Topological Methods in Nonlinear Analysis

Volume 57, No. 2, 2021, 413–425

DOI: 10.12775/TMNA.2020.038

c 2021 Juliusz Schauder Centre for Nonlinear Studies
Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń

NON-LOCAL TO LOCAL TRANSITION FOR GROUND STATES

OF FRACTIONAL SCHRÖDINGER EQUATIONS
ON BOUNDED DOMAINS

Bartosz Bieganowski — Simone Secchi

Abstract. We show that ground state solutions to the nonlinear, frac-

tional problem
(
(−∆)s u + V (x)u = f (x, u) in Ω,
u=0 in RN \ Ω,
on a bounded domain Ω ⊂ RN , converge (along a subsequence) in L2 (Ω),
under suitable conditions on f and V , to a solution of the local problem as
s → 1− .

1. Introduction
The aim of this paper is to analyze the asymptotic behavior of least-energy
solutions to the fractional Schrödinger problem

(−∆)s u + V (x)u = f (x, u) in Ω,
(1.1)
u = 0 in RN \ Ω,

2020 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 35Q55; Secondary: 35A15, 35R11.

Key words and phrases. Variational methods; fractional Schrödinger equation; non-local
to local transition; ground state; Nehari manifold.
Bartosz Bieganowski was partially supported by the National Science Centre, Poland
(Grant No. 2017/25/N/ST1/00531).
Simone Secchi is a member of the Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi Matematica, la Proba-
bilità e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM).

413
414 B. Bieganowski — S. Secchi

in a bounded domain Ω ⊂ RN . We recall that the fractional Laplacian is defined

as a singular integral via the formula
u(x) − u(y)
Z
(−∆)s u(x) = C(N, s) lim dy
ε→0 RN \B (x) |x − y|N +2s
ε

with
1 − cos ζ1
Z
1
= dζ1 . . . dζN .
C(N, s) R N |ζ|N +2s
This formal definition needs of course a function space in which problem (1.1)
becomes meaningful: we will come to this issue in Sect. 2.
Several models have appeared in recent years that involve the use of the
fractional Laplacian. We only mention elasticity, turbulence, porous media flow,
image processing, wave propagation in heterogeneous high contrast media, and
stochastic models: see [1], [8], [13], [9].
Instead of fixing the value of the parameter s ∈ (0, 1), we will start from the
well-known identity (see [7, Proposition 4.4])
lim (−∆)s u = −∆u, u ∈ C0∞ (RN ),
s→1−

and investigate the convergence properties of solutions to (1.1) as s → 1. In view

of the previous limit, it is somehow natural to conjecture that solutions to (1.1)
converge to solutions of the problem

−∆u + V (x)u = f (x, u) in Ω,
(1.2)
u = 0 in RN \ Ω.

We do not know if this conjecture is indeed correct with this degree of generality,
but we will prove that this happens — up to a subsequence — for least-energy
solutions. Our result extends the very recent analysis of Biccari et al. (see [2])
in the linear case for the Poisson problem to the semilinear case. See also [4].
We collect our assumptions.
(N) N ≥ 3, 1/2 < s < 1.
(Ω) Ω ⊂ RN is a bounded domain with continuous boundary ∂Ω.
(V) V ∈ L∞ (Ω) and inf Ω V > 0.
(F1) f : Ω × R → R is a Carathéodory function, namely f ( · , u) is measur-
able for any u ∈ R and f (x, · ) is continuous for almost every x ∈ Ω.
Moreover, there are numbers C > 0 and p ∈ (2, 2N /(N − 1)) such that
|f (x, u)| ≤ C 1 + |u|p−1

for u ∈ R and almost every x ∈ Ω.

(F2) f (x, u) = o(u) as u → 0, uniformly with respect to x ∈ Ω.
(F3) lim F (x, u)/u2 = +∞ uniformly with respect to x ∈ Ω, where
|u|→+∞
Ru
F (x, u) = 0 f (x, s) ds.
 Non-Local to Local Transition 415

(F4) The function R \ {0} 3 u 7→ f (x, u)/u is strictly increasing on (−∞, 0)

and on (0, ∞), for almost every x ∈ Ω.

Remark 1.1. It follows from (F1) and (F2) that for every ε > 0 there is
Cε > 0 such that
|f (x, u)| ≤ ε|u| + Cε |u|p−1
for every u ∈ R and almost every x ∈ Ω. Furthermore, assumption (F4) implies
the validity of the inequality

f (x, u)u ≥ 2F (x, u)

for every u ∈ R and almost every x ∈ Ω.

We can now state our main result.

Theorem 1.2. Suppose that assumptions (N), (Ω), (V), (F1)–(F4) hold. For
1/2 < s < 1, let us ∈ H0s (Ω) be a ground state solution of problem (1.1). Then,
there is a sequence {sn }n ⊂ (1/2, 1) such that sn → 1 as n → +∞ and usn
converges in L2 (Ω) to a ground state solution u0 ∈ H01 (Ω) of problem (1.2).

Remark 1.3. Actually, see Corollary 4.3, it follows that usn converges to u0
in Lν (Ω) for every 2 ≤ ν < 2N /(N − 1).

Remark 1.4. Unlike in [2], we cannot expect a convergence of the family

{us }s as s → 1− , since solutions to (1.2) are not unique, in general.

The paper is organized as follows. The second section contains a short intro-
duction into fractional Sobolev spaces and the variational setting. In the third
section we give the sketch of the proof of existence of ground states to (1.1). The
fourth section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 1.2.

2. The variational setting

In this section we collect basic tools from the theory of fractional Sobolev
spaces we will need to prove our results. For a thorough discussion, we refer to
[10], [7] and to the references therein.
We define a Sobolev space on Ω as
|u(x) − u(y)|2
  Z 
H s (Ω) = u ∈ L2 (Ω) 

N +2s
dx dy < +∞ ,
Ω×Ω |x − y|

endowed with the norm

|u(x) − u(y)|2
Z
kuk2H s (Ω) = kuk2L2 (Ω) + dx dy.
Ω×Ω |x − y|N +2s
Furthermore, H0s (Ω) is the closure of C0∞ (Ω) with respect to the H s (Ω)-norm.
416 B. Bieganowski — S. Secchi

Definition 2.1. For 0 < s < 1, we define X s (Ω) as the set of all measurable
functions u : RN → R such that the restriction of u to Ω lies in L2 (Ω) and the
map
u(x) − u(y)
RN × RN 3 (x, y) 7→
|x − y|N/2−s


belongs to L2 (Q), where Q = RN × RN \ (Ωc × Ωc ) and Ωc = RN \ Ω. We also
define
X0s (Ω) = u ∈ X s (Ω) | u = 0 a.e. in RN \ Ω .


It is well known, see [10, Lemma 1.24], that X s (Ω) ⊂ H s (Ω) with a contin-
uous embedding, and that

X0s (Ω) = {u ∈ H s (Ω) | u = 0 on Ωc } .

Since we assume that Ω has a continuous boundary ∂Ω, C0∞ (Ω) is dense in X0s (Ω)
(see [10, Theorem 2.6]), so that actually X0s (Ω) = H0s (Ω) for such a domain Ω.
For u ∈ X0s (Ω), an equivalent norm of u is (see [10, Proposition 1.18])
2
kuk2X0s (Ω) = kuk2L2 (Ω) + (−∆)s/2 u L2 (RN ) .

More explicitly, for every u ∈ X0s (Ω),

|u(x) − u(y)|2
Z
2 (−∆)s/2 u 2 2 N ,

N +2s
dx dy = L (R )
RN ×RN |x − y| C(N, s)
where
s(1 − s)
C(N, s) = ,
A(N, s)B(s)
Z
dη
A(N, s) = ,
RN −1(1 + |η|2 )(N +2s)/2
1 − cos t
Z
B(s) = s(1 − s) 1+2s
dt.
R |t|

Lemma 2.2. For every u ∈ H 1 (RN ),

2 2
lim (−∆)s/2 u L2 (RN ) = ∇u L2 (RN ) .

s→1−

Proof. From [7, Proposition 3.6], we know that

|u(x) − u(y)|2
Z
(−∆)s/2 u 2 2 N = C(N, s)

L (R ) N +2s
dx dy.
2 RN ×RN |x − y|

From [7, Remark 4.3], we know that

|u(x) − u(y)|2
Z
ωN −1 2
lim (1 − s) N +2s
dx dy = k∇ukL2 (RN ) .
s→1− N
R ×R N |x − y| 2N
 Non-Local to Local Transition 417

Therefore, recalling [7, Corollary 4.2],

|u(x) − u(y)|2
 Z 
s/2 2
C(N, s)
lim (−∆) u L2 (RN ) = lim
(1 − s) N +2s
dx dy
s→1− s→1− 2(1 − s) RN ×RN |x − y|
1 4N ωN −1 2 2
= k∇ukL2 (RN ) = k∇ukL2 (RN ) . 
2 ωN −1 2N
On X0s (Ω) we introduce a new norm
Z
2 s/2 2
V (x)u2 dx, u ∈ X0s (Ω),

(2.1) kuks := (−∆) u L2 (RN ) +

Ω
which is, under (V), equivalent to k · kX0s (Ω) . Similarly we introduce the norm
on H01 (Ω) by putting
Z
(2.2) kuk2 := |∇u|2 + V (x)u2 dx, u ∈ H01 (Ω).
Ω

Corollary 2.3. For every u ∈ H01 (Ω) we have

lim kuks = kuk.
s→1−
The following convergence result will be used in the sequel.
Lemma 2.4. For every ϕ ∈ C0∞ (Ω),
lim k(−∆)s ϕ − (−∆)ϕkL2 (Ω) = 0.
s→1−
Proof. We notice that
(−∆)s ϕ − (−∆)ϕ 2 ≤ (−∆)s ϕ − (−∆)ϕ L2 (RN )

L (Ω)

= Fξ−1 |ξ|2s − |ξ|2 ϕ(ξ) 2 N ≤ C | · |2s − | · |2 ϕ

b L (R )
b L2 (RN )
where C > 0 is a constant, independent of s, that depends on the definition of
the Fourier transform F. It is now easy to conclude, since the Fourier transform
of a test function is a rapidly decreasing function. 
We will use the following embedding result.
Theorem 2.5 ([10]). If Ω has a continuous boundary ∂Ω, then the embedding
X0s (Ω) ⊂ Lν (Ω) is compact for every 1 ≤ ν < 2∗s , where 2∗s = 2N/(N − 2s).
We will need some precise information on the embedding constant for frac-
tional Sobolev spaces.
Theorem 2.6 ([6]). Let N > 2s and 2∗s = 2N/(N − 2s). Then
 
N − 2s
Γ
2 2
kuk2L2∗s (RN ) ≤   |S|−2s/N (−∆)s/2 u L2 (RN )

(2.3)
N + 2s
Γ
2


for every u ∈ H s RN , where S denotes the N -dimensional unit sphere and |S|
its surface area.
418 B. Bieganowski — S. Secchi

Lemma 2.7. Let N ≥ 3 and q ∈ [2, 2N/(N −1)]. Then there exists a constant
C = C(N, q) > 0 such that, for every s ∈ [1/2, 1] and every u ∈ X0s (Ω), we have

kukLq (Ω) ≤ C(N, q) (−∆)s/2 u L2 (RN ) .

Proof. Since Γ is a continuous function on the interval [(N − 2)/2, N/2]

which does not contain non-positive integers, the constant
 
N − 2s
Γ
2
  |S|−2s/N
N + 2s
Γ
2
in (2.3) is bounded from above independently of s ∈ [1/2, 1]. Therefore inequality
(2.3) holds true with a constant independent of s. Since obviously

kukL2 (Ω) ≤ kukX0s (Ω)

for every u ∈ X0s (Ω), we can fix any q ∈ [2, 2N/(N − 1)] and interpolate:
1 ϑs 1 − ϑs
= + .
q 2 2∗s
Explicitly,
2N − q(N − 2s)
ϑs =
2sq
and

kukLq (Ω) ≤ kukϑLs2 (Ω) kukL

1−ϑs
2∗
s (Ω)
≤ C(N, q)1−ϑs kukX0s (Ω) .

Since the function s 7→ ϑs is continuous in the interval [1/2, 1], the proof is
complete. 

Remark 2.8. It follows from the previous proof that the same result is true
for any s ∈ [s0 , 1], with s0 ∈ (0, 1) fixed.

Definition 2.9. A weak solution to problem (1.1) is a function u ∈ X0s (Ω)

such that
Z Z
(−∆)s/2 u | (−∆)s/2 ϕ L2 (RN ) +


V (x)uϕ dx = f (x, u)ϕ dx
Ω Ω

for every ϕ ∈ X0s (Ω).

Weak solutions are therefore critical points of the associated energy func-
tional Js : X0s (Ω) → R defined by
Z Z
1 2 1
Js (u) = (−∆)s/2 u L2 (RN ) + V (x)u2 dx − F (x, u) dx.
2 2 Ω Ω

We recall also the definition of a weak solution in the local case.

 Non-Local to Local Transition 419

Definition 2.10. A weak solution to problem (1.2) is a function u ∈ H01 (Ω)

such that
Z Z Z
∇u · ∇ϕ dx + V (x)uϕ dx = f (x, u)ϕ dx
Ω Ω Ω

for every ϕ ∈ H01 (Ω).

For the local problem (1.2) we put J : H01 (Ω) → R

Z Z
1 2 2
(2.4) J (u) = |∇u| + V (x)u dx − F (x, u) dx.
2 Ω Ω

Recalling the notation (2.1) and (2.2), we can rewrite our functionals in the form
Z
1
Js (u) = kuk2s − F (x, u) dx, u ∈ X0s (Ω),
2
ZΩ
1 2
J (u) = kuk − F (x, u) dx, u ∈ H01 (Ω).
2 Ω

3. Existence of ground states

We define the so-called Nehari manifolds
Ns := {u ∈ X0s (Ω) \ {0} | Js0 (u)(u) = 0},
N := {u ∈ H01 (Ω) \ {0} | J 0 (u)(u) = 0}.

Definition 3.1. A ground state of (1.1) is any minimum point of Js con-

strained on Ns . Similarly, a ground state of (1.2) is any minimum point of J
constrained on N .

To proceed, we show that ground states actually exist.

Proposition 3.2. For every s ∈ (0, 1], there exists a ground state solution
us ∈ Ns to (1.1). Moreover,
(3.1) Js (us ) = inf sup Js (tv) > 0.
v∈X0s (Ω)\{0} t≥0

Proof. The proof is rather standard, so we will present a sketch and refer
the reader to [3], [11], [12] for the details. Consider 0 < s < 1. It follows from our
assumptions that the Nehari manifold Ns is homeomorphic to the unit sphere
Ss in X0s (Ω). The homeomorphism ms : Ss → Ns is given by ms (u) = tu u,
where tu > 0 is the unique positive number such that tu u ∈ Ns . The inverse
m−1 −1
s : Ns → Ss is given by ms (u) = u/kuks . Moreover, Js ◦ ms : Ss → R
1
is still of class C . Then there is a Palais–Smale sequence {vn }n ⊂ Ss for
J ◦ ms . Moreover, we can show that the sequence {un }n ⊂ Ns given by un :=
ms (vn ) is a bounded Palais–Smale sequence for Js such that J (un ) → cs , where
cs := inf Ns Js > 0. Since X0s (Ω) is compactly embedded into Lν (Ω), for every
2 ≤ ν < 2∗s (see Theorem 2.5), it is easy to check that {un }n converges strongly
420 B. Bieganowski — S. Secchi

(up to a subsequence) in Lν (Ω) to a function u 6= 0 such that Js0 (u) = 0. Finally,

the properties of F yield
Z  Z 
1 2 1 2
Js (u) = kuks − F (x, u) dx ≤ lim inf kun ks − F (x, un ) dx
2 Ω n→+∞ 2 Ω
= lim inf Js (un ) = cs .
n→+∞

The proof for the case s = 1 is similar. 

4. Non-local to local transition

For any s ∈ (1/2, 1) we define cs := inf Js > 0. Similarly, we put also
Ns
c := inf J > 0. For any v ∈ X0s (Ω) \ {0} we let ts (v) > 0 be the unique positive
N
real number such that ts (v)v ∈ Ns . Then we put ms (v) := ts (v)v (see the proof
of Proposition 3.2).

Lemma 4.1. It holds lim sup cs ≤ c.

s→1−

Proof. Take u ∈ H01 (Ω) ⊂ X0s (Ω) as a ground state solution of (1.2), in
particular u ∈ N and J (u) = c, where J is given by (2.4). Consider the function
ms (u) ∈ Ns . Obviously cs ≤ Js (ms (u)). Hence

lim sup cs ≤ lim sup Js (ms (u))

s→1− s→1−
 
1
= lim sup Js (ms (u)) − Js0 (ms (u))(ms (u))
s→1− 2
 Z 
1
= lim sup f (x, ms (u))ms (u) − 2F (x, ms (u)) dx .
s→1− 2 Ω
Recall that ms (u) = ts u for some real numbers ts > 0. Suppose by contradiction
that ts → +∞ as s → 1− . Then, in view of the Nehari identity,
Z Z
2 f (x, ts u) F (x, ts u) 2
kuks = 2
ts u dx ≥ 2 u dx → +∞,
Ω ts Ω t2s u2
but the left-hand side stays bounded (see Corollary 2.3). Hence (ts )s is bounded.
Take any convergent subsequence (tsn ) of (ts ), i.e. tsn → t0 as n → +∞. Ob-
viously t0 ≥ 0. We will show that t0 6= 0. Indeed, suppose that t0 = 0, i.e.
tsn → 0. Then, in view of the Nehari identity
Z
2 f (x, tsn u) 2
kuksn = u dx.
Ω tsn u
By Corollary 2.3, kuk2sn → kuk2 > 0. Hence, in view of (F2),
Z
2 f (x, tsn u) 2
kuk + o(1) = u dx → 0,
Ω tsn u
 Non-Local to Local Transition 421

a contradiction. Hence t0 > 0. Again, by Corollary 2.3,

t2sn kuk2sn → t20 kuk2 as n → +∞.
Moreover, in view of Remark 1.1,
|f (x, tsn u)tsn u| ≤ εt2sn |u|2 + Cε tpsn |u|p ≤ C(|u|2 + |u|p )
for some constant C > 0, independent of n. In view of the Lebesgue convergence
theorem Z Z
f (x, tsn u)tsn u dx → f (x, t0 u)t0 u dx.
Ω Ω
Thus the limit t0 satisfies
Z
t20 kuk2 = f (x, t0 u)t0 u dx.
Ω
Taking the Nehari identity into account we see that t0 = 1. Hence ts → 1 as
s → 1− . Repeating the same argument we see that
 Z 
1
lim sup f (x, ms (u))ms (u) − 2F (x, ms (u)) dx
s→1− 2 Ω
Z
1
= f (x, u)u − 2F (x, u) dx = J (u) = c
2 Ω
and the proof is completed. 

Lemma 4.2. There exists a constant M > 0 such that

kus kL2 (Ω) + kus ks ≤ M for every s ∈ (1/2, 1).

Proof. Note that kus kL2 (Ω) ≤ Ckus ks , for some C > 0 independent of s.
So it is enough to show that kus ks ≤ M . Suppose by contradiction that
kus ks → +∞ as s → 1− .
Put vs := us /kus ks . Then kvs ks = 1, so [5, Corollary 7] implies that vs →
v0 in L2 (Ω) for some v0 ∈ H01 (Ω). From Lemma 2.7, {vs }s is bounded in
L2N /(N −1) (Ω). Take any ν ∈ (2, 2N /(N − 1)) and by the interpolation inequa-
lity
kvs − v0 kLν (Ω) ≤ kvs − v0 kϑL2 (Ω) kvs − v0 k1−ϑ
L2N /(N −1) (Ω)
→0 as s → 1− ,

where ϑ ∈ (0, 1) is chosen so that

1 ϑ 1−ϑ
= + .
ν 2 2N /(N − 1)
Hence vs → v0 in Lν (Ω) for all 2 ≤ ν < 2N /(N − 1). In particular, we can
choose a sequence {vsn }n such that vsn (x) → v0 (x) for almost every x ∈ Ω.
Note that, from Lemma 4.1, we know that {Jsn (usn )}n is bounded. We will
consider two cases.
422 B. Bieganowski — S. Secchi

Case 1. Suppose that v0 = 0. Fix any t > 0. By (3.1) we obtain

t2
  Z
t
Jsn (usn ) ≥ Jsn usn = Jsn (tvsn ) = − F (x, tvsn ) dx.
kusn ksn 2 Ω

From Remark 1.1 we see that

Z
F (x, tvsn ) dx ≤ εt2 kvsn k2L2 (Ω) + Cε tp kvsn kpLp (Ω) → 0.
Ω

Hence, for any t > 0,

t2
Jsn (usn ) ≥
+ o(1),
2
which is a contradiction with the boundedness of {Jsn (usn )}n .
Case 2. Suppose that v0 6= 0, i.e., |supp v0 | > 0. Note that for almost every
x ∈ supp v0 we have

|usn (x)| = kusn ksn |vsn (x)| → +∞.

Hence, taking into account the boundedness of {Jsn (usn )}n and Fatou’s lemma,
Js (us )
Z
1 F (x, usn ) 2
o(1) = n 2n = − vsn dx
kusn ksn 2 Ω u2sn
Z
1 F (x, usn ) 2
≤ − vsn dx → −∞,
2 supp v0 u2sn
again a contradiction. 

Corollary 4.3. There is u0 ∈ H01 (Ω) and a sequence {sn }n such that

sn → 1− and usn → u0 in Lν (Ω) as n → +∞

for all ν ∈ [2, 2N/(N − 1)).

Proof. From Lemma 4.2 and [5, Corollary 7] we note that usn → u0 in
L2 (Ω) for some u0 ∈ H01 (Ω) and sequence {sn }n . In view of Lemma 2.7 there is
a constant C > 0 (independent of s) such that

kusn kL2N /(N −1) (Ω) ≤ Ckusn ksn .

In particular, {usn }n is bounded in L2N /(N −1) (Ω). Then, for any ν ∈ (2, 2N/
(N − 1)), we have

lim sup kusn − u0 kLν (Ω) ≤ lim sup kusn − u0 kϑL2 (Ω) kusn − u0 k1−ϑ
L2N /(N −1) (Ω)
= 0,
n→+∞ n→+∞

where ϑ ∈ (0, 1) is chosen so that

1 ϑ 1−ϑ
= + . 
ν 2 2N /(N − 1)
Lemma 4.4. The limit u0 is a weak solution for (1.2).
 Non-Local to Local Transition 423

Proof. Take any test function ϕ ∈ C0∞ (RN ) and note that by [14, Section 6]
we have Z Z
sn /2 sn /2
(−∆) usn (−∆) ϕ dx = usn (−∆)sn ϕ dx.
RN RN
Moreover,
Z Z 
sn
 

 usn (−∆) ϕ dx − u0 (−∆ϕ) dx 
RN RN
Z Z 
usn (−∆)sn ϕ dx −
 
=  u0 (−∆ϕ) dx 
 ZΩ Ω
Z 
usn ((−∆)sn ϕ − (−∆ϕ)) dx + (usn − u0 )(−∆ϕ) dx 
 
= 
Ω Ω
≤ kusn kL2 (Ω) k(−∆)sn ϕ − (−∆ϕ)kL2 (Ω)
+ k(−∆ϕ)kL2 (Ω) kusn − u0 kL2 (Ω) → 0.

Hence
Z Z Z
sn /2 sn /2
lim (−∆) usn (−∆) ϕ dx = u0 (−∆ϕ) dx = ∇u0 · ∇ϕ dx.
n→+∞ RN RN Ω

Obviously
Z Z
lim V (x)usn ϕ dx = V (x)u0 ϕ dx.
n→+∞ Ω Ω
Take any measurable set E ⊂ Ω and note that, taking into account Remark 1.1,
Z
|f (x, usn )ϕ| dx ≤ εkusn kL2 (Ω) kϕχE kL2 (Ω) + Cε kusn kp−1
Lp (Ω) kϕχE kLp (RN ) .
E

Hence the family {f ( · , usn )ϕ}n is uniformly integrable on Ω and in view of the
Vitali convergence theorem
Z Z
lim f (x, usn )ϕ dx = f (x, u0 )ϕ dx.
n→+∞ Ω Ω

Therefore u0 satisfies
Z Z Z
∇u0 · ∇ϕ dx + V (x)u0 ϕ dx = f (x, u0 )ϕ dx,
Ω Ω Ω

i.e., u0 is a weak solution to (1.2). 

Lemma 4.5. Since us ∈ Ns there is (independent of s) constant ρ such that

kus ks ≥ ρ > 0.

Proof. Since us ∈ Ns , we can write by Remark 1.1

Z
kus k2s = f (x, us )us dx ≤ εkus k2L2 (Ω) + Cε kus kpLp (Ω)
Ω
≤ C εkus k2s + Cε kus kps


424 B. Bieganowski — S. Secchi

for a constant C > 0 independent of s. Choosing ε > 0 small enough, we

conclude that
1 − Cε
kus ksp−2 ≥ =: ρ > 0. 
C · Cε
Lemma 4.6. We have u0 6= 0 and therefore u0 ∈ N .

Proof. If u0 = 0, then usn → 0 in L2 (Ω) and in Lp (Ω). Then

Z
kusn ksn = f (x, usn )usn dx → 0,
Ω
a contradiction. 

Lemma 4.7. We have lim inf csn ≥ c.

n→+∞

Proof. Since usn ∈ Nsn , then by Corollary 4.3,

 
1 0
lim inf csn = lim inf Jsn (usn ) = lim inf Jsn (usn ) − Jsn (usn )(usn )
n→+∞ n→+∞ n→+∞ 2
 Z 
1
= lim inf f (x, usn )usn − 2F (x, usn ) dx
n→+∞ 2 Ω
Z
1
= f (x, u0 )u0 − 2F (x, u0 ) dx = J (u0 ) ≥ c. 
2 Ω
Lemma 4.8. The function u0 ∈ H01 (Ω) is a ground state solution to (1.2).

Proof. Note that, from Lemmas 4.1 and 4.7 we have

lim inf csn ≥ c ≥ lim sup cs ≥ lim sup csn .
n→+∞ s→1− n→+∞

Hence lim csn exists and lim csn = c. From the proof of Lemma 4.7 we
n→+∞ n→+∞
have
lim csn = J (u0 ).
n→+∞
Thus J (u0 ) = c. 

Proof of Theorem 1.2. The statement is a direct consequence of Corol-

lary 4.3 and Lemma 4.8. 

References
[1] O.G. Bakunin, Turbulence and Diffusion: Scaling Versus Equations, Springer, Berlin,
2008.
[2] U. Biccari and V. Hernández-Santamarı́a, The Poisson equation from non-local to
local, Electron. J. Differential Equations 2018 (2018), no. 145, 1–13.
[3] B. Bieganowski and J. Mederski, Nonlinear Schrödinger equations with sum of periodic
and vanishing potentials and sign-changing nonlinearities, Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 17
(2018), 143–161.
[4] J.P. Borthagaray and P. Ciarlet Jr., On the convergence in the H 1 -norm for the
fractional Laplacian, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 57 (2019), Issue 4, 1723–1743.
 Non-Local to Local Transition 425

[5] J. Bourgain, H. Brezis and P. Mironescu, Another look at Sobolev spaces, Optimal
Control and Partial Differential Equations, IOS, Amsterdam, 2001, pp. 439–455
[6] A. Cotsiolis and N. Tavoularis, Best constants for Sobolev inequalities for higher order
fractional derivatives, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 295 (2004), 225–236.
[7] E. Di Nezza, G. Palatucci and E. Valdinoci, Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional
Sobolev spaces, Bull. Sci. Math. 136 (2012), 521–573.
[8] S. Dipierro, G. Palatucci and E. Valdinoci, Dislocation dynamics in crystals:
A macroscopic theory in a fractional Laplace setting, Comm. Math. Phys. 333 (2015),
no. 2, 1061–1105.
[9] G. Gilboa and S. Osher, Nonlocal operators with applications to image processing, Mul-
tiscale Model. Simul. 7 (2008), no. 3, 1005–1028.
[10] G. Molica Bisci, V. Radulescu and R. Servadei, Variational Methods for Nonlocal
Fractional Problems, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications, vol. 162, Cam-
bridge University Press, 2016.
[11] A. Szulkin and T. Weth, Ground state solutions for some indefinite variational prob-
lems, J. Funct. Anal. 257 (2009), no. 12, 3802–3822.
[12] A. Szulkin and T. Weth, The method of Nehari manifold, Handbook of Nonconvex
Analysis and Applications (David Yang Gao and Dumitru Motreanu, eds.), International
Press, Boston, 2010, pp. 597–632.
[13] J.L. Vázquez, Nonlinear diffusion with fractional Laplacian operators, Nonlinear Par-
tial Differential Equations (Oslo, 2010), Abel Symp., vol. 7, Springer, Heidelberg, 2012,
pp. 271–298.
[14] M. Warma, The fractional relative capacity and the fractional Laplacian with Neumann
and Robin boundary conditions on open sets, Potential Anal. 42 (2015), no. 2, 499–547.

Manuscript received December 12, 2019

accepted February 12, 2020

Bartosz Bieganowski
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2037-1573
Nicolaus Copernicus University
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
ul. Chopina 12/18
87-100 Toruń, POLAND
E-mail address: [email protected]

Simone Secchi
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9307-1347
Dipartimento di Matematica e Applicazioni
Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca
via Roberto Cozzi 55
I-20125, Milano, ITALY
E-mail address: [email protected]

TMNA : Volume 57 – 2021 – No 2