough. With ( 55 ) and ( 56 ), we get that
L ε H 1 ν H 1 ν ( x ) ν ( 1 ν ) C 1 2 | x | 2 + a ε ( x ) ν ( 1 ν ) 2 C 1 2 | x | 2
ν ( 1 ν ) 2 C 1 2 | x | 2 | a ε ( x ) | 2 C 1 2 | x | 2 > 0
for all x ( B δ ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , N ( 0 ) ) Ω   and all ε > 0   small enough. We deal with the second inequality of ( 54 ). We have that L ε ψ 1 ν ψ 1 ν ( x ) = a ε ( x ) + ( 1 ν ) λ 1 + ν ( 1 ν ) | ψ | 2 ψ 2 ( x ) | u ε ( x ) | 2 2 p ε | x | s   for all x Ω   . With ( 53 ) and ( 56 ) we get that L ε ψ 1 ν ψ 1 ν ( x ) 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 ( B δ ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , N ( 0 ) ) 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
| u ε ( x ) | C 1 ( R ) μ n 2 ε , N d ( x , Ω ) (57)
for all x Ω 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
| u ε ( x ) | C 2 ( δ ) d ( x , Ω ) (58)
for all x Ω B δ ( 0 )   and all ε > 0   . We let D ε , R , δ : = ( B δ ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , N ( 0 ) ) Ω .   We let α ε : = 2 C 1 ( R ) C 1 1 ν R n ( n 1 ) ν α N n ( n 1 ) ν 2 2 μ ε , N 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 D ε , R , δ ¯   and all ε > 0   . Here, α N   is as in point (A7) of Proposition  3.1 .
We claim that
| u ε ( x ) | φ ε ( x ) (59)
for all ε > 0   and all x D ε , R , δ   . Indeed, with inequalities ( 51 ) and ( 57 ), we get that for any x Ω B R k ε , N ( 0 )   ,
| u ε ( x ) | α ε H ( x ) 1 ν μ ν ( n 1 ) n ε , N d ( x , Ω ) ν | x | n n ν 2 R n ( n 1 ) ν α N n ( n 1 ) ν 2 2 μ n ( n 1 ) ν 2 2 p ε ε , N 2 α N n ( n 1 ) ν 2 2 1
when ε 0   with point (A7) of Proposition  3.1 . Similarly, we have with ( 53 ) and ( 58 ) that | u ε ( x ) | β ε ψ ( x ) 1 ν d ( x , Ω ) ν 2 δ ν < 1   for all x Ω B δ ( 0 )   and all ε > 0   . On Ω ( B δ ( 0 ) \ 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 C 2 ( D ε , R , δ ) C 0 ( D ε , R , δ ¯ )   , then { L ε φ 0 i n D ε , R , δ φ 0 o n D ε , R , δ } φ 0 i n D ε , R , δ .   Indeed, we let U 0   be an open subset of R n   such that Ω ¯ U 0   . Since the operator Δ   is coercive in U 0   (with boundary Dirichlet condition), we let G ~ C 2 ( U 0 × U 0 \ { ( x , x ) / x U 0 } )   be the Green's function for Δ   with Dirichlet condition in U 0   . In other words, G ~   satisfies Δ G ~ ( x , ) = δ x   weakly in D ( U 0 )   . For the existence, we refer to Theorem  9.1 of Appendix B. Moreover, since 0 U 0   is in the interior of the domain, there exists δ ^ 0 > 0   and C 0 > 0   such that 1 C 0 | x | n 2 G ~ ( 0 , x ) C 0 | x | n 2   and | G ~ ( 0 , x ) | G ~ ( 0 , x ) C 0 | x |   for all ε > 0   and all x B 2 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 [15for 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 G ~ 1 ν > 0 a n d L ε G ~ 1 ν > 0   in D ε , R , δ ¯   for all ε > 0   . It then follows from [5that L ε   verifies the above mentioned comparison principle.
Step  4 .1.4: It follows from ( 54 ) and ( 59 ) that { L ε φ ε 0 = L ε u ε i n D ε , R , δ φ ε 0 = u ε o n D ε , R , δ L ε φ ε 0 = L ε u ε i n D ε , R , δ φ ε 0 = u ε o n D ε , R , δ } .   It follows from the above comparison principle that | u ε ( x ) | φ ε ( x )   for all x D ε , R , δ   . With ( 51 ), we then get that ( 49 ) holds on D ε , R , δ = ( B δ ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , N ( 0 ) ) 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 \ B ¯ R k ε , N ( 0 )   for all R > 0   .   Step  4 .2: Let i { 1 , . . . , N 1 }   . We claim that for any ν ( 0 , 1 )   and any R , ρ > 0   , there exists C ( ν , R , ρ ) > 0   such that
| u ε ( x ) | C ( ν , R , ρ ) ( μ ε , i n 2 ν ( n 1 ) d ( x , Ω ) 1 ν | x | n ( 1 ν ) + μ i + 1 , ε ν n 2 d ( x , Ω ) 1 ν ) (60)
for all x B R k ε , i + 1 ( 0 ) \ B ¯ ρ k ε , i ( 0 )   and all ε > 0   .
Proof of the Claim: We let i { 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
d ( x , Ω ) C 1 | x | n H ( x ) C 1 d ( x , Ω ) | x | n (61)
and
| H ( x ) | H ( x ) 1 C 1 d ( x , Ω ) 1 C 1 | x | (62)
for all x B 2 δ 1 ( 0 ) \ { 0 }   . Moreover there exists C 2 , δ 2 > 0   such that ψ   verifies
1 C 2 d ( x , Ω ) ψ ( x ) C 2 d ( x , Ω ) a n d | ψ ( x ) | ψ ( x ) 1 C 2 | x | (63)
for all x Ω B 2 δ 2 ( 0 )   . We let the operator L ε = Δ + ( a ε | 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 ( 0 , 1 )   and any R > R 0   , ρ ( 0 , ρ 0 )   , we have that
L ε H 1 ν > 0 a n d L ε ψ 1 ν > 0 (64)
for all x Ω ( B ρ k ε , i + 1 ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , i ( 0 ) )   and for all ε > 0   sufficiently small. Indeed, as in Step  4 .1, we get that
L ε H 1 ν H 1 ν ( x ) = a ε ( x ) + ν ( 1 ν ) | H | 2 H 2 ( x ) | u ε ( x ) | 2 2 p ε | x | s (65)
for all x Ω \ { 0 }   and all ε > 0   . We let 0 < ρ 0 < 1   such that
2 2 + 1 ρ 0 2 s u ~ i + 1 L ( B 2 ( 0 ) R n ) 2 2 < ν ( 1 ν ) max { C 1 2 , C 2 2 } (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 | n 2 2 | u ε ( x ) μ ε , i + 1 n 2 2 u ~ i + 1 ( φ 1 ( x ) k ε , i + 1 ) | 1 p ε 2 2 ( ν ( 1 ν ) 2 2 + 1 max { C 1 2 , C 2 2 } ) 1 2 2   for all x Ω ( B k ε , i + 1 ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , i ( 0 ) )   and all ε > 0   . We then get that
| x | 2 s | u ε ( x ) | 2 2 p ε
2 2 1 p ε | x | 2 s | u ε ( x ) μ ε , i + 1 n 2 2 u ~ i + 1 ( φ 1 ( x ) k ε , i + 1 ) | 2 2 p ε
+ 2 2 1 p ε | x | 2 s μ ε , i + 1 n 2 2 ( 2 2 ) ( 1 p ε 2 2 ) sup B 2 ( 0 ) R n | u ~ i + 1 | 2 2 p ε
2 p ε ν ( 1 ν ) 4 max { C 1 2 , C 2 2 } + 2 2 1 p ε ( | x | k ε , i + 1 ) 2 s u ~ i + 1 L ( B 2 ( 0 ) R n ) 2 2 p ε
for all x Ω ( B k ε , i + 1 ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , i ( 0 ) )   and all ε > 0   . We then get with the choice ( 66 ) of ρ 0   that for any ρ ( 0 , ρ 0 )   and all R > R 0  
| x | 2 s | u ε ( x ) | 2 2 p ε ν ( 1 ν ) 4 max { C 1 2 , C 2 2 } + 2 2 1 ρ 0 2 s u ~ i + 1 L ( B 2 ( 0 ) R n ) 2 2 + o ( 1 )
< ν ( 1 ν ) 2 max { C 1 2 , C 2 2 }
for all x ( B ρ k ε , i + 1 ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , i ( 0 ) ) Ω   and all ε > 0   small enough. Since ( 8 ) holds, we get with ( 65 ) that
L ε H 1 ν H 1 ν ( x ) ν ( 1 ν ) C 1 2 | x | 2 + a ε ( x ) ν ( 1 ν ) 2 C 1 2 | x | 2
ν ( 1 ν ) + 2 | x | 2 C 1 2 a ε ( x ) 2 C 1 2 | x | 2 > 0
for all x Ω ( B ρ k ε , i + 1 ( 0 ) \ 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
| u ε ( x ) | C 1 ( R ) μ ε , i n 2 d ( x , Ω ) f o r a l l x Ω B R k ε , i ( 0 )
| u ε ( x ) | C 2 ( ρ ) μ ε , i + 1 n 2 d ( x , Ω ) f o r a l l x Ω B ρ k ε , i + 1 ( 0 ) .
We let D ε , R , ρ : = ( B ρ k ε , i + 1 ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , i ( 0 ) ) Ω .   We let α ε : = 2 C 1 ( R ) C 1 1 ν R n ν ( n 1 ) α i n ν ( n 1 ) 2 2 μ ε , i n 2 ν ( n 1 )   and β ε : = 2 C 2 ( ρ ) C 2 1 ν ρ ν α i + 1 ν 2 2 μ ε , i + 1 n 2 + ν ,   and φ ε ( x ) : = α ε H 1 ν ( x ) + β ε ψ 1 ν ( x )   for all x 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
| u ε ( x ) | φ ε ( x ) (67)
for all ε > 0   and all x 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 ) | φ ε ( x )   for all x 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 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , i ( 0 ) ) 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 ( 0 , 1 )   , there exists C ν > 0   such that
| u ε ( x ) | C ν i = 1 N μ n 2 ( n 1 ) ν ε , i | x | 1 ν ( μ 2 ε , i + | x | 2 ) n 2 ( 1 ν ) + C ν | x | 1 ν (68)
for all x Ω   and all ε > 0   . Note that we have used that d ( x , Ω ) | x 0 | = | x |   for all x Ω   . We let G   be the Green's function of Δ   on Ω   with Dirichlet boundary condition. It follows from Green's representation formula and ( 68 ) that
| u ε ( x ) | = | Ω G ( x , y ) ( | u ε ( y ) | 2 2 p ε u ε ( y ) | y | s a ε ( y ) u ε ( y ) ) d y | (69)
C Ω G ( x , y ) ( | u ε ( y ) | 2 1 p ε | y | s + 1 ) d y
C ν i = 1 N Ω G ( x , y ) | y | s ( μ n 2 ( n 1 ) ν ε , i | y | 1 ν ( μ 2 ε , i + | y | 2 ) n 2 ( 1 ν ) ) 2 1 p ε d y
+ C ν Ω G ( x , y ) ( | y | ( 1 ν ) ( 2 1 p ε ) s + 1 ) d y (70)
Step  4 .4: We claim that there exists C > 0   such that
Ω G ( x , y ) ( | y | ( 1 ν ) ( 2 1 p ε ) s + 1 ) d y C | x | (71)
Proof of the Claim: Indeed, we let ψ ε H 1 , 0 p ( Ω )   ( 1 < p < 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 ( Ω )   for the norm : = p   . Since s ( 0 , 2 )   , it follows from standard elliptic theory that for ν > 0   small, ψ ε C 1 ( Ω ¯ )   and that there exists C > 0   such that ψ ε C 1 ( Ω ¯ ) C .   Since ψ ε ( 0 ) = 0   , we get that | ψ ε ( x ) | C | x |   for all x Ω   . Moreover, since s ( 0 , 2 )   , we get with Green's representation formula that ψ ε ( x ) = Ω G ( x , y ) ( | y | ( 1 ν ) ( 2 1 p ε ) s + 1 ) d y   for all x Ω   and all ε > 0   . Inequation ( 71 ) then follows.   Step  4 .5: We let i { 1 , . . . , N }   . We claim that there exists C > 0   such that
Ω G ( x , y ) | y | s ( μ n 2 ( n 1 ) ν ε , i | y | 1 ν ( μ 2 ε , i + | y | 2 ) n 2 ( 1 ν ) ) 2 1 p ε d y
C μ n 2 ε , i | x | ( μ 2 ε , i + | x | 2 ) n 2 (72)
for all x Ω   such that | x | μ ε , i   .
Proof of the Claim: Indeed, with point (G6) of Theorem  9.1 on the Green's function, we get that
Ω G ( x , y ) | y | s ( μ n 2 ( n 1 ) ν ε , i | y | 1 ν ( μ 2 ε , i + | y | 2 ) n 2 ( 1 ν ) ) 2 1 p ε d y
C Ω | y | | x y | n 1 | y | s ( μ n 2 ( n 1 ) ν ε , i | y | 1 ν ( μ 2 ε , i + | y | 2 ) n 2 ( 1 ν ) ) 2 1 p ε d y
I 1 , ε ( x ) + I 2 , ε ( x ) .
Here, I i , ε ( x ) : = C Ω i ( x ) | y | | x y | n 1 | y | s ( μ n 2 ( n 1 ) ν ε , i | y | 1 ν ( μ 2 ε , i + | y | 2 ) n 2 ( 1 ν ) ) 2 1 p ε d y   where Ω 1 ( x ) = Ω { | x y | > | x | / 2 } a n d Ω 2 ( x ) = Ω { | x y | < | x | / 2 } .   We compute these two integrals separately. We let R > 0   such that Ω B R ( 0 )   .
We have that
I 1 , ε ( x ) C | x | 1 n B R ( 0 ) | y | 1 s ( μ n 2 ( n 1 ) ν ε , i | y | 1 ν ( μ 2 ε , i + | y | 2 ) n 2 ( 1 ν ) ) 2 1 p ε d y
C | x | 1 n μ n 2 ε , i B R μ ε , i ( 0 ) | y | 1 s ( | y | 1 ν ( 1 + | y | 2 ) n 2 ( 1 ν ) ) 2 1 p ε d y
C | x | 1 n μ n 2 ε , i (73)
since s ( 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 | | x | / 2   , we have that | x | 2 | y | 3 | x | 2 .   Taking ν > 0   small enough, we then get that
I 2 , ε ( x ) C | x | 1 s ( μ n 2 ( n 1 ) ν ε , i | x | 1 ν | x | n ( 1 ν ) ) 2 1 p ε { | x y | | x | / 2 } | x y | 1 n d y
C | x | 1 n μ n 2 ε , i | x | n + 1 s μ n 2 ε , i ( μ n 2 ( n 1 ) ν ε , i | x | 1 ν | x | n ( 1 ν ) ) 2 1 p ε
C | x | 1 n μ n 2 ε , i (74)
since | x | μ ε , i   . Plugging together ( 73 ) and ( 74 ), we get that Ω G ( x , y ) | y | s ( μ n 2 ( n 1 ) ν ε , i | y | 1 ν ( μ 2 ε , i + | y | 2 ) n 2 ( 1 ν ) ) 2 1 p ε d y C | x | 1 n μ n 2 ε , i   Since | x | μ ε , i   , we get ( 72 ).   Step  4 .6: We let i { 1 , . . . , N }   . We claim that there exists C > 0   such that
Ω G ( x , y ) | y | s ( μ n 2 ( n 1 ) ν ε , i | y | 1 ν ( μ 2 ε , i + | y | 2 ) n 2 ( 1 ν ) ) 2 1 p ε d y
C μ n 2 ε , i | x | ( μ 2 ε , i + | x | 2 ) n 2 (75)
for all x Ω   such that | x | μ ε , i   .
Proof of the Claim: Indeed, let p ( 1 , n / s )   . We let φ ε , i H 1 , 0 p ( Ω )   such that
Δ φ ε , i = 1 | x | s ( μ n 2 ( n 1 ) ν ε , i | x | 1 ν ( μ 2 ε , i + | x | 2 ) n 2 ( 1 ν ) ) 2 1 p ε i n D ( Ω ) . (76)
We let φ : U V   defined in ( 13 ) with y 0 = 0   . We let φ ~ ε , i ( x ) = μ n 2 2 ε , i φ ε , i φ ( μ ε , i x )   for all x U μ ε , i R n   . We let R > 0   such that Ω B R ( 0 )   . It follows from Green's representation formula and the estimate (G5) on the Green's function that for any x U μ ε , i R n   , we have that
| φ ~ ε , i ( x ) | μ n 2 2 ε , i Ω G ( φ ( μ ε , i x ) , y ) | y | s ( μ n 2 ( n 1 ) ν ε , i | y | 1 ν ( μ 2 ε , i + | y | 2 ) n 2 ( 1 ν ) ) 2 1 p ε d y
C μ n 2 2 ε , i Ω 1 | φ ( μ ε , i x ) y | n 2 | y | s ( μ n 2 ( n 1 ) ν ε , i | y | 1 ν ( μ 2 ε , i + | y | 2 ) n 2 ( 1 ν ) ) 2 1 p ε d y
C B R / μ ε , i ( 0 ) 1 | φ ( μ ε , i x ) μ ε , i y | n 2 | y | s ( | y | 1 ν ( 1 + | y | 2 ) n 2 ( 1 ν ) ) 2 1 p ε d y .
Since s ( 0 , 2 )   and with the properties ( 13 ) of φ   , we get that there exists C > 0   such that
| φ ~ ε , i ( x ) | C (77)
for all x B 3 ( 0 ) R n   and all ε > 0   . We let the metric ( g ~ ε ) k l = ( k φ , l φ ) ( μ ε , i x )   for k , l = 1 , . . . , n   . Equation ( 76 ) rewrites as Δ g ~ ε φ ~ ε , i = c i , ε β ε , i ( x ) ( 1 ν ) ( 2 1 p ε ) s ( 1 + β ε , i ( x ) 2 ) n 2 ( 1 ν ) ( 2 1 p ε ) i n D ( B 3 ( 0 ) R n ) ,   where c i , ε R   for all ε > 0   and lim ε 0 c i , ε = c i > 0   .
β ε , i ( x ) : = | φ ( μ ε , i x ) μ ε , i |   for all x B 3 ( 0 ) R n   . In particular, there exists C > 0   such that | x | C β ε , i ( x ) C | x |   for all x B 3 ( 0 ) R n   . Since ( 77 ) holds, s ( 0 , 2 )   and φ ~ ε , i 0   on { x 1 = 0 }   , it follows from standard elliptic theory and the equation satisfies by φ ~ ε , i   that there exists C > 0   such that φ ~ ε , i C 1 ( B 2 ( 0 ) R n ¯ ) C   for all ε > 0   . Since φ ~ ε , i ( 0 ) = 0   , we get that | φ ~ ε i ( x ) | C | x |   for all x B 2 ( 0 ) R n   and all ε > 0   . Coming back to the definition of φ ~ ε , i   , we then get that there exists C > 0   such that | φ ε , i ( x ) | C μ n 2 ε , i | x | ( μ 2 ε , i + | x | 2 ) n 2   for all x Ω 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 ) | C i = 1 N μ n 2 ε , i | x | ( μ 2 ε , i + | x | 2 ) n 2 + C | x |   for all x 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 3   . We let s ( 0 , 2 )   . We let ( p ε ) ε > 0   such that p ε [ 0 , 2 2 )   for all ε > 0   and ( 9 ) holds. We consider ( u ε ) ε > 0 H 21 , 0 ( Ω )   such that ( 8 ), ( E ε )   and ( 10 ) hold.
We assume that blow-up occurs, that is lim ε 0 u ε L ( Ω ) = + .   We let μ ε , 1 , . . . , μ ε , N   as in Proposition  3.1 . Then, there exists C > 0   such that
| u ε ( x ) | C i = 1 N μ n 2 ε , i | x | ( μ 2 ε , i + | x | 2 ) n 2 + C | x | (78)
| u ε ( x ) | C i = 1 N μ n 2 ε , i ( μ 2 ε , i + | x | 2 ) n 2 + C (79)
for all ε > 0   and all x 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   on Ω   with Dirichlet boundary condiction.
Derivating Green's representation formula ( 69 ) that u ε ( x ) = Ω x G ( x , y ) ( | u ε ( y ) | 2 2 p ε u ε ( y ) | y | s a ε ( y ) u ε ( y ) ) d y   for all x Ω   and all ε > 0   . It then follows from ( 78 ) that
| u ε ( x ) | C Ω | x G ( x , y ) | ( | u ε ( y ) | 2 1 p ε | y | s + 1 ) d y
C i = 1 N Ω | x G ( x , y ) | | y | s ( μ n 2 ε , i | y | ( μ 2 ε , i + | y | 2 ) n 2 ) 2 1 p ε d y
+ C Ω | x G ( x , y ) | ( | y | 2 1 s p ε + 1 ) d y (80)
for all x Ω   and all ε > 0   .
Step  5 .1: We claim that there exists C > 0   such that
Ω | x G ( x , y ) | ( | y | 2 1 s p ε + 1 ) d y C (81)
for all x 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
| x G ( x , y ) | C | x y | 1 n (82)
for all x , y Ω   such that x y   . Since s ( 0 , 2 )   , we then obtain that there exists C > 0   such that Ω | x G ( x , y ) | ( | y | 2 1 s p ε + 1 ) d y C Ω | x y | 1 n ( | y | 2 1 s p ε + 1 ) d y C   for all x Ω   and all ε > 0   . This proves ( 81 ).   Step  5 .2: We let i { 1 , . . . , N }   . We claim that there exists C > 0   such that
Ω | x G ( x , y ) | | y | s ( μ n 2 ε , i | y | ( μ 2 ε , i + | y | 2 ) n 2 ) 2 1 p ε d y C μ n 2 ε , i ( μ 2 ε , i + | x | 2 ) n 2 (83)
for all x Ω   such that | x | μ ε , i   and all ε > 0   .
Proof of the Claim: We let θ ε : = x μ ε , i   . Note that with our assumption, we have that | θ ε | 1   . We let R > 0   such that Ω B R ( 0 )   . With ( 82 ), and a change of variables, we get that
Ω | x G ( x , y ) | | y | s ( μ n 2 ε , i | y | ( μ 2 ε , i + | y | 2 ) n 2 ) 2 1 p ε d y
C B R ( 0 ) | x y | 1 n | y | s ( μ n 2 ε , i | y | ( μ 2 ε , i + | y | 2 ) n 2 ) 2 1 p ε d y
C μ n 2 ε , i B R μ ε , i ( 0 ) | z | 2 1 s p ε | θ ε z | n 1 ( 1 + | z | 2 ) n 2 ( 2 1 p ε ) d z
Since s ( 0 , 2 )   and | θ ε | 1   , we get that there exists C > 0   such that Ω | x G ( x , y ) | | y | s ( μ n 2 ε , i | y | ( μ 2 ε , i + | y | 2 ) n 2 ) 2 1 p ε d y C μ n 2 ε , i .   Since | x | μ ε , i   , inequality ( 83 ) follows.   Step  5 .3: We let i { 1 , . . . , N }   . We claim that there exists C > 0   such that
Ω | x G ( x , y ) | | y | s ( μ n 2 ε , i | y | ( μ 2 ε , i + | y | 2 ) n 2 ) 2 1 p ε d y C μ n 2 ε , i ( μ 2 ε , i + | x | 2 ) n 2 (84)
for all x Ω   such that | x | μ ε , i   and all ε > 0   .
Proof of the Claim: We split the integral in two parts:
Ω | x G ( x , y ) | | y | s ( μ n 2 ε , i | y | ( μ 2 ε , i + | y | 2 ) n 2 ) 2 1 p ε d y = I ε , 1 ( x ) + I ε , 2 ( x ) (85)
where I ε , j ( x ) = Ω ε , j ( x ) | x G ( x , y ) | | y | s ( μ n 2 ε , i | y | ( μ 2 ε , i + | y | 2 ) n 2 ) 2 1 p ε d y   and Ω ε , 1 ( x ) = Ω { | x y | | x | 2 } a n d Ω ε , 1 ( x ) = Ω { | x y | < | 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 | x G ( x , y ) | C d ( y , Ω ) | x y | n C | y | | x y | n   for all x , y Ω   , x y   . We let R > 0   such that Ω B R ( 0 )   . With a change of variable, we get that
I ε , 1 ( x ) C Ω { | x y | | x | 2 } | y | | x y | n | y | s ( μ n 2 ε , i | y | ( μ 2 ε , i + | y | 2 ) n 2 ) 2 1 p ε d y
C | x | n B R ( 0 ) | y | 1 s ( μ n 2 ε , i | y | ( μ 2 ε , i + | y | 2 ) n 2 ) 2 1 p ε d y
C | x | n μ n 2 ε , i B R μ ε , i ( 0 ) | z | 2 s p ε ( 1 + | z | 2 ) n 2 ( 2 1 p ε ) d z .
Since | x | μ ε , i   and s ( 0 , 2 )   , we then get that
I ε , 1 ( x ) C | x | n μ n 2 ε , i C μ n 2 ε , i ( μ 2 ε , i + | x | 2 ) n 2 . (86)
Step  5 .3.2: We deal with I ε , 2 ( x )   . As easily checked, we have that
| x | 2 | y | 3 | x | 2 (87)
for all y Ω ε , 2 ( x )   . With ( 82 ) and ( 87 ), we get that
I ε , 2 ( x ) C | x | s ( μ n 2 ε , i | x | n 1 ) 2 1 p ε { | x y | < | x | 2 } | x y | 1 n d y
C | x | 1 s ( μ n 2 ε , i | x | n 1 ) 2 1 p ε
C | x | n μ n 2 ε , i μ n 2 ( 2 2 p ε ) ε , i | x | n ( 2 1 p ε ) ( 2 1 p ε ) n 1 + s .
Since | x | μ ε , i   and s ( 0 , 2 )   , we then get that
I ε , 2 ( x ) C | x | n μ n 2 ε , i C μ n 2 ε , i ( μ 2 ε , i + | x | 2 ) n 2 . (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 3   , such that 0 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 0 u ε L ( Ω ) = + .   Then we have that lim ε 0 p ε μ ε , N = ( n s ) R n I I 0 ( x , x ) | u ~ N | 2 d x ( n 2 ) 2 α N ( n 1 ) ( n 2 ) 2 ( 2 s ) i = 1 N α i ( n 2 ) 2 2 ( 2 s ) R n | u ~ i | 2 d x   when n 3   . In this expression, I I 0   is the second fondamental form at 0   of the oriented boundary Ω   and R n   is the oriented tangent space of Ω   at 0   . The sequences and families μ ε , N > 0   , α i   , u ~ i   , i { 1 , . . . , N }   are as in Proposition  3.1 . In addition, if u ε 0   for all ε 0   , we have that lim ε 0 p ε μ ε , N = ( n s ) R n | x | 2 | u ~ N | 2 d x n ( n 2 ) 2 α N ( n 1 ) ( n 2 ) 2 ( 2 s ) i = 1 N α i ( n 2 ) 2 2 ( 2 s ) R n | u ~ i | 2 d x H ( 0 )   when n 3   . In this expression, H ( 0 )   is the mean curvature at 0   of the oriented boundary 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 C 1 ( Ω ¯ )   and that Δ u ε L p ( Ω )   for all p ( 1 , n s )   . We let
W ε : = Ω φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) ) , w h e r e r ε = μ ε , N . (89)
In the sequel, we denote by ν ( x )   the outward normal vector at x W ε   of the oriented hypersurface W ε   (oriented as the boundary of W ε   ). Integrating by parts, we get that
W ε x i i u ε Δ u ε d x
= W ε x i i u ε ν u ε d σ + W ε j ( x i i u ε ) j u ε d x
= W ε x i i u ε ν u ε d σ + W ε | u ε | 2 d x + W ε x i i | u ε | 2 2 d x
= ( 1 n 2 ) W ε | u ε | 2 d x + W ε ( ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 2 x i i u ε ν u ε ) d σ
= ( 1 n 2 ) ( W ε u ε ν u ε d σ + W ε u ε Δ u ε d x )
+ W ε ( ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 2 x i i u ε ν u ε ) d σ .
Using the equation ( E ε )   in the RHS, we get that
W ε x i i u ε Δ u ε d x = ( 1 n 2 ) ( W ε | u ε | 2 p ε | x | s d x W ε a ε u 2 ε d x )
+ W ε ( ( 1 n 2 ) u ε ν u ε + ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 2 x i i u ε ν u ε ) d σ . (90)
On the other hand, using the equation ( E ε )   satisfied by u ε   , we get that
W ε x i i u ε Δ u ε d x = W ε x i i u ε | u ε | 2 2 ε u ε | x | s d x W ε x i i u ε a ε u ε d x
= W ε x i | x | s i ( | u ε | 2 p ε 2 p ε ) d x W ε x i i u ε a ε u ε d x
= W ε ( i ( x i | x | s ) | u ε | 2 p ε 2 p ε + x i i u ε a ε u ε ) d x
+ W ε ( x , ν ) 2 p ε | u ε | 2 p ε | x | s d σ
= W ε n s | x | s | u ε | 2 p ε 2 p ε d x + 1 2 W ε ( n a ε + x i i a ε ) u 2 ε d x
+ W ε ( x , ν ) 2 p ε | u ε | 2 p ε | x | s d σ W ε ( x , ν ) 2 a ε u 2 ε d σ . (91)
Plugging together ( 90 ) and ( 91 ), we get that
( n 2 2 n s 2 p ε ) W ε | u ε | 2 p ε | x | s d x + W ε ( a ε + ( x , a ε ) 2 ) u 2 ε d x
= W ε ( n 2 2 u ε ν u ε + ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 2
x i i u ε ν u ε ( x , ν ) 2 p ε | u ε | 2 p ε | x | s ) d σ + W ε ( x , ν ) 2 a ε u 2 ε d x
for all ε > 0   . Since W ε = [ φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) ) Ω ] [ Ω φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) ) ]   and since u ε 0   on Ω   , we get that
( n 2 ) p ε 2 ( 2 p ε ) φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) ) Ω | u ε | 2 p ε | x | s d x φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) ) Ω ( a ε + ( x , a ε ) 2 ) u 2 ε d x
= 1 2 φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) ) Ω ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 d σ (92)
Ω φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) ) ( n 2 2 u ε ν u ε + ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 2 x i i u ε ν u ε
( x , ν ) 2 p ε | u ε | 2 p ε | x | s + ( x , ν ) 2 a ε u 2 ε ) d σ .
It follows from ( 78 ) and ( 79 ) that there exists C > 0   such that | u ε ( x ) | C r ε a n d | u ε ( x ) | C   for all x Ω φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) )   (recall that r ε = μ ε , N   ). We then get that
Ω φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) ) ( n 2 2 u ε ν u ε + ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 2 x i i u ε ν u ε
( x , ν ) 2 p ε | u ε | 2 p ε | x | s ( x , ν ) 2 a ε u 2 ε ) d σ = O ( μ n 2 ε , N ) = o ( μ ε , N ) (93)
when ε 0   since n 3   . With ( 78 ) and Proposition  3.1 , we get that
| φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) ) Ω ( a ε + ( x , a ε ) 2 ) u 2 ε d x | C φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) ) Ω u 2 ε d x
C i = 1 N φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) ) Ω μ n ε , i ( μ 2 ε , i + | x | 2 ) n 1 d x + C φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) ) Ω | x | 2 d x
C 1 = 1 N μ 2 ε , i R n d x ( 1 + | x | 2 ) n 1 d x + C r n + 2 ε
= o ( μ ε , N ) (94)
when ε 0   since n 3   . Plugging ( 93 ) and ( 94 ) in ( 92 ), we get that
( n 2 ) p ε 2 ( 2 p ε ) φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) ) Ω | u ε | 2 p ε | x | s d x = 1 2 φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) ) Ω ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 d σ + o ( μ ε , N ) (95)
when ε 0   and n 3   .
Step  6 .2: We deal with the LHS of ( 95 ). We let φ   as in ( 13 ). Since lim ε 0 r ε μ ε , N = +   (see ( 89 )), with a change of variables, we get for any R > α > 0   that
φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) ) Ω | u ε | 2 p ε | x | s d x = φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) R n ) | u ε | 2 p ε | x | s d x (96)
= B r ε ( 0 ) R n | u ε φ ( x ) | 2 p ε | φ ( x ) | s | J a c φ ( x ) | d x
= B R k ε , 1 ( 0 ) R n | u ε φ ( x ) | 2 p ε | φ ( x ) | s | J a c φ ( x ) | d x
+ i = 1 N 1 [ ( B R k ε , i + 1 ( 0 ) \ B ¯ α k ε , i + 1 ( 0 ) ) R n | u ε φ ( x ) | 2 p ε | φ ( x ) | s | J a c φ ( x ) | d x
+ ( B α k ε , i + 1 ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , i ( 0 ) ) R n | u ε φ ( x ) | 2 p ε | φ ( x ) | s | J a c φ ( x ) | d x ]
+ ( B r ε ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , N ( 0 ) ) R n | u ε φ ( x ) | 2 p ε | φ ( x ) | s | J a c φ ( x ) | d x
It follows from Proposition  3.1 that
lim R + lim ε 0 B R k ε , 1 ( 0 ) R n | u ε φ ( x ) | 2 p ε | φ ( x ) | s | J a c φ ( x ) | d x = α 1 ( n 2 ) 2 2 ( 2 s ) R n | u ~ 1 | 2 | x | s d x (97)
and for any i { 1 , . . . , N 1 }   that
lim R + lim α 0 lim ε 0 ( B R k ε , i + 1 ( 0 ) \ B ¯ α k ε , i + 1 ( 0 ) ) R n | u ε φ ( x ) | 2 p ε | φ ( x ) | s | J a c φ ( x ) | d x
= α i + 1 ( n 2 ) 2 2 ( 2 s ) R n | u ~ i + 1 | 2 | x | s d x . (98)
It follows from the pointwise estimate ( 78 ) that there exists C > 0   such that | u ε ( x ) | C μ n 2 ε , N | x | 1 n + C | x |   for all x Ω   . It then follows that there exists C > 0   independant of R > 1   such that
( B r ε ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , N ( 0 ) ) R n | u ε φ ( x ) | 2 p ε | φ ( x ) | s | J a c φ ( x ) | d x
C B r ε ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , N ( 0 ) 1 | y | s ( | y | + μ n 2 ε , N | y | n 1 ) 2 p ε d y
C B r ε ( 0 ) | y | 2 s p ε d y + C μ n 2 2 ε , N B r ε ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , N ( 0 ) | y | ( n 1 ) ( 2 p ε ) s d y
C r n ε + C R ( n 1 ) ( 2 p ε ) n + s .
Since lim ε 0 r ε = 0   , we get that
lim R + lim ε 0 ( B r ε ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , N ( 0 ) ) R n | u ε φ ( x ) | 2 p ε | φ ( x ) | s | J a c φ ( x ) | d x = 0 . (99)
We let i { 1 , . . . , N 1 }   . Using the pointwise estimate ( 78 ), we get that | u ε ( x ) | C μ n 2 ε , i | x | n 1 + C μ ε , i + 1 1 n 2   for all x Ω   and all ε > 0   . With computations similar to the ones provided for the proof of ( 99 ), we get that
lim R + lim α 0 lim ε 0 ( B α k ε , i + 1 ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , i ( 0 ) ) R n | u ε φ ( x ) | 2 p ε | φ ( x ) | s | J a c φ ( x ) | d x = 0 . (100)
Plugging together ( 97 ), ( 98 ), ( 99 ) and ( 100 ) in ( 96 ), using point (A4) of Proposition  3.1 , we get that
lim ε 0 φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) ) Ω | u ε | 2 p ε | x | s d x = i = 1 N α i ( n 2 ) 2 2 ( 2 s ) R n | u ~ i | 2 | x | s d x
= i = 1 N α i ( n 2 ) 2 2 ( 2 s ) R n | u ~ i | 2 d x (101)
Step  6 .3: We deal with the RHS of ( 95 ). We have that
φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) ) Ω ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 d σ = φ ( B R k ε , 1 ( 0 ) ) Ω ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 d σ
+ i = 1 N 2 φ ( B R k ε , i + 1 ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , i ( 0 ) ) Ω ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 d σ
+ φ ( B α k ε , N ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , N 1 ( 0 ) ) Ω ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 d σ
+ φ ( B R k ε , N ( 0 ) \ B ¯ α k ε , N ( 0 ) ) Ω ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 d σ
+ φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , N ( 0 ) ) Ω ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 d σ (102)
Using the expression of φ   (see ( 13 )), we get that ν ( φ ( x ) ) = ( 1 , 2 φ 0 ( x ) , . . . , n φ 0 ( x ) ) 1 + i = 2 n ( i φ 0 ( x ) ) 2   for all x U { x 1 = 0 }   . With the expression of φ   , we then get that
( ν φ ( x ) , φ ( x ) ) = ( 1 + O ( 1 ) | x | 2 ) ( φ 0 ( x ) i = 2 n x i i φ 0 ( x ) ) (103)
for all x U { x 1 = 0 }   . In this expression, there exists C > 0   such that | O ( 1 ) | C   for all x U { x 1 = 0 }   . Since φ 0 ( 0 ) = 0   and φ 0 ( 0 ) = 0   (see ( 13 )), we then get that there exists C > 0   such that
| ( φ ( x ) , ν φ ( x ) ) | C | x | 2 (104)
for all x U { x 1 = 0 }   .
Step  6 .3.1: We deal with the second term in the RHS of ( 102 ). We let i { 1 , . . . , N 2 }   . It follows from the pointwise estimate ( 79 ) that
| u ε ( x ) | C μ n 2 ε , i | x | n + C μ ε , i + 1 n 2 (105)
for all x Ω   . With ( 104 ) and ( 105 ), we get that
φ ( B R k ε , i + 1 ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , i ( 0 ) ) Ω ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 d σ
C B 2 R k ε , i + 1 ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , i / 2 ( 0 ) { x 1 = 0 } | x | 2 ( μ n ε , i | x | 2 n + μ ε , i + 1 n ) d x
C μ ε , i + C μ ε , i + 1 = o ( μ ε , N ) (106)
when ε 0   when n 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
φ ( B R k ε , 1 ( 0 ) ) Ω ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 d σ = o ( μ ε , N ) (107)
when ε 0   as soon as N 2   .
Step  6 .3.2: We deal with the third term of the RHS of ( 102 ). It follows from the pointwise estimate ( 79 ) that
| u ε ( x ) | C μ ε , N 1 n 2 | x | n + C μ ε , N n 2 (108)
for all x Ω   . With ( 104 ) and ( 108 ), we get that
φ ( B α k ε , N ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , N 1 ( 0 ) ) Ω ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 d σ
C B 2 α k ε , N ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , N 1 / 2 ( 0 ) { x 1 = 0 } | x | 2 ( μ ε , N 1 n | x | 2 n + μ ε , N n ) d x
C μ ε , N 1 + C α n + 1 μ ε , N
since n 3   and where C > 0   is independant of α   and ε > 0   . With point (A3) of Proposition  3.1 , we get that
lim α 0 lim ε 0 μ ε , N 1 φ ( B α k ε , N ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , N 1 ( 0 ) ) Ω ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 d σ = 0 . (109)
Step  6 .3.3: We deal with the fifth term of the RHS of ( 102 ). It follows from the pointwise estimate ( 79 ) that
| u ε ( x ) | C μ ε , N n 2 | x | n + C (110)
for all x Ω   . With ( 104 ) and ( 110 ), we get that
φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , N ( 0 ) ) Ω ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 d σ
C B 2 r ε ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , N / 2 ( 0 ) { x 1 = 0 } | x | 2 ( μ ε , N n | x | 2 n + C ) d x
C R 1 n μ ε , N + C r n + 1 ε
since n 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 0   . It then follows from point (A3) of Proposition  3.1 that
lim R + lim ε 0 μ ε , N 1 φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) \ B ¯ R k ε , N ( 0 ) ) Ω ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 d σ = 0 (111)
when n 3   .
Step  6 .3.4: We deal with the fourth term of the RHS of ( 102 ). Since φ 0 ( 0 ) = 0   and φ 0 ( 0 ) = 0   , it follows from the definition ( 13 ) of φ   and ( 103 ) that
( φ ( k ε , N x ) , ν φ ( k ε , N x ) )
= ( 1 + O ( k 2 ε , N | x | 2 ) ) ( φ 0 ( k ε , N x ) k ε i = 2 n x i i φ 0 ( k ε , N x ) )
= 1 2 k 2 ε , N i , j = 2 n i j φ 0 ( 0 ) x i x j + θ ε , R ( x ) k 2 ε , N , (112)
for all ε > 0   and all x B R ( 0 ) { x 1 = 0 }   and where lim ε 0 sup B R ( 0 ) { x 1 = 0 } | θ ε , R | = 0   for any R > 0   . With a change of variable, ( 112 ) and the definition of u ~ ε , N   (see Proposition  3.1 ), we have that
μ 1 ε , N φ ( B R k ε , N ( 0 ) \ B ¯ α k ε , N ( 0 ) ) Ω ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 d σ
= ( k ε , N μ ε , N ) n 1 ( 1 2 ( B R ( 0 ) \ B ¯ α ( 0 ) ) { x 1 = 0 } i , j = 2 n x i x j i j φ 0 ( x ) | u ~ ε , N | g ~ ε 2 d v g ~ ε )
+ o ( 1 )
when ε 0   . In this expression, ( g ~ ε ) i j = ( i φ , j φ ) ( k ε , N x )   for all i , j = 2 , . . . , n   . It follows from ( 110 ) and the definition of u ~ ε , N   that there exists C > 0   such that
| u ~ N ( x ) | C 1 + | x | n (113)
for all x R n   . With points (A4) and (A7) of Proposition  3.1 and inequality ( 113 ), we get that
lim R + lim α 0 lim ε 0 μ 1 ε , N φ ( B R k ε , N ( 0 ) \ B ¯ α k ε , N ( 0 ) ) Ω ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 d σ
= α N n 1 2 2 2 R n i , j = 2 n x i x j i j φ 0 ( x ) | u ~ N | 2 d x (114)
when n 3   . Plugging ( 106 ), ( 107 ), ( 109 ), ( 111 ) and ( 114 ) in ( 102 ), we get that
lim ε 0 μ 1 ε , N φ ( B r ε ( 0 ) ) Ω ( x , ν ) | u ε | 2 d σ = α N n 1 2 2 2 R n i , j = 2 n x i x j i j φ 0 ( x ) | u ~ N | 2 d x (115)
We consider the second fondamental form associated to Ω   , namely I I p ( x , y ) = ( d ν p x , y )   for all p Ω   and all x , y T p Ω   (recall that ν   is the outward normal vector at the hypersurface Ω   ). In the canonical basis of R n = T 0 Ω   , the matrix of the bilinear form I I 0   is D 0 2 φ 0   , where D 0 2 φ 0   is the Hessian matrix of φ 0   at 0   . With this remark, plugging ( 101 ) and ( 115 ) into ( 95 ), we get that
lim ε 0 p ε μ ε , N = n s ( n 2 ) 2 α N ( n 1 ) ( n 2 ) 2 ( 2 s ) R n I I 0 ( x , x ) | u ~ N | 2 d x i = 1 N α i ( n 2 ) 2 2 ( 2 s ) R n | u ~ i | 2 d x (116)
when n 3   . This proves the first part of Proposition  6.1 .
We prove the second part of the Proposition and assume that u ε 0   for all ε   .
It follows that the limit function u ~ N   is nonnegative, and then positive on R n   .
Moreover, we have that Δ u ~ N = u ~ N 2 1 | x | s   in R n   . It follows from ( 78 ) that there exists C > 0   such that | u ~ N ( x ) | C 1 + | x | n 1   for all x R n   . It then follows from Proposition  10.1 of Appendix C that there exists v C 2 ( R × R )   such that u ~ N ( x 1 , x ) = v ( x 1 , | x | )   for all ( x 1 , x ) R × R n 1   .
In particular, | u ~ N | ( 0 , x )   is radially symmetrical wrt x R n   . Since we have chosen a chart φ   that is Euclidean at 0   , we get that
R n I I 0 ( x , x ) | u ~ N | 2 d x = i = 2 n ( I I 0 ) i i n R n | x | 2 | u ~ N | 2 d x
= H ( 0 ) n R n | x | 2 | u ~ N | 2 d x .
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
lim ε 0 u ε L ( Ω ) = + . (117)
Then we can apply Proposition  6.1 , and ( 116 ) holds. Since the principal curvatures of Ω   at 0   are nonpositive, but do not all vanish, we have that I I 0 ( x , x ) 0   for all x R n   , but I I 0 0   . In particular, the RHS of ( 116 ) is negative. A contradiction since p ε 0   , and then the LHS of ( 116 ) is nonnegative. Then ( 117 ) does not hold, and there exists C > 0   such that | u ε ( x ) | C   for all ε > 0   and all x Ω   . The first part of Theorem  1.3 then follows from Proposition  2.1 . In the case u ε 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
μ s , p ( Ω ) : = inf { Ω | u | 2 d x ; u H 21 , 0 ( Ω ) a n d Ω | u | p | x | s d x = 1 } . (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
{ Δ u = u p 1 | x | s i n D ( Ω ) u > 0 i n Ω u = 0 o n Ω . (119)
Moreover, the family ( v p )   is uniformly bounded in H 21 , 0 ( Ω )   when p 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 2 ( s )   , consider the C 2   -functional
I p ( u ) = 1 2 Ω | u | 2 d x 1 p Ω | u | p | x | s d x (120)
on H 21 , 0 ( Ω )   whose critical points are the weak solutions of
{ Δ u = | u | p 2 u | x | s o n Ω u = 0 o n Ω . (121)
First note that for a fixed u H 21 , 0 ( Ω )   , we have since I p ( λ u ) = λ 2 2 Ω | u | 2 d x λ p p Ω | u | p | x | s d x   that l i m i t λ I ( λ u ) =   , which means that for each finite dimensional subspace E k E : = H 21 , 0 ( Ω )   , there exists R k > 0   such that
sup { I p ( u ) ; u E k , u > R k } < 0 (122)
when p 2   . Let ( E k ) k = 1   be an increasing sequence of subspaces of H 21 , 0 ( Ω )   such that dim E k = k   and k = 1 E k ¯ = E : = H 21 , 0 ( Ω )   and define the min-max values:
c p , k = inf h H k sup x E k I p ( h ( x ) ) ,   where H k = { h 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 3   , we have:
  • (1) For each k N   , c p , k > 0   and lim p 2 c p , k = c 2 , k : = c k .  
  • (2) If 2 < p < 2   , there exists for each k   , functions u p , k 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 D n , p k p + 1 p 1 2 n   where D n , p > 0   is such that lim p 2 D n , p = 0   .
  • (4) lim k c k = lim k c 2 , k = +   .
Proof: (1) First note that in view of the Hardy-Sobolev inequality, we have I p ( u ) 1 2 u 2 2 C u 2 p = u 2 2 ( 1 2 C u 2 p 2 ) 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 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 inf { I p ( u ) ; u S ρ } α > 0 .   In view of ( 122 ), it follows that for each h H k   , we have that sup x E k I p i ( h ( x ) ) = sup x 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 2   and note first that for each u E   , we have that I p i ( u ) I 2 ( u )   . Since h ( D k )   is compact and the family of functionals ( I p ) p   is equicontinuous, it follows that sup x E k I p ( h ( x ) ) sup x E k I 2 ( h ( x ) )   , from which follows that limsup i N c p i , k sup x E k I 2 ( h ( x ) )   . Since this holds for any h H k   , it follows that limsup i N c p i , k c 2 , k = c k .   On the other hand, the function f ( r ) = 1 p r p 1 2 * r 2 *   attains its maximum on [ 0 , + )   at r = 1   and therefore h ( r ) 1 p 1 2 *   for all r > 0   . It follows I 2 ( u ) = I p ( u ) + Ω 1 | x | s ( 1 p | u ( x ) | p 1 2 | u ( x ) | 2 ) d x I p ( u ) + Ω 1 | x | s ( 1 p 1 2 ) d x   from which follows that c k liminf i 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 ) 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   as k +   , 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 [4and independently by Tanaka [41. We need the following key estimate of Li-Yau [34.
Lemma 7.1. Let V L n / 2 ( Ω )   and denote by m * ( V )   the number of non-positive eigenvalues of the following eigenvalue problem:
{ Δ u V u = λ u o n Ω u = 0 o n Ω .   If n 3   , then there is a constant C n > 0   such that m * ( V ) 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 H k   , then γ ( D k ) F k   . It then follows that there exists v p , k H 21 , 0 ( Ω )   such that I p ( v p , k ) c p , k   , I ( v p , k ) = 0   and m * ( v p , k ) k   , where m * ( v p , k )   is the augmented Morse index of I p   at v p , k   . In other words, since
I p ( v ) ( h , h ) = Ω | h | 2 d x ( p 1 ) Ω | v | p 2 | x | s h 2 d x
= ( Δ ( p 1 ) | v | p 2 | x | s ) h , h ,
in H 1 ( Ω )   , this means that the operator ( Δ ( p 1 ) | 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 Ω [ ( p 1 ) | v p , k | p 2 | x | s ] n 2 d x )   .
Since p < 2 n n 2   , we have q : = 2 p n ( p 2 ) > 1   , as well as its conjugate q   . Moreover, since p < 2 ( n s ) n 2   , we have that 2 s n 2 p n p + 2 n < n   . It then follows from Holder's inequality that:
k C n Ω | p 1 | n 2 | v p , k | ( p 2 ) n 2 | x | s n 2 d x (123)
C n | p 1 | n 2 ( Ω 1 | x | 2 s n 2 p n p + 2 n d x ) 1 q ( Ω | v p , k | p | x | s d x ) n ( p 2 ) 2 p
C n , p ( Ω | v p , k | p | x | s d x ) n ( p 2 ) 2 p
where C n , p = C n | p 1 | n 2 ( Ω 1 | x | 2 s n 2 p n p + 2 n d x ) 1 q   .
Since I ( v p , k ) , v p , k = 0   , it follows that Ω | v p , k | 2 d x = Ω | v p , k | p | x | s d x ,   which finally implies that
c p , k I ( v p , k ) = 1 2 Ω | v p , k | 2 d x 1 p Ω | v p , k | p | x | s d x
= ( 1 2 1 p ) Ω | v p , k | p | x | s d x
D n , p k 2 p n ( p 2 ) ,
where D n , p = ( 1 2 1 p ) C n , p 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 N   , 2 < p k < 2   such that | c p k , k c k | < 1 k   in such a way that lim k + p k = 2   and
lim k + c p k , k = lim k + c k = c . (124)
As above, there exists v p k , k H 21 , 0 ( Ω )   such that I p k ( v p k , k ) c p k , k   , I p k ( v p k , k ) = 0   and m * ( v p k , k ) k   , where m * ( v p k , k )   is the augmented Morse index of I p k   at 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
| v p k , k ( x ) | C (125)
for all x Ω   and all k N   . With ( 123 ) applied to v p k , k   , we get that k C n Ω | p k 1 | n 2 | v p k , k | ( p 2 ) n 2 | x | s n 2 d x .   With ( 125 ), we get that there exists a constant C > 0   independant of k   such that k C Ω d x | x | s n 2 .   In particular, since s ( 0 , 2 )   , the integral is finite and there existe C > 0   such that k C   for all k 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 2 I p i ( u p i , k ) = lim p i 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 2   , we get a solution u k   of ( 121 ) in such a way that I 2 ( u k ) = lim p 2 I p ( u p , k ) = lim p 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 = | 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 3   . We assume that either Ω   is bounded, or Ω = R n   . We let s ( 0 , 2 )   and a C 0 ( Ω ¯ )   . We let ε [ 0 , 2 2 )   and consider u H 21 , 0 ( Ω )   a weak solution of Δ u + a u = | u | 2 2 ε u | x | s i n D ( Ω ) .   Then u C 1 , θ ( Ω ¯ )   for all θ ( 0 , min { 1 , 2 ε s } )   if Ω   is bounded, and u C l o c 1 , θ ( R n ¯ )   for all θ ( 0 , min { 1 , 2 ε s } )   if Ω = R n   . In addition, in all the cases, we have that u C 2 ( Ω ¯ \ { 0 } )   if a C 0 , α ( Ω ¯ )   for some α ( 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 [28for an exposition in book form). Let β 1   , and L > 0   . We let G L ( t ) = { | t | β 1 t i f | t | L β L β 1 ( t L ) + L β i f t L β L β 1 ( t + L ) L β i f t L   and H L ( t ) = { | t | β 1 2 t i f | t | L β + 1 2 L β 1 2 ( t L ) + L β + 1 2 i f t L β + 1 2 L β 1 2 ( t + L ) L β + 1 2 i f t L   As easily checked, 0 t G L ( t ) H L ( t ) 2 a n d G L ( t ) = 4 β ( β + 1 ) 2 ( H L ( t ) ) 2   for all t R   and all L > 0   . Let η C c ( R n )   . As easily checked, η 2 G L ( u ) , η H L ( u ) H 21 , 0 ( Ω )   . With the equation verified by u   , we get that
    Ω u ( η 2 G L ( u ) ) d x = Ω | u | 2 2 ε | x | s η 2 u G L ( u ) d x Ω a η 2 u G L ( u ) d x . (126)
    We let J L ( t ) = 0 t G L ( τ ) d τ   for all t R   . Integrating by parts, we get that
    Ω u ( η 2 G L ( u ) ) d x = Ω η 2 G L ( u ) | u | 2 d x + Ω η 2 J L ( u ) d x
    = 4 β ( β + 1 ) 2 Ω η 2 | H L ( u ) | 2 d x + Ω ( Δ η 2 ) J L ( u ) d x
    = 4 β ( β + 1 ) 2 Ω | ( η H L ( u ) ) | 2 d x 4 β ( β + 1 ) 2 Ω η Δ η | H L ( u ) | 2 d x
    + Ω ( Δ η 2 ) J L ( u ) d x (127)
    On the other hand, with Hölder's inequality and the definition of μ s ( R n )   , we get that
    Ω ( | u | 2 2 ε | x | s a ) η 2 u G L ( u ) d x Ω ( | a | + | u | 2 2 ε | x | s ) ( η H L ( u ) ) 2 d x
    ( Ω S u p p η ( | a | | x | s + | u | 2 2 ε ) 2 ε 2 2 ε | x | s d x ) 1 2 2 ε
    × ( Ω | η H L ( u ) | 2 | x | s d x ) 2 2 × ( Ω S u p p η d x | x | s ) 2 ε 2 ( 2 ε )
    α Ω | ( η H L ( u ) ) | 2 d x (128)
    where
    α : = ( Ω S u p p η ( | a | | x | s + | u | 2 2 ε ) 2 ε 2 2 ε | x | s d x ) 1 2 2 ε
    × μ s ( R n ) 1 ( Ω S u p p η d x | x | s ) 2 ε 2 ( 2 ε )
    Plugging ( 127 ) and ( 128 ) into ( 126 ), we get that
    A Ω | ( η H L ( u ) ) | 2 d x 4 β ( β + 1 ) 2 Ω | η Δ η | | H L ( u ) | 2 d x + Ω | Δ ( η 2 ) J L ( u ) | d x (129)
    where
    A : = 4 β ( β + 1 ) 2 ( Ω S u p p η ( | a | | x | s + | u | 2 2 ε ) 2 ε 2 2 ε | x | s d x ) 1 2 2 ε
    × μ s ( R n ) 1 ( Ω S u p p η d x | x | s ) 2 ε 2 ( 2 ε )
    Step  8 .2: We let p 0 = sup { p 1 / u L p ( Ω ) } .   It follows from Sobolev's embedding theorem that p 0 2 n n 2   . We claim that p 0 = + .   We proceed by contradiction and assume that p 0 < .   Let p ( 2 , p 0 )   . It follows from the definition of p 0   that u L p ( Ω )   . Let β = p 1 > 1   . For any x Ω ¯   , we let δ x > 0   such that
    ( Ω B 2 δ x ( x ) ( | a | | y | s + | u | 2 2 ε ) 2 ε 2 2 ε | y | s d y ) 1 2 2 ε μ s ( R n ) 1
    × ( Ω B 2 δ x ( x ) d y | y | s ) 2 ε 2 ( 2 ε ) 2 β ( β + 1 ) 2 . (130)
    Since Ω ¯   is compact, we get that there exists x 1 , . . . , x N Ω ¯   such that Ω N i = 1 B δ x i ( x i ) .   We fix i { 1 , . . . , N }   and let η C ( B 2 δ x i ( x i ) )   such that η ( x ) = 1   for all x B δ x i ( x i )   . We then get with ( 129 ) and ( 130 ) that
    2 β ( β + 1 ) 2 Ω | ( η H L ( u ) ) | 2 d x
    4 β ( β + 1 ) 2 Ω | η Δ η | | H L ( u ) | 2 d x + Ω | Δ η 2 | | J L ( u ) | d x . (131)
    Recall that it follows from Sobolev's inequality that there exists K ( n , 2 ) > 0   that depends only on n   such that
    ( R n | f | 2 n n 2 d x ) n 2 n K ( n , 2 ) R n | f | 2 d x (132)
    for all f H 21 , 0 ( R n )   . It follows from ( 131 ) and ( 132 ) that
    2 β ( β + 1 ) 2 K ( n , 2 ) 1 ( Ω | η H L ( u ) | 2 n n 2 d x ) n 2 n
    4 β ( β + 1 ) 2 Ω | η Δ η | | H L ( u ) | 2 d x + Ω | Δ η 2 | | J L ( u ) | d x
    for all L > 0   . As easily checked, there exists C 0 > 0   such that | J L ( t ) | C 0 | t | β + 1   for all t R   and all L > 0   . Since u L β + 1 ( Ω )   , we get that there exists a constant C = C ( η , u , β , Ω )   independant of L   such that Ω B δ x i ( x i ) | H L ( u ) | 2 n n 2 d x Ω | η H L ( u ) ) | 2 n n 2 d x C   for all L > 0   . Letting L +   , we get that Ω B δ x i ( x i ) | u | n n 2 ( β + 1 ) d x < + ,   for all i = 1 . . . N   . We then get that u L n n 2 ( β + 1 ) ( Ω ) = L n n 2 p ( Ω )   . And then, n n 2 p p 0   for all p ( 2 , p 0 )   . Letting p p 0   , we get a contradiction. Then p 0 = +   and u L p ( Ω )   for all p 1   . This ends Step  8 .2.
    Step  8 .3: We claim that u C 0 , α ( Ω ¯ )   for all α ( 0 , 1 )   . Indeed, it follows from Step  8 .2 and the assumption 0 < s < 2   that there exists p > n 2   such that f ε : = | u | 2 2 ε u | x | s a u L p ( Ω ) .   It follows from standard elliptic theory that, in this case, u C 0 , α ( Ω ¯ )   for all α ( 0 , min { 2 s , 1 } )   . We let α 0 = sup { α ( 0 , 1 ) / u C 0 , α ( Ω ¯ ) } .   Note that it follows from the preceding remark that α 0 > 0   . We let α ( 0 , α 0 )   .
    Then u C 0 , α ( Ω ¯ )   . Since u ( 0 ) = 0   , we then get that
    | u ( x ) | | u ( x ) u ( 0 ) | C | x | α . (133)
    We then get with ( 133 ) that | f ε ( x ) | = | | u ( x ) | 2 1 ε u | x | s a u | C | x | s ( 2 1 ε ) α + C   for all x Ω   . We distinguish 2 cases:
    Case  8 .3.1: s ( 2 1 ε ) α 0 0   . In this case, for any p > 1   , up to taking α   close enough to α 0   , we get that f ε L p ( Ω ) .   Since Δ u = f ε   and u H 21 , 0 ( Ω )   , it follows from standard elliptic theory that for any θ ( 0 , 1 )   , we have that u C 1 , θ ( 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 < n s ( 2 1 ε ) α 0   , up to taking α   close enough to α 0   , we get that f ε 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 L p ( Ω ) .   Since Δ u = f ε   and u H 21 , 0 ( Ω )   , it follows from standard elliptic theory that there exist exists θ ( 0 , 1 )   such that u C 1 , θ ( 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 L p ( Ω ) .   Since Δ u = f ε   and u H 21 , 0 ( Ω )   , it follows from standard elliptic theory that u C 0 , α ~ ( Ω ¯ )   for all α ~ ( 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 C 0 , α ~ ( Ω ¯ )   for all α ~ 2 ( s ( 2 1 ε ) α 0 ) .   It follows from the definition of α 0   that α 0 2 ( s ( 2 1 ε ) α 0 ) ,   and then 0 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 C 1 , θ ( Ω ¯ )   for all θ ( 0 , min { 1 , 2 ε s } )   . We proceed as in Step  8 .3. We let α ( 0 , 1 )   (note that α 0 = 1   ). We then get that | f ε ( x ) | = | | u | 2 1 ε u | x | s a u | C | x | s ( 2 1 ε ) α + C   for all x Ω   . We distinguish 2 cases:
    Case  8 .4.1: s ( 2 1 ε ) 0   . In this case, for any p > 1   , up to taking α   close enough to α 0   , we get that f ε L p ( Ω ) .   Since Δ u = f ε   and u H 21 , 0 ( Ω )   , it follows from standard elliptic theory that u C 1 , θ ( Ω ¯ )   for all θ ( 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 < n s ( 2 1 ε )   , up to taking α   close enough to 1   , we get that f ε 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 L p ( Ω )   . Since Δ u = f ε   and u H 21 , 0 ( Ω )   , it follows from standard elliptic theory that u C 1 , θ ( Ω ¯ )   for all θ ( 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 × Y R   and any x X   , we let F x : Y R   such that F x ( y ) = F ( x , y )   for all y Y   .
We prove the following:
Theorem 9.1. Let Ω   be a bounded domain of R n   , n 3   . Let K , λ > 0   .
Let θ ( 0 , 1 )   and a C 0 , θ ( Ω ¯ )   such that
| a ( x ) | K a n d | a ( x ) a ( y ) | K | x y | θ (134)
for all x , y Ω ¯   and
Ω ( | φ | 2 + a φ 2 ) d x λ Ω φ 2 d x (135)
for all φ C c ( Ω )   . Then there exists G : Ω ¯ × Ω ¯ \ { ( x , x ) / x Ω ¯ } R   such that (G1) For any x Ω   , G x L 1 ( Ω )   and G x C 2 , θ ( Ω ¯ \ { x } )   .
(G2) For any x Ω   , G x > 0   in Ω \ { x }   and G x = 0   on Ω   .
(G3) For any φ C 2 ( Ω ¯ )   such that φ 0   on Ω   , we have that φ ( x ) = Ω G ( x , y ) ( Δ φ + a φ ) ( y ) d y   for all x Ω   .
(G4) G ( x , y ) = G ( y , x )   for all x , y Ω   , x y   .
(G5) There exists C = C ( Ω , K , λ ) > 0   such that | x y | n 2 | G ( x , y ) | C ( Ω , K , λ )   for all x , y Ω   , x y   .
(G6) There exists C = C ( Ω , K , λ ) > 0   such that | x y | n 1 | G ( x , y ) | C ( Ω , K , λ ) d ( y , Ω )   for all x , y Ω   , x y   .
(G7) There exists C = C ( Ω , K , λ ) > 0   such that | x y | n 1 | G x ( y ) | C ( Ω , K , λ )   for all x , y Ω   , x y   .
(G8) There exists C = C ( Ω , K , λ ) > 0   such that | x y | n | y G x ( y ) | C ( Ω , K , λ ) d ( x , Ω )   for all x , y Ω   , x 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 3   . We assume 0 Ω   . Let K , λ > 0   . Let θ ( 0 , 1 )   and a C 0 , θ ( Ω ¯ )   such that ( 134 ) and ( 135 ) hold. We let G   as in Theorem  9.1 . We let H ( x ) = ν G x ( 0 )   for all x Ω ¯ \ { x }   . Then the following assertions hold:
(G9) H C 2 ( Ω ¯ \ { 0 } )   , H > 0   in Ω   and H 0   on Ω \ { 0 }   , (G10) Δ H + a H = 0   in Ω   , (G11) There exists C = C ( Ω , K , λ ) > 0   such that d ( x , Ω ) C | x | n H ( x ) C d ( x , Ω ) | x | n   for all x Ω   .
(G12) There exists C = C ( Ω , K , λ ) > 0   and δ = δ ( Ω , K , λ ) > 0   such that 1 C | x | n | H ( x ) | C | x | n   for all x B δ ( 0 ) 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 [15when 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 ( x , y ) = 1 ( n 2 ) ω n 1 | x y | n 2   for all x , y R n   such that x y   . In this expression, ω n 1   denotes the volume of the standard ( n 1 )   sphere. The function   is the standard Green kernel of the Laplacian in R n   . We define the functions Γ i   's by induction. Given x , y Ω ¯   , x y   , we let
Γ 1 ( x , y ) = a ( y ) ( x , y )
Γ i + 1 ( x , y ) = Ω Γ i ( x , z ) Γ 1 ( z , y ) d z f o r a l l i 1 .
As easily checked, Γ i C 0 ( Ω ¯ × Ω ¯ \ { ( x , x ) / x Ω ¯ } )   for all i 1   . Standard computations yield that there exists C ( Ω , n , K ) > 0   such that
| Γ i ( x , y ) | C ( Ω , n , K ) | x y | 2 i n i f 2 i < n
| Γ i ( x , y ) | C ( Ω , n , K ) ( 1 + | ln | x y | | ) i f 2 i = n
| Γ i ( x , y ) | C ( Ω , n , K ) i f 2 i > n , i n .
for all x , y Ω ¯   , x y   . In addition, Γ i   can be extended to a continuous function in Ω ¯ × Ω ¯   for all i > n / 2   . We let x Ω   . We let U x H 1 , 0 2 ( Ω )   such that Δ U x + a U x = Γ n + 1 ( x , ) i n D ( Ω ) .   Since Γ n + 1   is uniformly bounded in L   , it follows from standard elliptic theory that U x H 2 p ( Ω )   for all p > 1   and that there exists C ( Ω , K , λ ) > 0   such that U x C 1 ( Ω ¯ ) C ( Ω , K , λ )   for all x Ω   . We let V x H 1 2 ( Ω )   such that { Δ V x + a V x = 0 i n D ( Ω ) V x ( y ) = ( x , y ) i = 1 n Ω Γ i ( x , z ) ( z , y ) d z f o r a l l y Ω .   It follows from standard elliptic theory that for any x Ω   , V x C 1 ( Ω )   . Moreover, it follows from the explicit expression of   and the Γ i   's that there exists C ( Ω , K , λ ) > 0   such that V x ( y ) C ( Ω , K , λ )   for all x Ω   and all y 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 ) C ( Ω , K , λ )   for all x Ω   and all y Ω   . We let G x ( y ) : = ( x , y ) + i = 1 n Ω Γ i ( x , z ) ( z , y ) d z + U x ( y ) + V x ( y )   for all y Ω   . It follows from the construction of G   that there exists C ( Ω , K , λ ) > 0   such that G ( x , y ) C ( Ω , K , λ ) | x y | 2 n   for all x , y Ω   , x y   and that G x   vanishes on Ω   for all x Ω   . This prove point (G5). We let φ C 2 ( Ω ¯ )   such that φ 0   on Ω   . Noting that φ ( z ) = Ω ( z , y ) Δ φ ( y ) d y + Ω ( x , y ) ν φ ( y ) d σ ( y )   for all z Ω   , we get with some integrations by parts that φ ( x ) = 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 0   on