Math. Nachr. 284, No. 11–12, 1435 – 1445 (2011) / DOI 10.1002/mana.

200810203

Existence and uniqueness for the p(x)-Laplacian-Dirichlet

problems
Xianling Fan∗1,2
1
Department of Mathematics, Lanzhou City University, Lanzhou 730070, P. R. China
2
Department of Mathematics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China

Received 5 September 2008, revised 4 March 2010, accepted 4 April 2010

Published online 14 June 2011

Key words p(x)-Laplacian, uniqueness, existence, radial symmetry

MSC (2010) 35J70, 34B18

Two results on the existence and uniqueness for the p(x)-Laplacian-Dirichlet problem −div(|∇u|p (x )−2 ∇u) =
f (x, u) in Ω, u = 0 on ∂Ω, are obtained. The first one deals with the case that f (x, u) is nonincreasing in u.
The second one deals with the radial case in which f (r, u) is nondecreasing in u and satisfies the sub-p− − 1
growth condition.


c 2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

1 Introduction
The study of various mathematical problems with variable exponent has been received considerable attention in
recent years. We refer to [5], [9], [31], [39] for the survey of this field, and refer to [32], [38] for the application
backgrounds.
Consider the p(x)-Laplacian-Dirichlet problem
  
p(x)−2
−Δp(x) u := −div |∇u| ∇u = f (x, u) in Ω,
(1.1)
u=0 on ∂Ω,

where Ω is a bounded domain in RN , p ∈ C(Ω), p− :=infx∈Ω p(x) > 1, f : Ω × R → R is a Carathéodory

function. The operator −Δp(x) u is called the p(x)-Laplacian which is a generalization of the p-Laplacian and pos-
sesses more complicated nonlinearities than the p-Laplacian, for example, it is inhomogeneous and the infimum
of its eigenvalues may equal 0 (see [17], [19]).
The existence and multiplicity for (1.1) have been studied by many authors (see e.g., [4], [5], [10], [16]–[19],
[24], [34], [35], [43] and references therein), however, very little is known about the uniqueness for (1.1). The
present paper deals with the uniqueness for (1.1). It is well-known that, when f (x, u) = f (x) is independent of
u, the uniqueness for (1.1) holds (see [18]). It is similar to the p-Laplacian case (see e.g., [7], [12]) that, when
f (x, u) is nonincreasing in u, the uniqueness for (1.1) can be obtained easily. In the present paper we give a
result on the existence and uniqueness for (1.1) in this case, see Theorem 1.1 below. In the case when f (x, u) is
not nonincreasing in u, the uniqueness for (1.1) is a very complicated and difficult problem. To see this, as an
example, consider the following problem
  p(x)−2  q (x)−2
−div |∇u| ∇u = λ |u| u in Ω,
(1.2)
u=0 on ∂Ω.
It is well-known that, in the constant exponent case, when p(x) ≡ p, q(x) ≡ q and 1 < q < p, for each λ > 0,
(1.2) has a unique positive solution. However, in [17] it was proved that there are variable exponents p(x) and
q(x) satisfying 1 < q(x) < p(x) for x ∈ Ω such that for λ > 0 small enough, (1.2) has at least two different
positive solutions.

∗ e-mail: fanxl@lzu.edu.cn, fanxlmath@gmail.com, Phone: +86-931-8911173, Fax: +86-931-8912481


c 2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
1436 X. L. Fan: Existence and uniqueness for p(x)-Laplacian problems

Many interesting results on the uniqueness of positive solutions for the p-Laplacian problems, including the
radially symmetric case, have been obtained (see e.g., [2], [3], [6]–[8], [11]–[13], [23], [25], [27]–[30], [37], [40],
[41] and references therein), however, to extend them to the p(x)-Laplacian case is often very difficult because the
p(x)-Laplacian is inhomogeneous. Many arguments used to prove the uniqueness for the p-Laplacian equations
cannot be carried out for the p(x)-Laplacian equations.
Compared to the study of problem (1.1) with the general form, the study of the radial solutions of problem
(1.1) in the radially symmetric case is easier since the corresponding differential equation becomes ordinary.
Let Ω = B(0, b) ⊂ RN be a ball and let the functions p(·) and f (·, u) be radially symmetric. Denote p(r) =
p(|x|) and f (r, u) = f (|x| , u). For a radially symmetric function u(x), we write u(r) = u(|x|) = u(x). It is
well-known that the radial solution of (1.1) is equivalent to the solution of the following ordinary differential
equation

  
− rN −1 |u (r)|
p(r )−2 
u (r) = rN −1 f (r, u(r)) in (0, b),
(1.3)
u (0) = 0, u(b) = 0.

In the present paper we study the existence and uniqueness for (1.1) and (1.3). Our main results are the
following two theorems. Theorem 1.1 deals with problem (1.1) in the case that f (x, u) is nonincreasing in u.
Theorem 1.2 deals with problem (1.3) in the case that f (r, u) is nondecreasing in u and satisfies the sub-p− − 1
growth condition.
In this paper, a solution of (1.1) means a weak solution of (1.1). In what follows, it will always be assumed
that p ∈ C(Ω) and 1 < p− := inf x∈Ω p(x) ≤ p+ := supx∈Ω p(x) < +∞.
Theorem 1.1 (1) Suppose that f satisfies the following condition
(f1 ) f : Ω × R → R is a Carathéodory function and is nonincreasing with respect to the second variable.
Then (1.1) has at most one solution.
(2) Suppose that f satisfies (f1 ) and
(f2 ) f : Ω × R → R is continuous, f (x, 0) ≥ 0 for x ∈ Ω and f (x, 0)
≡ 0.
Then (1.1) has a unique solution which is nontrivial and nonnegative. If in addition, there is α > 0 such that
f (x, α) ≤ 0 for x ∈ Ω, then for the unique solution u of (1.1) holds that u(x) ≤ α for x ∈ Ω.
(3) Let (f1 ) and (f2 ) hold. If f satisfies
(f3 ) f (x, 0) > 0 for x ∈ Ω,
and p(·) is Lipschitzian on Ω, then the unique solution of (1.1) is positive in Ω.
Theorem 1.2 (1) Suppose that f satisfies the following condition
(f4 ) f : [0, b] × [0, +∞) → [0, +∞) is continuous, for each r ∈ [0, b], f (r, 0) = 0, f (r, u) > 0 if u > 0,
f (r, u) is nondecreasing in u, and the function ufp(r,u
− −1
)
is strictly decreasing in u ∈ (0, +∞).
Then (1.3) has at most one positive solution.
(2) Suppose that f satisfies (f4 ) and
f (r,u )
(f5 ) limu →0 + u p − −1
= +∞ and limu →+∞ ufp(r,u
− −1
)
= 0 uniformly in r ∈ [0, b].
Then (1.3) has a unique positive solution.
It is well-known that, in the p-Laplacian case, the corresponding result of Theorem 1.2 is also valid for the
non-radial problem (see e.g., [8], [12], [28], [29]). In the p(x)-Laplacian case, the existence result of Theorem 1.2
is also valid for the non-radial p(x)-Laplacian problem (1.1), however, the validity of the uniqueness result of
Theorem 1.2 for the non-radial p(x)-Laplacian problem (1.1) is an open question (see Remark 2.3 below). The
author wishes more results on the uniqueness for (1.1) can come out.
In Section 2 we give the proofs of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2. In Section 3 we discuss some related problems
involving the radial symmetry of solutions for the p(x)-Laplacian problems.

c 2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.mn-journal.com
Math. Nachr. 284, No. 11–12 (2011) / www.mn-journal.com 1437

2 Proofs of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2

Let Ω ⊂ RN be a bounded domain and p ∈ C(Ω) with p− > 1. The variable exponent Lebesgue space Lp(x) (Ω)
is defined by
 
p(x)
Lp(x)
(Ω) = u ∈ Lloc (Ω) :
1
|u| dx < ∞
Ω

with the norm

 

p(x)

u

|u|L p ( x ) (Ω) = |u|p(·) = inf σ > 0 :

dx ≤ 1 .
Ω σ

The variable exponent Sobolev space W 1,p(x) (Ω) is defined by

 
W 1,p(x) (Ω) = u ∈ Lp(x) (Ω) : |∇u| ∈ Lp(x) (Ω)

with the norm

uW 1 , p ( x ) (Ω) = |u|L p ( x ) (Ω) + |∇u|L p ( x ) (Ω) .

(Ω) denotes the closure of C0∞ (Ω) in W 1,p(x) (Ω). Both W 1,p(x) (Ω) and W0
1,p(x) 1,p(x)
W0 (Ω) are separable
and reflexive Banach spaces. For the elementary properties of the variable exponent Sobolev spaces W 1,p(x) (Ω)
1,p(x) 1,p(x)
and W0 (Ω) we refer to [21], [33]. For u ∈ W0 (Ω), we use the equivalent norm u = |∇u|p(·) .
1,p(x)
u ∈ W0 (Ω) is called a weak solution of (1.1) if
 
p(x)−2 1,p(x)
|∇u| ∇u∇v dx = f (x, u)v dx for v ∈ W0 (Ω).
Ω Ω
t
Define F (x, t) = f (x, s) ds for x ∈ Ω and t ∈ R, and define
0
 
1 p(x) 1,p(x)
E(u) = |∇u| dx − F (x, u) dx, ∀u ∈ W0 (Ω).
Ω p(x) Ω

It is well-known that (see e.g., [18]), if f satisfies the subcritical growth condition:
q (x)−1
|f (x, t)| ≤ c1 + c2 |t| for x ∈ Ω and t ∈ R,

where c1 and c2 are positive constants, q ∈ C(Ω) satisfies the condition

⎧
⎨ N p(x)
, if p(x) < N,
1 ≤ q(x) < p∗ (x) := N − p(x) ∀x ∈ Ω,
⎩
+∞, if p(x) ≥ N,
 
1,p(x)
then E ∈ C 1 W0 (Ω), R and
 
E  (u)v =
p(x)−2 1,p(x)
|∇u| ∇u∇v dx − f (x, u)v dx, ∀u, v ∈ W0 (Ω),
Ω Ω

1,p(x)
and consequently, u ∈ W0 (Ω) is a weak solution of (1.1) if and only if u is a critical point of E.
For a function u(x), define
 
+
u(x) if u(x) ≥ 0, − u(x) if u(x) ≤ 0,
u (x) = u (x) =
0 if u(x) < 0, 0 if u(x) > 0.

www.mn-journal.com 
c 2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
1438 X. L. Fan: Existence and uniqueness for p(x)-Laplacian problems

P r o o f o f T h e o r e m 1.1. (1) Let (f1 ) hold. Suppose that u and v are the solutions of (1.1). Then u − v ∈
1,p(x) + 1,p(x)
W0 (Ω) and (u − v) ∈ W0 (Ω). Taking (u − v)+ as a test function and noting that f is nonincreasing
with respect to the second variable, we obtain that
  
p(x)−2 p(x)−2
0 ≤ |∇u| ∇u − |∇v| ∇v (∇u − ∇v) dx
{u (x)> v (x)}
  
p(x)−2 p(x)−2
= |∇u| ∇u − |∇v| ∇v ∇(u − v)+ dx
Ω
= (f (x, u) − f (x, v)) (u − v)+ dx ≤ 0,
Ω
which implies that
  
p(x)−2 p(x)−2
|∇u| ∇u − |∇v| ∇v (∇u − ∇v) dx = 0.
{u (x)> v (x)}

Define A = {x ∈ Ω : u(x) > v(x)}. By the inequality

 
p−2 p−2
|ξ| ξ − |η| η (ξ − η) > 0, ∀ξ, η ∈ RN with ξ
= η, ∀p > 1,

it follows from the equality above that

∇u(x) = ∇v(x) for a.e. x ∈ A.
Note that, when x ∈ A, (u − v)+ (x) = u(x) − v(x) and ∇(u − v)+ (x) = ∇u(x) − ∇v(x) = 0; and when
x ∈ Ω\A, (u − v)+ (x) = 0 and ∇(u − v)+ (x) = 0. Thus we obtain that ∇(u − v)+ (x) = 0 for a.e. x ∈ Ω and
1,p(x)
hence (u − v)+ = 0 because (u − v)+ ∈ W0 (Ω). This shows u(x) ≤ v(x) for a.e. x ∈ Ω. Similarly, we can
prove that v(x) ≤ u(x) for a.e. x ∈ Ω. Hence u = v. The uniqueness is proved.
(2) Let (f1 ) and (f2 ) hold. Then there is a positive constant d such that f (x, 0) ≤ d for x ∈ Ω. It is well-known
that the following problem

−Δp(x) w = d in Ω,
w=0 on ∂Ω,
has a unique solution (see e.g., [18]). We denote by w the unique solution. Then it is known that w is nonnegative
(see [16]) and w ∈ L∞ (Ω) (see [20]). Define
⎧
⎪
⎨f (x, 0) if x ∈ Ω and u < 0,
∗
f (x, u) = f (x, u) if x ∈ Ω and 0 ≤ u ≤ w(x),
⎪
⎩
f (x, w(x)) if x ∈ Ω and u > w(x).

Then −∞ < e := minx∈Ω f (x, |w|∞ ) ≤ f ∗ (x, u) ≤ d for x ∈ Ω and u ∈ R. Define

 u
∗
F (x, u) = f ∗ (x, ξ)dξ for x ∈ Ω and u ∈ R.
0
∗
Then |F (x, u)| ≤ max{d, |e|}|u| for x ∈ Ω and u ∈ R. Define
 
1
F ∗ (x, u) dx for u ∈ W0
p(x) 1,p(x)
J(u) = |∇u| dx − (Ω).
Ω p(x) Ω
 1,p(x) 
Since |f ∗ (x, u)| is bounded and p− > 1, by Theorem 4.3 of [18], J ∈ C 1 W0 (Ω), R , J is sequentially
weakly lower semicontinuous and coercive, that is, J(u) → +∞ as u → ∞. Thus J has a global minimizer
(Ω), J  (u∗ ) = 0, and consequently, u∗ is a weak solution of the following problem
1,p(x)
u ∗ ∈ W0

−Δp(x) u∗ = f ∗ (x, u∗ ) in Ω,
u∗ = 0 on ∂Ω.

c 2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.mn-journal.com
Math. Nachr. 284, No. 11–12 (2011) / www.mn-journal.com 1439

Taking u− ∗
∗ as a test function and noting that f (x, u) = f (x, 0) ≥ 0 for u < 0, we have that
 

−
p(x)

∇u∗
dx = f (x, u∗ (x))u−
∗ (x) dx ≤ 0,
Ω Ω

which implies u− ∗
∗ = 0 and hence u∗ ≥ 0. Since f (x, u∗ ) ≤ d, by the comparison principle (see [16]), we have
∗
that u∗ ≤ w. Thus f (x, u∗ (x)) = f (x, u∗ (x)). This shows that u∗ is a solution of (1.1). Since f (x, 0)
≡ 0, 0 is
not a solution of (1.1), so u∗ is nontrivial. By statement 1), the solution of (1.1) is unique.
In the case that there is α > 0 such that f (x, α) ≤ 0 for x ∈ Ω, taking (u∗ − α)+ as a test function and noting
that f (x, u∗ (x)) ≤ 0 for u∗ (x) > α, we have that
 
p(x)
0≤ |∇u∗ | dx = f (x, u∗ )(u∗ − α)+ dx ≤ 0,
{u ∗ (x)> α } Ω

which implies ∇(u∗ − α)+ = 0 and consequently (u∗ − α)+ = 0, that is u∗ (x) ≤ α for x ∈ Ω.
(3) Let (f1 ) − (f3 ) hold and let u∗ be the unique nonnegative and nontrivial solution of (1.1). Note that the
assumption that p(·) is Lipschitzian guarantees u∗ ∈ C 1,β (Ω) (see [1], [15], [20]) and the validity of the strong
maximum principle established in [22]. To prove u∗ (x) > 0 for x ∈ Ω, arguing by contradiction, assume that
G := {x ∈ Ω : u∗ (x) = 0}
= ∅. Obviously, G is a closed subset of Ω. Let any x0 ∈ G be given. Then
f (x0 , u∗ (x0 )) = f (x0 , 0) > 0. By the continuity of f and u∗ , there is a small ball B(x0 , ε) ⊂ Ω with center at
x0 such that f (x, u∗ (x)) > 0 for x ∈ B(x0 , ε). Now we have that

−Δp(x) u∗ = f (x, u∗ (x)) > 0 in B(x0 , ε), u∗ ≥ 0 in B(x0 , ε) and u∗ (x0 ) = 0.

By the strong maximum principle established in [22], u∗ (x) = 0 for all x ∈ B(x0 , ε). This shows that G is an
open subset of Ω. Since Ω is connected, we have G = Ω, that is u∗ = 0, which contradicts with the nontriviality
of u∗ . The proof of Theorem 1.1 is complete.

Before proving Theorem 1.2 we give some preliminaries.

p(r )−2
Denote Φ(r, x) = |x| x for r ∈ [0, b] and x ∈ R. Then for each r ∈ [0, b], the function Φ(r, ·) : R → R
is a strictly increasing homeomorphism. The inverse function of Φ(r, ·) is denoted by Φ−1 r (·). It is easy to see that
1
Φ(r, ·) and Φ−1 r (·) are odd, Φ(r, x) = xp(r )−1
if x ≥ 0, Φ−1
r (y) = y p ( r ) −1 if y ≥ 0.

Denote by C([0, b]) the Banach space of all continuous real functions defined on [0, b] with the maximum
norm. Set

C + ([0, b]) = {u ∈ C([0, b]) : u(r) ≥ 0 for r ∈ [0, b]}.

For every h ∈ C([0, b]), define T (h) by

 b   r 
1
(T (h))(t) = Φ−1 sN −1 h(s) ds dr for t ∈ [0, b]. (2.1)
t
r
rN −1 0

It is easy to see that T (h) ∈ C 1 ([0, b]) and T (h) satisfies

  
− rN −1 |(T (h)) (r)| (T (h)) (r) = rN −1 h(r)
p(r )−2
in (0, b),
(2.2)

(T (h)) (0) = 0, (T (h))(b) = 0.

Note that when h ∈ C + ([0, b]),

 b   r  p ( r 1) −1
1 N −1
(T (h))(t) = s h(s)ds dr for t ∈ [0, b]. (2.3)
t rN −1 0

www.mn-journal.com 
c 2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
1440 X. L. Fan: Existence and uniqueness for p(x)-Laplacian problems

Lemma 2.1 (1) The mapping T : C([0, b]) → C 1 ([0, b]) is continuous and bounded, and the mapping
T : C([0, b]) → C([0, b]) is compact.
(2) T (h1 ) ≤ T (h2 ) if h1 ≤ h2 ; (T (h1 ))(t) < (T (h2 ))(t) for t ∈ [0, b) if h1 (t) < h2 (t) for t ∈ (0, b).
(3) If h ∈ C + ([0, b]), then T (h) ∈ C + ([0, b]) and (T (h)) (t) ≤ 0 for t ∈ (0, b]. If h ∈ C + ([0, b]) and
h(t)
≡ 0, then (T (h))(t) > 0 for t ∈ [0, b) and (T (h)) (b) < 0.
Lemma 2.2 For every h ∈ C + ([0, b]) and k > 0 we have that
1 1
k p + −1 T (h) ≤ T (kh) ≤ k p − −1 T (h) if k > 1,
1 1
k p − −1 T (h) ≤ T (kh) ≤ k p + −1 T (h) if k < 1.
The proofs of Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2 are immediate and they are omitted here.
It is clear that, u is a solution of (1.3) if and only if u = T (f (s, u(s))), that is,
 b   r 
1
u(t) = Φ−1 s N −1
f (s, u(s)) ds dr for t ∈ [0, b]. (2.4)
t
r
rN −1 0

P r o o f o f T h e o r e m 1.2. (1) Let (f4 ) hold. Suppose that u and v are two positive solutions of (1.3). We
shall prove that u ≥ v and v ≥ u, and thus u = v. Here we only prove u ≥ v since the proof of v ≥ u is similar.
Define

D = {β > 0 : u(t) ≥ βv(t) for t ∈ [0, b]}.

From Lemma 2.1 we know that u, v ∈ C 1 ([0, b]); u(t) > 0 and v(t) > 0 for t ∈ [0, b); u(b) = 0 and v(b) = 0;
and u (b) < 0 and v  (b) < 0. It follows that there exist positive constants δ, L1 , L2 , M1 and M2 with δ < b,
L1 < L2 and M1 < M2 such that

−L2 ≤ u (t) ≤ −L1 , −L2 ≤ v  (t) ≤ −L1 , ∀t ∈ [b − δ, b]

and

M1 ≤ u(t) ≤ M2 , M1 ≤ v(t) ≤ M2 , ∀t ∈ [0, b − δ].

 
For any β ∈ 0, LL 12 and any t ∈ [b − δ, b], we have

u (t) ≤ −L1 ≤ −βL2 ≤ βv  (t)

and consequently
 b  b
u(t) = − u (s) ds ≥ − βv  (s) ds = βv(t).
t t
 
M 2 and any t ∈ [0, b − δ], we have
For any β ∈ 0, M 1

u(t) ≥ M1 ≥ βM2 ≥ βv(t).

 
Thus, for any 0 < β ≤ min LL 12 , M
M 2 , we have that u(t) ≥ βv(t) for all t ∈ [0, b]. This shows that D
= ∅. It is
1

obvious that the set D ⊂ R is bounded from above. Setting β1 = supβ ∈D β, then β1 ∈ (0, +∞), and from the
continuity of u and v we can see that β1 ∈ D, that is, β1 is the maximum of β ∈ D. (In fact, D = (0, β1 ]).
Now u ≥ β1 v. To prove u ≥ v, it is sufficient to prove β1 ≥ 1. To this end, arguing by contradiction, assume
β1 < 1. Then it follows from (f4 ) that
p −1
f (s, u(s)) ≥ f (s, β1 v(s)) > β1 − f (s, v(s)) for s ∈ [0, b). (2.5)

c 2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.mn-journal.com
Math. Nachr. 284, No. 11–12 (2011) / www.mn-journal.com 1441

 
p −1
Denote w = T β1 − f (s, v(s)) . Note that u = T (f (s, u(s))) and v = T (f (s, v(s))). By (2.5) and
Lemma 2.1, we have that

u(t) > w(t) for t ∈ [0, b).

It follows from (2.5) and (2.3) that

−u (b) > −w (b) > 0,

By the continuity of u and w at b, there exists δ1 ∈ (0, b) such that

−u (t) > −w (t) > 0, ∀t ∈ [b − δ1 , b].

By the compactness of [b − δ1 , b], there exists γ1 > 1 such that for any γ ∈ (0, γ1 ],

−u (t) > −γw (t) > 0, ∀t ∈ [b − δ1 , b]

and consequently
 b  b

u(t) = − u (s) ds ≥ − γw (s) ds = γw(t), ∀t ∈ [b − δ1 , b].
t t

Since u(t) > w(t) for t ∈ [0, b − δ1 ] and [0, b − δ1 ] ⊂ R is a compact set, there exists γ2 > 1 such that for any
γ ∈ (0, γ2 ],

u(t) ≥ γw(t), ∀t ∈ [0, b − δ1 ].

Thus, setting γ = min{γ1 , γ2 }, then γ > 1 and u(t) ≥ γw(t) for all t ∈ [0, b]. By (2.5) and Lemma 2.2, we have
that
  1
p −1 p − −1
w ≥ β1 − T (f (s, v(s))) = β1 v.

Thus we have that u ≥ γβ1 v which contradicts with the definition of β1 . The proof of statement 1) is complete.
(2) Define f ∗ : [0, b] × R → R by

∗
f (r, u) if u ≥ 0, r ∈ [0, b],
f (r, u) =
0 if u < 0, r ∈ [0, b],
u
and define F ∗ (r, u) = 0 f ∗ (r, ξ)dξ for u ∈ R and r ∈ [0, b]. Define
 
1
F ∗ (x, u) dx for u ∈ W0
p(x) 1,p(x)
J(u) = |∇u| dx − (Ω),
Ω p(x) Ω

where Ω = B(0, b) ⊂ N
 R , p(x) = p(|x|)
 = p(r), F ∗ (x, u) = F ∗ (|x| , u) = F ∗ (r, u). From (f4 ) and (f5 ) we
1,p(x)
can see that J ∈ C 1 W0 (Ω), R . Define
 
1,p(x) 1,p(x)
W0,r (Ω) = u ∈ W0 (Ω) : u is radially symmetric

1,p(x) 1,p(x) 1,p(x)

and Jr = J|W 1 , p ( x ) (Ω) . Then W0,r (Ω) is a closed linear subspace of W0 (Ω), W0,r (Ω) is also reflexive
0 , r 
1,p(x)
and Jr ∈ C 1 W0 (Ω), R . We will prove that Jr has a nontrivial critical point.
1 p(x) 1,p(x)
The functional Ω p(x) |∇u| dx is continuous and convex on W0,r (Ω), and hence it is sequentially
1,p(x) 1,p(x)
weakly lower semicontinuous on W0,r (Ω). For u ∈ W0,r (Ω) with u ≥ 1, we have

1 p(x) 1 p
|∇u| dx ≥ u − .
Ω p(x) p +

www.mn-journal.com 
c 2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
1442 X. L. Fan: Existence and uniqueness for p(x)-Laplacian problems

It follows from limu →+∞ ufp(r,u

− −1
)
= 0 that given any ε > 0, there exists a positive constant c(ε) such that

|F ∗ (r, u)| ≤ ε|u|p − + c(ε) for all u ∈ R and r ∈ [0, b].

F ∗ (x, u) dx
1,p(x)
Because there is a compact imbedding W0 (Ω) →→ Lp − (Ω), we can see that the functional Ω
1,p(x)
is sequentially weakly continuous on W0,r (Ω), and there exists a positive constant C0 such that

1,p(x)
|u|L p − (Ω) ≤ C0 u , ∀u ∈ W0 (Ω).

p 1,p(x)
Taking ε > 0 small enough such that εC0 − ≤ 2p1+ , then for u ∈ W0,r (Ω),





 

F ∗ (x, u) dx
≤ p
ε |u| − + c(ε) dx

Ω Ω
 p −
p p
= ε |u|L p − (Ω) + c(ε) |Ω| ≤ εC0 − u − + c(ε) |Ω|
1 p
≤ u − + c(ε) |Ω| .
2p+
1,p(x) 1,p(x)
The functional Jr : W0,r (Ω) → R is sequentially weakly lower semicontinuous. For u ∈ W0,r (Ω) with
u ≥ 1,
 
1
F ∗ (x, u) dx
p(x)
Jr (u) = |∇u| dx −
Ω p(x) Ω
1 p− 1 p−
≥ u − u − c(ε) |Ω|
p+ 2p+
1 p
= u − − c(ε) |Ω| .
2p+
1,p(x)
This shows that Jr (u) → +∞ as u → ∞, that is, Jr is coercive on W0,r (Ω). Thus Jr has a global minimizer
Jr (u∗ ) = 0,
1,p(x)
u∗ ∈ W0,r (Ω), and that is, u∗ is a critical point of Jr .
 
Take a function u1 ∈ C 1
Ω such that u1 is radially symmetric and u1 > 0 in Ω. Take a positive number

|∇u |p ( x ) dx
K such that K > p − Ω 1
|u 1 |p − dx
. It follows from limu →0 + ufp(r,u )
− −1
= +∞ that there exists δ > 0 such that
Ω
∗
F (r, u) ≥ Ku for u ∈ [0, δ) and r ∈ [0, b]. Take t1 ∈ (0, 1) small enough such that t1 u1 (x) < δ for all
p−

x ∈ Ω. Then
 
1
F ∗ (x, t1 u1 (x)) dx
p(x)
J(t1 u1 ) = |∇(t1 u1 )| dx −
Ω p(x) Ω
p  
t − p(x) p p
≤ 1 |∇u1 | dx − Kt1 − |u1 | − dx < 0.
p− Ω Ω

This shows that inf W 1 , p ( x ) (Ω) Jr < 0 and hence u∗

= 0 because Jr (0) = 0. Thus, u∗ is a nontrivial critical point
0,r
of Jr .
By the principle of symmetric criticality due to Palais [36] (see also [42]), every critical point of Jr is also a
critical point of J. Thus u∗ is also a critical point of J and hence u∗ is a weak solution of the following problem
  
∇u∗ = f ∗ (x, u∗ ) in Ω,
p(x)−2
−div |∇u∗ |
u∗ = 0 on ∂Ω.

From the definition of f ∗ , we can see that u∗ ≥ 0, thus f ∗ (x, u∗ ) = f (x, u∗ ) and consequently u∗ is a weak
1,p(x)
solution of (1.1). Since u∗ ∈ W0,r (Ω), u∗ is radially symmetric, and so u∗ is a radial solution of (1.1), i.e.,
a solution of (1.3). By 3) of Lemma 2.1, u∗ (t) > 0 for t ∈ [0, b). So u∗ is a positive solution of (1.3). By the
statement 1) of Theorem 1.2, the positive solution of (1.3) is unique. The proof is complete.


c 2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.mn-journal.com
Math. Nachr. 284, No. 11–12 (2011) / www.mn-journal.com 1443

Remark 2.3 From the proof of statement (2) of Theorem 1.2 we may see that the existence result established
in Theorem 1.2 is also valid for the non-radial p(x)-Laplacian problem (1.1). In the proof of statement 1) of Theo-
rem 1.2, Lemma 2.2 plays an important role. The author do not know whether Lemma 2.2 with T = (−Δp(x) )−1
is valid for the non-radial p(x)-Laplacian problem (1.1). Thus the question that whether the uniqueness result
established in Theorem 1.2 is also valid for the non-radial p(x)-Laplacian problem (1.1) is open.
Remark 2.4 Zhao [44] has proved Theorem 1.2 in the additional assumptions that p ∈ C 1 ([0, b]) and the
function p(r) is nondecreasing in r ∈ [0, b].

3 Radial symmetry of solutions

The symmetry of solutions (especially, of positive solutions) for the p-Laplacian equations has been studied
extensively and many interesting results have been obtained (see e.g., [7], [26] and references therein). Very little
is known about the symmetry of solutions for the p(x)-Laplacian equations. In [14] the author has proved the
following result.
Proposition 3.1 (Theorem 1 of [14]) Let J(u) be the associated functional to problem (1.1), that is
 
1 p(x) 1,p(x)
J(u) = |∇u| dx − F (x, u) dx for u ∈ W0 (Ω), (3.1)
Ω p(x) Ω
u
where F (x, u) = 0 f (x, ξ) dξ. Let Ω ⊂ RN be a radially symmetric (bounded or unbounded) domain and the
functions p(·) and f (·, u) be radially symmetric. Suppose that p and f satisfy appropriate conditions such that
every global minimizer of J is of class C 1 (Ω) ( for example, by [1], [15], this is the case when p ∈ C 0,α (Ω) and
f satisfies the subcritical growth condition). Then each global minimizer of J must be radially symmetric.
Because the paper [14] was written in Chinese, for readers’ convenience, we give a proof of Proposition 3.1
here.
1,p(x)
P r o o f o f P r o p o s i t i o n 3.1. Let u ∈ W0 (Ω) be a global minimizer of J. Then u ∈ C 1 (Ω). We
claim that, for each x ∈ Ω\{0}, there holds

∇u(x) · h = 0, ∀h ∈ RN \{0} with h · x = 0, (3.2)

where “·” denotes the scalar product in RN . To see this, let x ∈ Ω\{0} and h ∈ RN \{0} with h · x = 0 be given.
Define
π = {y ∈ RN : y · h = 0},
π + = {y ∈ RN : y · h ≥ 0}, π − = {y ∈ RN : y · h ≤ 0},
+ −
Ω = Ω ∩ π+ , Ω = Ω ∩ π− .
For any Ω1 ⊂ Ω, denote
 
1 p(x)
J(u, Ω1 ) = |∇u| dx − F (x, u) dx.
Ω1 p(x) Ω
 +  −
Let J(u) = J(u, Ω) = c, J u, Ω = c+ and J u, Ω = c− . Then c = c+ + c− . Define a function u
:Ω→R
+ 1,p(x)
such that u  is symmetric with respect to π. Then u
(x) = u(x) for x ∈ Ω and u  ∈ W0 (Ω) and
 +  −  +  +
J(u) = J u , Ω + J u , Ω = 2J u , Ω = 2J u, Ω = 2c+ .
 
Since J(u) ≤ J u  , we have that c+ + c− ≤ 2c+ and thus c− ≤ c+ . Similarly, we can prove c+ ≤ c− . Thus
−
+
c = c , J( u) = 2c+ = c = J(u), and so u  is a global minimizer of J. Hence u
 ∈ C 1 (Ω). Since u
 is symmetric
+
with respect to π and x ∈ π, we can see that ∇ u(x) · h = 0. Noting that u
 = u on Ω , we have ∇u(x) = ∇ u(x)
and hence ∇u(x) · h = 0. The claim (3.2) is proved.
From (3.2) we can obtain the radial symmetry of u. Indeed, let x, y ∈ Ω be such that |x| = |y| = r > 0 and let
σ : [0, 1] → Ω be a C 1 curve satisfying σ(0) = x, σ(1) = y and |σ(t)| = r. Define ϕ(t) = u(σ(t)) for t ∈ [0, 1].
www.mn-journal.com 
c 2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
1444 X. L. Fan: Existence and uniqueness for p(x)-Laplacian problems

Then ϕ (t) = ∇u(σ(t)) · σ  (t). It is easy to see that σ  (t) · σ(t) = 0 for t ∈ [0, 1]. Thus from (3.2) we have that
ϕ (t) = 0 for t ∈ [0, 1] and hence ϕ(t) ≡ constant for t ∈ [0, 1], in particular, ϕ(0) = ϕ(1), that is u(x) = u(y).
This shows that u is radially symmetric. Proposition 3.1 is proved.
Combining Theorem 1.1 and Proposition 3.1, we have the following
Theorem 3.2 Let f satisfy (f1 )and (f2 ), and let the bounded domain Ω and the functions p(·) and f (·, u) be
radially symmetric. Suppose the function p(·) is locally Hölder continuous in Ω. Then the unique solution of (1.1)
is radially symmetric.
P r o o f. By Theorem 1.1, (1.1) has a unique nontrivial nonnegative solution u∗ . From the proof of Theorem 1.1
we know that u∗ is a global minimizer of a variational functional J satisfying the conditions of Proposition 3.1.
By Proposition 3.1, u∗ is radially symmetric.
Combining Theorem 1.2 and Proposition 3.1, we have the following
Theorem 3.3 Let Ω = B(0, b) ⊂ RN and let the functions p(·) and f (·, u) be radially symmetric. Suppose
that p is Lipschitzian on Ω, f satisfies (f4 ), (f5 ) and

f (x, −u) = −f (x, u) for x ∈ Ω and u ∈ R.

Then the integral functional J defined by (3.1) has just a pair of global minimizers {±u}, where u > 0 in Ω and
u is radially symmetric.
P r o o f. Let J be in (3.1). From the proof of Theorem 1.2 we can see that J has a global minimizer u
= 0. Set
u∗ = |u|. It is clear that J(u∗ ) = J(u) and hence u∗ is a global minimizer of J. By the strong maximum principle
of [22], u∗ > 0 in Ω. By Proposition 3.1, u∗ is radially symmetric. Clearly, −u∗ is also a global minimizer of
J. We claim that any global minimizer of J cannot be sign-changing in Ω. To see this, suppose that v is a global
minimizer of J and v is sign-changing in Ω. Then |v| is also a global minimizer of J, |v(x)|
≡ 0 and |v(x0 )| = 0
at some x0 ∈ Ω. By the strong maximum principle of [22], we obtain |v(x)| ≡ 0, a contradiction. This shows
that the claim is true. Note that, if u is a global minimizer of J and u > 0 in Ω, then, by Proposition 3.1, u is
radially symmetric and thus u is a positive solution of (1.3). By Theorem 1.2, (1.3) has a unique positive solution,
consequently, J has a unique positive global minimizer u∗ . It is obvious that J has a unique negative global
minimizer −u∗ since u is a positive global minimizer of J if and only if −u is a negative global minimizer of J.
The proof is complete.

Acknowledgements The research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (10971087). The
author is grateful to the reviewers for the valuable comments.

References
[1] E. Acerbi and G. Mingione, Regularity results for a class of functionals with nonstandard growth, Arch. Ration. Mech.
Anal. 156, 121–140 (2001).
[2] G. A. Afrouzi and S. H. Rasouli, A remark on the uniqueness of positive solutions for some Dirichlet problems,
Nonlinear Anal. 64, 2773–2777 (2006).
[3] A. Aftalion and F. Pacella, Uniqueness and nondegeneracy for some nonlinear elliptic problems in a ball, J. Differ.
Equations 195, 380–397 (2003).
[4] C. O. Alves and M. A. S. Souto, Existence of solutions for a class of problems in RN involving the p(x)-Laplacian,
Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and Their Applications 66, 17–32 (2005).
[5] S. Antontsev and S. Shmarev, in: Elliptic Equations with Anisotropic Nonlinearity and Nonstandard Growth Conditions,
Handbook of Differential Equations, Stationary Partial Differential Equations Vol. 3, edited by M. Chipot and P. Quittner,
and B. V. Elsevier (North Holland, Amsterdam, 2006), pp.1–100.
[6] I. Bachar, S. B. Othman, and H. Mâagli, Radial solutions for the p-Laplacian equation, Nonlinear Anal. 70, 2198–2205
(2009).
[7] L. Damascelli, Comparison theorems for some quasilinear degenerate elliptic operators and applications to symmetry
and monotonicity results, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré (C), Anal. Non Linéaire 15, 493–516 (1998).
[8] J. I. Diaz and J. E. Saa, Existence et unicite de solutions positives pur certaines equations elliptiques quasilineaires,
Comptes Rendus Acad. Sci. Paris 305, 521–524 (1987).


c 2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.mn-journal.com
Math. Nachr. 284, No. 11–12 (2011) / www.mn-journal.com 1445

[9] L. Diening, P. Hästö, and A. Nekvinda, in: Open Problems in Variable Exponent Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces,
FSDONA04 Proceedings, edited by P. Drábek and J. Rákosnı́k (Czech Republic, Milovy, 2004), pp. 38–58.
[10] T.-L. Dinu, On a nonlinear eigenvalue problem in Sobolev spaces with variable exponent, Sib. Electron. Mat. Izv. 2,
208–217 (2005).
[11] P. Drábek, A note on the nonuniqueness for some quasilinear eigenvalue problem, Appl. Math. Lett. 13, 39–41 (2000).
[12] P. Drábek and J. Hernández, Existence and uniqueness of positive solutions for some quasilinear elliptic problems,
Nonlinear Anal. 44, 189–204 (2001).
[13] L. Erbe and M. Tang, Uniqueness theorems for positive radial solutions of quasilinear elliptic equations in a ball,
J. Differ. Equations 156, 351–379 (1997).
[14] X. L. Fan, Radial symmetry of minimizers for p(x)-Laplacian integral functionals, J. Gansu Education College (N.S.)
14(1), 1–3 (2000) (In Chinese).
[15] X. L. Fan, Global C 1 , α regularity for variable exponent elliptic equations in divergence form, J. Differ. Equations 235,
397–417 (2007).
[16] X. L. Fan, On the sub-supersolution method for p(x)-Laplacian equations, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 330, 665–682 (2007).
[17] X. L. Fan, Remarks on eigenvalue problems involving the p(x)-Laplacian, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 352, 85–98 (2009).
[18] X. L. Fan and Q. H. Zhang, Existence of solutions for p(x)-Laplacian Dirichlet problems, Nonlinear Anal. 52, 1843–
1852 (2003).
[19] X. L. Fan, Q. H. Zhang, and D. Zhao, Eigenvalues of p(x)-Laplacian Dirichlet problem, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 302,
306–317 (2005).
[20] X. L. Fan and D. Zhao, A class of De Giorgi type and Hölder continuity, Nonlinear Anal. 36, 295–318 (1999).
[21] X. L. Fan and D. Zhao, On the spaces Lp (x ) (Ω) and W k , p (x ) (Ω), J. Math. Anal. Appl. 263, 424–446 (2001).
[22] X. L. Fan, Y. Z. Zhao, and Q. H. Zhang, A strong maximum principle for p(x)-Laplace equations, Chinese Ann. Math.
Ser. A 24, 495–500 (2003) (in Chinese); English translation: Chinese J. Contemporary Math. 24, 277–282 (2003).
[23] B. Franchi, E. Lanconelli, and J. Serrin, Existence and uniqueness of nonnegative solutions of quasilinear equations in
Rn , Adv. Math. 118, 177–243 (1996).
[24] Y. Q. Fu and X. Zhang, A multiplicity result for p(x)-Laplacian problem in RN , Nonlinear Anal. 70, 2261–2269 (2009).
[25] J. Garcı́a Melián and J. Sabina de Lis, Uniqueness to quasilinear problems for the p-Laplacian in radially symmetric
domains, Nonlinear Anal. 43, 803–835 (2001).
[26] B. Gidas, W. M. Ni, and L. Nirenberg, Symmetry and related properties via the maximum principle, Commun. Math.
Phys. 68, 209–243 (1979).
[27] Z. M. Guo, Uniqueness and flat core of positive solutions for quasilinear elliptic eigenvalue problem in general smooth
domains, Math. Nachr. 243, 43–74 (2002).
[28] Z. M. Guo and J. R. L. Webb, Uniqueness of positive solutions for quasilinear elliptic equations when a parameter is
large, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 124A, 189–198 (1994).
[29] D. D. Hai, Uniqueness of positive solutions for a class of quasilinear problems, Nonlinear Anal. 69, 2720–2732 (2008).
[30] D. D. Hai and R. Shivaji, Existence and uniqueness for a class of quasilinear elliptic boundary value problems, J. Differ.
Equations 193, 500–510 (2003).
[31] P. Harjulehto and P. Hästö, in: An Overview of Variable Exponent Lebesgue and Sobolev Spaces, Future Trends in
Geometric Function Theory, edited by D. Herron (RNC Workshop, Jyväskylä, 2003), pp. 85–93.
[32] V. V. Jikov, S. M. Kozlov, and O. A. Oleinik, Homogenization of Differential Operators and Integral Functional
(Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994), (translated from the Russian by G. A. Yosifan).
[33] O. Kovác̆ik and J. Rákosnik, On spaces Lp (x ) and W k , p (x ) , Czechoslovak Math. J. 41(116), 592–618 (1991).
[34] M. Mihăilescu and V. Rădulescu, A multiplicity result for a nonlinear degenerate problem arising in the theory of
electrorheological fluids, Proc. Royal Soc. Ser. A 462, 2625–2641 (2006).
[35] M. Mihăilescu, P. Pucci, and V. Rădulescu, Eigenvalue problems for anisotropic quasilinear elliptic equations with
variable exponent, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 340, 687–698 (2008).
[36] R. S. Palais, The principle of symmetric criticality, Comm. Math. Phys. 69, 19–30 (1979).
[37] P. Pucci and J. Serrin, Uniqueness of ground states for quasilinear elliptic operators, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 47, 501–528
(1998).
[38] M. Růžička, Electrorheological Fluids: Modeling and Mathematical Theory (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000).
[39] S. Samko, On a progress in the theory of Lebesgue spaces with variable exponent: maximal and singular operators,
Integral Transforms Spec. Funct. 16, 461–482 (2005).
[40] J. Serrin and M. Tang, Uniqueness of ground states for quasilinear elliptic equations, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 49, 897–923
(2000).
[41] M. Tang, Uniqueness of positive radial solutions for Δu − u + up = 0 on an annulus, J. Differ. Equations 189, 148–160
(2003).
[42] M. Willem, Minimax Theorems (Birkhäuser, Boston, 1996).
[43] Q. H. Zhang, Existence of solutions for weighted p(r)-Laplacian system boundary value problems, J. Math. Anal. Appl.
327, 127–141 (2007).
[44] Y. Z. Zhao, Existence of positive and nodal solutions for p(x)-Laplacian equations, Ph.D. thesis, Lanzhou University,
Lanzhou, China (2001).

www.mn-journal.com 
c 2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim