ASYMPTOTICS FOR OPTIMIZERS OF THE FRACTIONAL HARDY-SOBOLEV INEQUALITY

arXiv:1609.01869v1 [math.AP] 7 Sep 2016

S. A. MARANO AND S. MOSCONI Abstract. We consider the optimizers u in the Hardy-Sobolev inequality for the space ˙ s,p (RN ) with order of differentiability s ∈]0, 1[. After proving existence through concentrationW −

N −ps

compactness, we derive the pointwise asymptotic u(x) ≃ |x| p−1 for large |x| and the ˙ s,γ (RN ) for all γ > N(p−1) . These estimates are optimal in the summability estimate u ∈ W N−s limit s → 1− , in which case optimizers are explicitly known.

1. Introduction and main results We are concerned with the scale-invariant nonlocal functional inequalities (1.1)

Z

RN

|u|q dx |x|α

1 q

≤C

Z

RN ×RN

|u(x) − u(y)|p dx dy |x − y|N +ps

1

p

.

for some constant C > 0. Here N > α ≥ 0, q ≥ p ≥ 1 and s ∈ (0, 1) are determined by scale invariance. In order to C to be finite one can write the inequality for uλ (x) = u(λx), deducing N − ps N −α = . (1.2) q p Therefore, the constant C in (1.1) has the following dependencies: C = C(N, p, s, α). Notice that from the previous scaling relation and q ≥ p we infer 0 ≤ α ≤ ps < N. For q = p and α = ps < N we recover the classical Hardy fractional inequality; for q = p∗s = Np N −ps , α = 0 we obtain Sobolev inequality, while the general inequality (1.1) is known as fractional Hardy-Sobolev inequality (see [19]). It is well known that the case q = p (and thus α = ps) of inequality (1.1) does not admit optimizers, and indeed the concentration-compactness method fails in this setting. More precisely, letting Z |u(x) − u(y)|p dx dy [u]ps,p := N +ps RN ×RN |x − y| and   Z |u|q p (1.3) Iλ = inf [u]s,p : dx = λ , λ > 0, α RN |x| then, by scaling, it holds (1.4)

p

Iλ = λ q I1 ,

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 6E35, 35B40, 49K22. Key words and phrases. Fractional Hardy-Sobolev inequality, Concentration-Compactness, decay estimates, fractional p-Laplacian. The authors were partially supported by Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi Matematica, la Probabilit` a e le loro Applicazioni (INdAM). 1

2

S. A. MARANO AND S. MOSCONI

and thus the strict subadditivity condition Iλ+µ < Iλ + Iµ (which is the main tool of concentration-compactness) holds only in the case q > p. In this case existence of optimizers has mostly been taken as granted due to [16, Remark I.6]. A full proof of the existence has been done in [21] in the case p = 2, α = 0 through a refined version of Sobolev embedding via Morrey spaces and for p = 2 and α ∈ [0, ps[ in [22]. We will instead prove the existence of optimizers for general p > 1 following the original approach of Lions, accordingly considering (as a natural non-local counterpart of the quantity |∇u|p (x)) the energy-density function s

(1.5)

p

|D u| (x) :=

Z

RN

|u(x) − u(x + h)|p dh. |h|N +ps

Once existence is proved, standard rearrangement inequalities ensure that the minimizers are radially monotonic. A natural conjecture is that the family of minimizers consists of constant multiples, translations and dilations of the function 1 (1.6) U (x) = . p−α/s N−sp (1 + |x| p−1 ) p−α/s This has been proven in [9] for s = 1, p > 1, α ∈ [0, p[ through Bliss inequality, and in [6] for s ∈]0, 1[, p = 2, α = 0. We then turn to the asymptotic properties of the optimizers. Following [3] we will prove a pointwise bound of the form 1 (1.7) u(x) ≃ for large |x|. N−ps , |x| p−1 This asymptotic behaviour has proven to be enough to treat nonlinear critical type problems analogous to the Brezis-Nirenberg one: (

(−∆p )s u = λ|u|p−2 u + |u|p u≡0

∗ −2

u

in Ω, in RN \ Ω,

p and (−∆p )s is the fractional p − s Laplacian, defined as the differential where p∗ = NN−sp of u 7→ 1p [u]ps,p . In [20], an existence theory for such critically pertubed nonlinear eigenvalue problem is developed, and, similarly to the local case s = 1, a suitable cutoff and rescaling of the solutions of (1.3) plays a major rˆ ole. Namely, one fixes a minizer U for I1 and lets x
1 , Uε (x) = N−ps U ε ε p

which is still a minimizer for any ε > 0 by scaling. If Vε is a truncation of Uε in, say, a unit ball, it still concentrates (as ε → 0) its energy in B1 and one needs to quantify the error in [Vε ]ps,p = I1 + o(ε),

kVε kLp∗ = 1 + o(ε),

kVε kLp = o(ε).

In order to do so, the lack of an explicit form of the optimizer is circumvented using only the scaling properties of Uε and the pointwise decay (1.7) at infinity. More precisely, (1.7) is very effective in estimating Lebesgue norms, while the Euler equation for the optimizer links the ∗ estimates in W s,p to ones in Lp . However, when dealing with more general operators of mixed order, such as the (p, q)Laplacian, it’s essential to obtain a precise estimate at other, less natural, differentiability scales. This has been done for s = 1, α = 0 through the explicit form of the minimizers for (1.3) in [7], and these results have been estensively used to treat mixed critical problems, such as in [5, 23] and the references therein.

ASYMPTOTICS FOR OPTIMIZERS OF THE FRACTIONAL HARDY-SOBOLEV INEQUALITY

3

Having these applications in mind, we are thus led to consider the decay of the fractional derivative of U . More precisely, both at summability and Sobolev level we are looking for lower exponents than the natural ones. It is useful to compare the estimates of the main theorem to the ones known in the local (s = 1) case for the Sobolev inequality (α = 0). In this case, optimizers a-priori have the following properties ∗

U ∈ Lp (RN ),

∇U ∈ Lp (RN ).

A direct calculation using the explicit form of the minimizer given in (1.6) shows that U ∈ Lγ (RN ) ∀γ > p0 :=

N (p − 1) , N −p

∇U ∈ Lγ (RN ) ∀γ > p1 :=

N (p − 1) . N −1

Notice that p0 < p∗ and p1 < p are the optimal exponents with respect to (summability) decay of both U and its derivative. We will derive the nonlocal analogue for s ∈]0, 1[ of the previous estimates. Our results can then be summarized as follows. Theorem 1.1. Let N > ps, q > p and α ∈ [0, ps[ satisfy (1.2). Then problem (1.3) has a minimizer and any minimizer u is of constant sign, radially monotone and satisfies 1

(1.8)

C|x|

N−ps p−1

C

≤ |u(x)| ≤ |x|

N−ps p−1

,

|x| ≥ 1

for some constant C = C(N, p, s, α, u), and (1.9)

Z

RN ×RN

|u(x) − u(y)|γ dx dy < +∞, |x − y|N +γs

∀γ >

N (p − 1) . N −s

Let us discuss the structure of the paper. In section 2 we will present the framework and known tools that will be used in the proof of Theorem 1.1. In section 3 we will prove the existence part, through concentration compactness. We remark that other approaches are available, e.g. the rearrangement-based approach of Lieb [13]. However, Lion’s approach seems viable to treat more general situations where rearrangement is not available. In developing the concentration-compactness scheme for nonlocal problems, two main difficulties arise. Ruling out dichotomy of minimizing sequences is quite delicate since splitting a function through cutoffs gives rise to nonlocal effects which have to be precisely quantified. This is done observing that the smallness of |D s u|p as per (1.5), contrary to the local case, entails stong global informations on u: for example if |D s u|p vanishes at some point, u must be constant. The quantitative estimate needed to rule out dichotomy is Lemma 3.2 below. This technical result deals with the loss of compactness due to translation (precisely in the dichotomy case), while the other difficulty lies in the nonlocal effects arising from the loss of compactness due to dilations, i.e., concentration. However, in this respect, the relevant argument has been derived in [18, Theorem 2.5] and we refer to the discussion therein for further details. In section 4 we derive the asympthotic properties (1.8), (1.9). In doing so we will prove a general lemma (Lemma 4.1) which may be seen as a higer order Strauss inequality, which hopefully can be used to treat the nonlocal analogue of the classification of solutions to nonlinear equations in exterior domains as given in [2]. Then the proof of (1.8) is just a modification of the one given in [3] for α = 0. To prove (1.9) we then exploit the scaling properties of the problem together with a suitable sub-level sets splitting of the solution (see (4.2)). This allows to deduce (1.9) from (1.8).

4

S. A. MARANO AND S. MOSCONI

2. Preliminary material Let us first fix some notation. Given p > 1, we let p′ = p/(p − 1), and p′ = ∞ if p = 1. We denote by Br (x) the open ball of center x and radius r > 0 in RN ; when the center is not specified it is to be understood as zero, i.e. Br := Br (0). Given any Lebesgue measurable E ⊆ RN we set E c = RN \ E, χE will denote its indicator function and |E| its Lebesgue measure. We set ωN = |B1 (0). For any s ∈]0, 1[, p ≥ 1 we define [u]s,p =

Z

kukα,q =

Z

|u(x) − u(y)|p dx dy |x − y|N +ps

RN ×RN

1

p

,

and for α ∈ [0, N [, q ≥ 1 |u|q dx |x|α

RN

1 q

,

kukq = kuk0,q

The homogeneous Sobolev space can be defined as ˙ s,p(RN ) := {u ∈ Lp∗ (RN ) : [u]s,p < +∞}, W and is a Banach space with respect to the norm [ ]s,p . The functional u 7→ 1p [u]ps,p is convex and
˙ s,p ∗ := differentiable for p > 1, and its differential is an element of the topological dual W ˙ −s,p′ (RN ). We say that (−∆p )s u = f weakly, for some f ∈ Lr (RN ) if W s

h(−∆p ) u, vi =

Z

f v dx,

RN

˙ s,p (RN ). ∀v ∈ W

˙ s,p(RN ), for a.e. Lebesgue point x of u we set Given any u ∈ W s

p

|D u| (x) =

Z

RN

|u(x) − u(y)|p dy. |x − y|N +ps

Through elementary inequalities, it is readily seen that it holds (2.1)

|Ds (uv)|p ≤ θ|u|p |D s v|p + Cθ |v|p |D s u|p ,

∀θ > 0.

with Cθ > 0 being a constant depending on p and θ. For any E ⊆ RN we let ˙ s,p(RN ) : u ≡ 0 a.e. in E c }, W s,p (E) := {u ∈ W 0

which again is a Banach space with respect to [ ]s,p . It holds the well known embedding W0s,q (Br ) ֒→ W0s,p (Br ),

q ≥ p, r > 0,

with a constant depending on N, p, q, s and r. Given a measurable function u : RN → R+ , its symmetric-decrasing rearrangement is defined as ∗

u (x) =

Z

0

+∞

χ{y:u(y)>t} (x) dt,

which is a radially decreasing function such that |{u∗ > t}| = |{u > t}|,

∀t ≥ 0.

The first observation we make is that, in order to seek for optimizers in (1.1), radial functions suffice. Lemma 2.1. Suppose u is a minimizer for (1.3). Then u is radially non-increasing around some point, which is 0 if α > 0.

ASYMPTOTICS FOR OPTIMIZERS OF THE FRACTIONAL HARDY-SOBOLEV INEQUALITY

5

Proof. Using (1.4), it is readily checked that any minimizer minimizes the Rayleigh quotient R = inf

 

˙ s,p(RN ) \ {0} : u∈W

p

q kukα,q





[u]ps,p 

.



If u∗ is the symmetric-decreasing rearrangement of u, the simplest rearrangement inequality [14, Theorem 3.4] gives kukα,q ≤ ku∗ kα,q since x 7→ 1/|x|α coincides with its symmetric-decreasing rearrangement. Note that in the case α = 0 equality always holds, while if u is not u∗ then the inequality is strict as long as α > 0. Moreover, the Polya-Szego principle ensures (see [1, Theorem 9.2]) [u∗ ]s,p ≤ [u]s,p with strict inequality if u is not a translation of u∗ (notice that this last statement is peculiar to the nonlocal nature of [u]).  Let us now observe that the family of inequalities (1.1) all derive from the border-line Hardy inequality corresponding to α = ps, q = p. We call CH the corresponding (Hardy) constant, which was explicitly computed in [8, Theorem 1.1]. The following result, in its generality, is folklore. Lemma 2.2. Let CH = C(N, p, s, ps) into (1.1). Then C(N, p, s, α) ≤ CH



N ωN N − ps

 1 α−ps p N−α

.

Proof. Let u ∈ Cc∞ (RN ). As previously observed, we can assume that u = u(r) is nonnegative radially non-increasing. Recall, from [11], that for any nonnegative non-increasing function f : [0, +∞) → R it holds Z

+∞

λ

f (t)t

λ−1

0

dt =

Z

+∞

λ−1

(f (t)t)

f (t) dt ≤

0

Z

0

+∞ Z t

f (s) ds

0

λ−1

f (t) dt ≤

Z

+∞

f (t) dt

0

λ

Set t = r N −ps and f (t) = up (t1/(N −ps) ), λ = q/p, to obtain Z

RN

N ωN up dx = ps |x| N − ps

Z

+∞

N ωN f (t) dt ≥ N − ps

0

Z

+∞

q

u (t

1 N−ps

)t

q −1 p

dt

0

p q

and setting back t = r N −ps and using (1.2) we obtain Z

RN

N ωN up dx ≥ (N − ps) ps |x| N − ps 

Z

+∞

0

uq N −1 r dr rα

p q

=



N ωN N − ps

1− p Z q

RN

uq dx |x|α

p q

.

Rearranging and inserting into (1.1) for q = p and α = ps gives the claim through Polya-Szego principle.  Lemma 2.3. Let η ∈ C ∞ (RN ). Then (2.2)

k|D s η|p k∞ ≤ CLip(η)ps kηkp(1−s) . ∞

If supp(η) ⊆ BR , then for any θ > 0 there exists Cθ = C(θ, N, p, s) such that (2.3)

|Ds η|p (x) ≤

Cθ RN |η|p∞ , |x|N +ps

c x ∈ B(1+θ)R .

.

6

S. A. MARANO AND S. MOSCONI

Proof. We may assume the right hand side of (2.2) if finite. For any λ > 0 it holds s

p

|D η| (x) ≤

Z

Bλ (x)

Lip(η)p |x − y|p dz + |x − y|N +ps



≤ C λp(1−s) Lip(η)p +

Z

c (x) Bλ  p p 2 kηk∞ λps

2p kηkp∞ dz |x − y|N +ps

!

for some C = C(N, p, s). Optimizing in λ > 0 gives (2.2). Regarding the second inequality, observe that for |x| ≥ (1 + θ)R and |y| ≤ R it holds |x| 1+θ

|x| ≤ |x − y| + |y| ≤ |x − y| + R ≤ |x − y| +

⇒

|x| ≤

1+θ |x − y|. θ

Since supp(η) ⊆ BR we have s

p

|D η| (x) =

Z

BR

|η(y)|p dy ≤ |x − y|N +ps



1+θ θ

N +ps

kηkpp |x|N +ps

which gives (2.3).



Lemma 2.4. [4, Lemma A.2] Suppose g : R → R is Lipschitz and non-decreasing and set for p > 1 G(t) = ˙ s,p (RN ) it holds Then for any u ∈ W

Z

t

1

g′ (τ ) p dτ.

0

[G(u)]ps,p ≤ h(−∆p )s u, g(u)i. 3. Concentration Compactness In this section we derive the details of the concentration-compactness principle for problem (1.3). To keep the proof short, we will only outline the modification needed in the proof of [17, Theorem 2.4]. Theorem 3.1. Problem (1.3) always has a minimizer. Proof. It suffices to prove the theorem for λ = 1. Let {un } be a minimizing sequence for (1.3) with λ = 1 and define ∗ ρn (x) = |D s un |p (x) + |un |p (x), so that lim n

Z

RN

ρn dx = 1 + I1 .

We can choose a rescaling and a subsequence, still denoted by {un }, such that if Qn (t) = sup

y∈RN

Z

Bt (y)

ρn dx,

then Qn (1) = 1/2, Qn (t) → Q(t), for all t ≥ 0. Clearly then vanishing cannot occur in [15, Lemma I.1] and we first show that dichotomy cannot occur (this is where the nonlocal effects force a modification of the standard proof). Suppose dichotomy occurs, i.e. lim Q(t) = a ∈]0, 1 + I1 [.

t→+∞

ASYMPTOTICS FOR OPTIMIZERS OF THE FRACTIONAL HARDY-SOBOLEV INEQUALITY

7

Then for any ε > 0 there exists {yn }, Rn ≥ R0 , Rn ↑ +∞ satisfying Z BR

0

Z ρn dx − a + Bc (yn )

Rn

Z ρn dx − (1 + I1 − a) + BRn (yn )\BR (yn )

˙ s,p(RN ), W

0

Cc∞ (B5 )

ρn dx < ε. (yn )

Lemma 3.2. Let u ∈ η ∈ be such that 0 ≤ η ≤ 1, η⌊B4 = 1, and set ηR (x) = η(x/R). Then there exists Cη = C(N, p, s, Lip(η)) such that for any R > 0 it holds Z

(3.1)

s

p

|D u| dx −

BR

Z

RN

C |D u| dx + ps R B20R \BR

Z |D (ηR u)| dx ≤ Cη s

p

s

p

Z

|u|p dx.

B20R \BR

˙ s,p (RN ), ξ ∈ C ∞ (RN ) be such that 0 ≤ ξ ≤ 1, ξ⌊B c = 1, ξ⌊B = 0 and set Let u ∈ W 1/5 1/4 ξR (x) = ξ(x/R). Then there exists Cξ = C(N, p, s, Lip(ξ)) such that for any R > 0 it holds Z Z Z Z C s p s p (3.2) |D u| dx − |D (ξR u)| dx ≤ Cξ |Ds u|p dx + ps |u|p dx. Bc R RN BR \BR/20 BR \BR/20 R

Proof. By density we can suppose that u ∈ Cc∞ (RN ) and by scaling we can suppose that R = 1. Let us first observe that for any z ∈ B3 \ B2 , x ∈ B1 it holds 1 ≤ |x − z| ≤ 4, so that Z

p

p

|u| dx ≤ 2

B1

Z

p

p

|u(x) − u(z)| + |u(z)| dx ≤ C

B1

|u(x) − u(z)|p dx + C|u(z)|p |x − z|N +ps

Z

B1

which, integrated in z ∈ B3 \ B2 gives Z

|u|p dx ≤ C

B1

(3.3)

Z

B1 ×(B3 \B2 )

≤C

Z

|u(x) − u(z)|p dx dz + C |x − z|N +ps

Z

|u(z)|p dz

B3 \B2

|Ds u|p + |u|p dx

B3 \B2

Similarly by |x − z| ≤ |x| + |z| ≤ 2|x| for all x ∈ B4c , z ∈ B3 \ B2 Z

B4c

|u|p dx ≤ C |x|N +ps

Z

B1

|u(x) − u(z)|p dx + C|u(z)|p , |x − z|N +ps

which integrated on B3 \ B2 provides Z

(3.4)

B4c

|u|p dx ≤ C |x|N +ps

Z

|D s u|p + |u|p dx.

B3 \B2

We can now prove the first estimate. It holds

(3.5)

Z

s

Z

p

|D u| dx−

s

RN

B1

+

p

|D (ηu)| dx = − Z

Z

|η(x)u(x) − η(y)u(y)|p dx dy |x − y|N +ps

B1c ×RN u(y)|p − |u(x)η(x)

|u(x) −

− η(y)u(y)|p

|x − y|N +ps

B1 ×B4c

dx dy.

Now |u(x) − u(y)|p dx dy ≤ C N +ps B1 ×B4c |x − y|

Z

≤C

Z

B1

|u|p dx + C

Z

B4c

Z

B1 ×B4c |u|p

|y|N +ps

|u(x)|p + |u(y)|p dx dy |x − y|N +ps dy ≤ C

Z

|D s u|p + |u|p dx

B3 \B2

and similarly for the term involving η. To estimate the last integral in (3.5) we observe that (3.6)

|η(x)u(x) − η(y)u(y)|p ≤ 2p |η(x)|p |u(x) − u(y)|p + 2p |η(x) − η(y)|p |u(y)|p

8

S. A. MARANO AND S. MOSCONI

and Z

B1c ×RN

|η(x)|p |u(x) − u(y)|p dx dy ≤ C |x − y|N +ps

Z

|D s u|p dx,

B5 \B1

while using (2.2) on B6 and (2.3) on B6c (recall that supp(η) ⊆ B5 ), we get |η(x) − η(y)|p |u(y)|p dx dy ≤ |x − y|N +ps B1c ×RN

Z

≤

(3.7)

Z

|D s η|p |u|p dy +

B6

Z

B6c

Z

p

≤ C(1 + Lip(η) )

Z

|Ds η|p |u|p dy

RN

|D s η|p |u| dy p

|u| dy +

B6

Z

B6c

!

|u|p dy . |y|N +ps

Using (3.3) (rescaled) and (3.4) on these two terms finally gives Z

B1c ×RN

|η(x) − η(y)|p |u(y)|p dx dy ≤ Cη |x − y|N +ps

Z

s

B3 \B2

p

p

|D u| + |u| dx + Cη

Z

|D s u|p + |u|p dx

B18 \B12

Gathering togheter all the estimates we obtain (3.1). The proof of (3.2) is entirely analogous, we sketch it for the sake of completeness. Since Z

s

B1c

p

|D u| dx −

Z

B1c ×B1/4

Z

RN

|D s (ξu)|p dx =

|u(x) − u(y)|p − |ξ(x)u(x) − ξ(y)u(y)|p dx dy − |x − y|N +ps

Z

|D s (ξu)|p dx

B1

we estimate the two terms separately. For the first one Z Z |u(x)|p + |u(y)|p |u(x) − u(y)|p − |u(x) − ξ(y)u(y)|p dx dy dx dy ≤ C B c ×B1/4 |x − y|N +ps |x − y|N +ps B1c ×B1/4 1 Z Z p

≤C

B1c

|u(x)| dx + C |x|N +ps

|u(y)|p dy

B1/4

which, by a suitable rescaling of (3.3), (3.4), provides Z Z |u(x) − u(y)|p − |u(x) − ξ(y)u(y)|p dx dy |D s u|p + |u|p dx. ≤ C B c ×B1/4 |x − y|N +ps B3/4 \B1/2 1

For the second one, proceeding as in (3.6) we obtain Z

Z

|D s (ξu)|p dx ≤ C B1

On one hand it holds

Z

p

|ξ|p |D s u|p dx + C B1

s

p

|ξ| |D u| dx ≤

B1

while since

|Ds ξ|p Z

= p

RN

|Ds (1 s

p

RN

|u|p |Ds ξ|p dx.

|Ds u|p dx

B1 \B1/5

− ξ)|p ,

|u| |D ξ| dx =

Z

Z

Z

we have by (2.2), (2.3) p

s

p

|u| |D (1 − ξ)| dx +

B1/6

≤ Cξ

Z

B1/6

p

|u| dx +

Z

c B1/6

Z

c B1/6

|u|p |D s (1 − ξ)|p dx

|u|p dx |x|N +ps

!

ASYMPTOTICS FOR OPTIMIZERS OF THE FRACTIONAL HARDY-SOBOLEV INEQUALITY

9

and by a suitable rescaling of (3.3), (3.4) we obtain Z

RN

p

s

p

|u| |D ξ| dy ≤ Cξ

Z

s

B1/2 \B1/3

p

p

|D u| + |u| dx + Cξ

Z

|Ds u|p + |u|p dx.

B1/8 \B1/12

Gathering toghether all the estimates we obtain (3.2).



For η, ξ as in the previous lemma, we can set x − yn
un (x), R0

u1n (x) := η and for Rn > 400R0 it holds Z BR

s

0

(yn )

p

|D un | dx −

Z

RN



|D s u1n |p dx

u2n (x) = ξ

Z + Bc

x − yn
un (x), Rn

s

p

|D un | dx −

Rn (yn )

Z

RN



|D s u2n |p dx

C |u|p dx R0ps B20R0 (yn )\BR0 (yn ) B20R0 (yn )\BR0 (yn ) Z Z C s p |D un | dx + ps |u|p dx +C Rn BRn (yn )\B Rn (yn ) BRn (yn )\B Rn (yn )

≤C

Z

≤C

Z

Z

|D s un |p dx +

20

20

s

B20R0 (yn )\BR0 (yn )

+C

Z

|D un | dx + C

BRn (yn )\B Rn (yn )

≤C

20

Z

BRn (yn )\BR0 (yn )

p

Z

p∗

|u| dx

B20R0 (yn )\BR0 (yn )

 Z |D s un |p dx + C 

∗

BRn (yn )\B Rn (yn ) 20

Z

ρn dx + C

BRn (yn )\BR0 (yn )

ρn dx

!

p p∗

!

p p∗



p p∗

|u|p dx p

≤ C(ε + ε p∗ )

The rest of the proof of tightness follows now verbatim from [16, Section I.2, Step 1], ruling out dichotomy. Therefore we can assume that ρn is tight up to translations, i.e. ∀ε > 0,

∃R :

Z

∀n

c (y ) BR n

ρn dx < ε.

Next we claim that {yn } is bounded, so that {ρn } is actually tight. To do so we follow [17, Theorem 2.4] toghether with lemma 3.2. Letting η as in lemma 3.2, define ηn (x) = η((x − yn )/R), u1n (x) = un (x)ηn (x) as before. By (2.1) it holds [un −

u1n ]ps,p

≤C

Z

RN

p

s

p

|1 − ηn | |D un | dx + C

Z

RN

|un |p |D s ηn |p dx.

The first integral is less than Cε and to estimate the second one, we split the integral on c (y ). On B (y ) observe that Lip(η ) = Lip(η)/R, so that by (2.2), B6R (yn ) and on B6R n 6R n n (3.3) (rescaled) and H¨older inequality C |un | |D ηn | dx ≤ ps R B6R (yn )

Z

p

s

p

Z

B6R (yn )

p

|un | dx ≤

≤ C |ρ|L1 (BRc (yn )) +

Z

B18R (yn )\B12R (yn )


p/p∗ |ρ|L1 (B c (yn )) R

|D s un |p + ∗

≤ C(ε + εp/p ).

|un |p dx Rps

10

S. A. MARANO AND S. MOSCONI

Similarly, by (2.3) and (3.4) (rescaled), Z

p

c (y ) B6R n

s

p

|un | |D ηn | dx ≤ CR

N

Z

c (y ) B6R n

|un |p dx ≤ C |x|N +ps p/p∗

Z

|Ds u|p +

B 9 R \B3R

|u|p dx Rps

2

∗

≤ C |ρ|L1 (BRc (yn )) + |ρ|L1 (B c (yn )) ≤ C(ε + εp/p ).


R

Therefore we have that ∗

[un − u1n ]ps,p ≤ C(ε + εp/p ) and the proof of the boundedness of {yn } follows as in [17, p. 64], and thus {ρn } is tight. The proof of the compactness of {un } finally follows from the so-called ”Second ConcentrationCompactness Lemma” as proved in [18, Theorem 2.5]. It suffices to substitute kukp∗ with kukα,q in the proof.  4. Decay estimates We now derive the relevant pointwise and Sobolev estimates. ˙ s,p (RN ) is radially non-increasing and Lemma 4.1. Let N > ps. Suppose that u ∈ W N s r N (−∆p ) u = f ∈ L (R ) for some 1 ≤ r < ps . Then 1

(4.1)

|u(R)| ≤

Ckf krp−1 N

R p−1

∀R > 0.

( 1r − ps ) N

Proof. Let R > 0. The function vR = min{u(R) − u(2R), (u − u(2R))+ } is of the form vR = g(u) with g non-decreasing and 1-Lipschitz. Moreover it belongs to ˙ s,p(RN ) and supp(vR ) ⊆ B2R . By Sobolev’s inequality, Lemma 2.4 and H¨older’s inequality W we have kvR kpp∗ ≤ C[vR ]ps,p ≤ C

Z

′

RN

(−∆p )s uvR dx ≤ Ckf kr kvR kr′ ≤ Ckf kr (u(R) − u(2R))(2R)N/r .

On the other hand vR = u(R) − u(2R) in BR , so that ∗

kvR kpp∗ ≥ (u(R) − u(2R))p RN , ∗

which, inserted into the previous inequality, gives (u(R) − u(2R))p R

N pp∗

′

≤ Ckf kr (u(R) − u(2R))RN/r .

Solving in u(R) − u(2R) we get 1

Ckf krp−1 , u(R) − u(2R) ≤ Rα Since r
0, and iterating the previous inequality we have 1

1

1

1

X 1 Ckf krp−1 Ckf krp−1 Ckf krp−1 +∞ Ckf krp−1 + u(2R) ≤ + + u(4R) ≤ · · · ≤ , u(R) ≤ α α α α R R (2R) R 2αi i=0

and which is the claimed (4.1).



ASYMPTOTICS FOR OPTIMIZERS OF THE FRACTIONAL HARDY-SOBOLEV INEQUALITY

11

˙ s,p (RN ) is a radially non-increasing function such that Lemma 4.2. Let N > ps. If u ∈ W N , then there exists a finite constant C = C(p, q, r) (−∆p )s u = f ∈ Lr (RN ) for some 1 ≤ r < ps such that 1

∀γ > r ∗ (p − 1).

[u]s,γ ≤ Ckf krp−1 ,

Proof. By abuse of notation we will write u(x) = u(|x|) and observe that limt→+∞ u(t) = 0. Define ui = min{u(2i−1 ) − u(2i ), (u − u(2i ))+ },

u0 = (u − u(1))+ ,

Ai = [2i−1 , 2i [,

A0 = [0, 1[

i ≥ 1,

i ≥ 1.

Suppose t ∈ Ak for some k ≥ 0. Then ui (t) =

 i−1 i   u(2 ) − u(2 )

u(t) −

if i > k, if i = k, if i < k.

u(2k )

  0

Therefore it holds

+∞ X

u(t) = u(t) − u(2k ) +

(4.2)

u(2i−1 ) − u(2i ) =

+∞ X

ui (t).

i=0

i=k+1

Let R > 0 and for any v : RN → R set vR (ω) = v(Rω). Notice that v ∈ W0s,γ (BR ) if and only if vR ∈ W0s,γ (B1 ) and by scaling it holds [v]γs,γ

|v(x) − v(y)|γ dxdy N +γs R2N |x − y| Z |vR (ω) − vR (ω ′ )|γ N −γs = R dω dω ′ = RN −γs [vR ]γs,γ . ′ |N +γs 2N x=Rω,y=Rω ′ |ω − ω R

=

Z

Let C be the immersion constant of W0s,γ (B1 ) ֒→ W0s,p (B1 ) and observe that since u is radially decreasing, ui ∈ W0s,γ (B2i ). Using twice the scaling property of [ ]s,p , it holds N

[ui ]s,γ = (2i ) γ

−s

N

[(ui )2i ]s,γ ≤ C(2i ) γ

−s

N

[(ui )2i ]s,p = (2i ) γ

−N p

[ui ]s,p .

Therefore by (4.2) and the triangle inequality we infer (4.3)

[u]s,γ ≤ C

+∞ X

N

N

(2i ) γ − p [ui ]s,p .

i=0

Now we estimate [ui ]s,p . We test the equation with ui , noting that ui = g(u) for some Lipschitz non-decreasing function g. Using Lemma 2.4 and the properties of ui , we obtain [ui ]ps,p

s

≤ h(−∆p ) u, ui i =

Z

N

RN

f ui dx ≤ u(2i−1 )kf kr (2i ) r′

and by (4.1) we obtain N

N

ps

1

[ui ]ps,p ≤ Ckf kpr (2i ) r′ + p−1 ( N − r ) . ′

Inserting this estimate into (4.3) we obtain 1

[u]s,γ ≤ Ckf krp−1

+∞ X

N

(2i ) γ

i=0

N −N + p1 ( N + p−1 ( ps − r1 )) p N r′

12

S. A. MARANO AND S. MOSCONI

and the sum is finite as long as 1 1 1 1 − + + γ p pr ′ p(p − 1)



ps 1 − N r



< 0,

⇔

N r(p − 1) . N − sr

γ>

 Remark 4.3. The two main ingredients of the previous lemma are the scaling properties of the Gagliardo seminorms and Lemma 2.4. We don’t know if submodularity alone (see [10, section 3.2]), together with scaling, suffices to prove the same energy estimate. If this is the case, more general operators may be considered. The proof of Theorem 1.1 will follow from the previous two lemmas and the following L1 estimate. Lemma 4.4. Let u be a nonnegative minimizer for (1.3) for λ = 1 (which exists as long as q > p, α ∈ ]0, ps[ and (1.2) holds). Then u is radially non-increasing around some point and solves (−∆p )s u = f for some f ∈ L1 (RN ). Proof. By Lemma 2.1 u is radially non-increasing around some point. By standard methods ˙ s,p (RN ), it holds, weakly in W (−∆p )s u = I

(4.4)

uq−1 . |x|α

Since q > p, we have 1 − pq ∈]0, 1[. Following the proof of [3, Proposition 3.3], for ε > 0, we take the Lipschitz increasing function ψε : [0, +∞) → [0, +∞) defined as ψε (t) =

Z t

− 1q

(ε + τ )

0

1 −1− q1 − τ (ε + τ ) q

p

dτ.

We observe that for t ≥ 0 (4.5)

0 ≤ ψε (t) ≤

Z

t

p 1 1 1− pq − pq − ε1− q ) ≤ t p ((ε + t) p (ε + t) 1− q 1− q

p

(ε + τ )− q dτ =

0

and define Ψε (t) :=

Z

t

0

t

1

ψε′ (τ ) p dτ =

1

.

(ε + t) q

Testing (4.4) with ϕ = ψε (u) ∈ D s,p(RN ) and using Lemma 2.4, we get [Ψε (u)]ps,p

s

≤ h(−∆p ) u, ψε (u)i = I

Z

RN

uq−1 ψε (u) dx. |x|α

Using (1.1) on the left hand term and (4.5) on the right hand one, we get Z

RN

uq dx ≤C u + ε |x|α

uq−1 ψε (u) dx |x|α

Z

RN

!q

p

Z

≤C

RN

up

dx uq−p p α (u + ε) q |x|

!q

p

For K0 > 0 we split the integral on the right hand side as Z

RN

(4.6)

q−p

u

up

dx = p α |x| (u + ε) q ≤

Z

{u≥K0 }

q− pq

u

Z

u

dx + |x|α

Z

q−p

{u≥K0 }

up

dx + p α |x| (u + ε) q

dx u |x|α {u