A nonsmooth critical point theory approach

to some nonlinear elliptic equations in IRn

Filippo Gazzola
Dipartimento di Scienze T.A. - via Cavour 84, 15100 Alessandria Italy

Vicentiu Radulescu
Department of Mathematics, Univ. of Craiova - 1100 Craiova Romania

Abstract
We determine nontrivial solutions of some semilinear and quasilinear elliptic problems on IRn ;
we make use of two different nonsmooth critical point theories which allow to treat two kinds of
nonlinear problems. A comparison between the possible applications of the two theories is also
made.

Introduction

Consider a functional J defined on some Banach space B and having a mountain-pass geometry: the
celebrated theorem by Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz [1] states that if J C 1 (B) and J satisfies the PalaisSmale condition (PS condition in the sequel) then J admits a nontrivial critical point. In this paper
we drop these two assumptions: in order to determine nontrivial solutions of some nonlinear elliptic
equations in IRn (n 3), we use the mountain-pass principle for a class of nonsmooth functionals which
do not satisfy the PS condition. More precisely, we consider a model elliptic problem first studied by
Rabinowitz [14] with the C 1 -theory and we extend his results by means of the nonsmooth critical point
theories of Clarke [6, 7] and Degiovanni et al. [9, 10]: one of the purposes of this paper is to emphasize
some differences between these two theories. This study was inspired by previous work on the existence
of standing wave solutions of nonlinear Schr
odinger equations: after making a standing wave ansatz,
Rabinowitz reduces the problem to that of studying the semilinear elliptic equation
u + b(x)u = f (x, u)

in IRn

(1)

under suitable conditions on b and assuming that f is smooth, superlinear and subcritical.
To explain our results we introduce some functional spaces. We denote by Lp the space of measurable
R
functions u of p-th power absolutely summable on IRn , that is, satisfying kukpp := IRn |u|p < +; by H 1
R
we denote the Sobolev space normed by kuk2H 1 := IRn (|Du|2 + |u|2 ). We will assume that the function
1

b in (1) is greater than some positive constant; then we define the Hilbert space E of all functions
R
u : IRn IR with kuk2E := IRn (|Du|2 + b(x)u2 ) < . We denote by E the dual space of E: as E is
continuously embedded in H 1 we also have H 1 E .
We first consider the case where () in (1) is replaced by a quasilinear elliptic operator: we seek
positive weak solutions u E of the problem

n
X

Dj (aij (x, u)Di u) +

i,j=1

n
aij
1 X
(x, u)Di uDj u + b(x)u = f (x, u)
2 i,j=1 s

in IRn .

(2)

Note that if aij (x, s) ij , then (2) reduces to (1). Here and in the sequel, by positive solution we
mean a nonnegative nontrivial solution. To determine weak solutions of (2) we look for critical points
of the functional J : E IR defined by
1
J(u) =
2

n
X

1
aij (x, u)Di uDj u +
n
2
IR i,j=1

IRn

b(x)u

IRn

F (x, u)

u E ,

where F (x, s) = 0s f (x, t)dt. Under reasonable assumptions on aij , b, f , the functional J is continuous
but not even locally Lipschitz, see [4]: therefore, we cannot work in the classical framework of critical
point theory. Nevertheless, the Gateaux-derivative of J exists in the smooth directions, i.e. for all
u E and Cc we can define
R

J 0 (u)[] =

IRn

n h
X

i,j=1

i
1 aij
(x, u)Di uDj u + b(x)u f (x, u) .
aij (x, u)Di uDj +
2 s

According to the nonsmooth critical point theory developed in [9, 10] we know that critical points u of
J satisfy J 0 (u)[] = 0 for all Cc and hence solve (2) in distributional sense; moreover, since

n
X

Dj (aij (x, u)Di u) + b(x)u f (x, u) E

i,j=1

we also have

n
1 X
aij
(x, u)Di uDj u E
2 i,j=1 s

and (2) is solved in the weak sense ( E). We refer to [4] for the adaptation of this theory to
quasilinear equations of the kind of (2) and to [8, 11] for applications in the case of unbounded domains
and for further references. Under suitable assumptions on aij , b, f and by using the above mentioned
tools we will prove that (2) admits a positive weak solution.
Next, we take into account the case where f is not continuous: let f (x, ) L
loc (IR) and denote
f (x, s) = lim essinf {f (x, t); |t s| < }

f (x, s) = lim esssup {f (x, t); |t s| < } ;

&0

&0

our aim is to determine u E such that

u + b(x)u [f (x, u), f (x, u)]
2

in IRn .

(3)

Positive solutions u of (3) satisfy

0 I(u) ,
where
I(u) =

1
2

IRn

(|Du|2 + b(x)u2 )

IRn

F (x, u+ )

u E

and I(u) stands for the Clarke gradient [6, 7] of the locally Lipschitz energy functional I; more
precisely,



0
I(u) = E ; I (u; v) h, vi , v E ,
where
I 0 (u; v) = lim sup
wu
&0

I(w + v) I(w)
.

(4)

This problem may be reformulated, equivalently, in terms of hemivariational inequalities as follows:

find u E such that
Z

IRn

(DuDv + b(x)uv) +

IRn

(F )0 (x, u; v) 0

v E ,

(5)

where (F )0 (x, u; v) denotes the Clarke directional derivative of (F ) at u(x) with respect to v(x) and
is defined as in (4). So, when f (x, ) is not continuous, Clarkes theory will enable us to prove that (3)
admits a positive solution.
The two existence results stated in next section have several points in common: in both cases we first
prove that the corresponding functional has a mountain-pass geometry and that a PS sequence can be
built at a suitable infmax level. Then we prove that the PS sequence is bounded and that its weak limit
is a solution of the problem considered; the final step is to prove that this solution is not the trivial
one: to this end we use the concentration-compactness principle [12] and the behaviour of the function
b at infinity. However, the construction of a PS sequence and the proof that its weak limit is a solution
are definitely different: they highlight the different tools existing in the two theories.

Main results

Let us first state our results concerning (2). We require the coefficients aij (i, j = 1, ..., n) to satisfy

aij aji

aij (x, ) C 1 (IR) for a.e. x IRn

a (x, s), aij (x, s) L (IRn IR) ;

ij
s
moreover, on the matrices [aij (x, s)] and [s
> 0

such that

n
X

aij
s (x, s)]

we make the following assumptions:

aij (x, s)i j ||2

i,j=1

(6)

for a.e. x IRn , s IR, IRn

(7)

(2, 2 ) , (0, 2) such that

n
n
X
X
aij

s
(x,
s)

aij (x, s)i j

i
j

(8)

i,j=1

i,j=1

We require that b

for a.e. x IRn , s IR, IRn .

n
L
loc (IR )

and that

b > 0

such that b(x) b

for a.e. x IRn

(9)

ess lim b(x) = + .

|x|

Let be as in (8), assume that f (x, s) 6 0 and

f : IRn IR IR is a Caratheodory function

f (x, 0) = 0
for a.e. x IRn

0 F (x, s) sf (x, s)
s 0 and for a.e. x IRn ;

(10)

moreover, we require f to be subcritical

> 0

2n

f L n+2 (IRn ) such that

n+2

|f (x, s)| f (x) + |s| n2

Finally, for all (2, 2 ) define q() =

C 0 ,

s IR and for a.e. x IR .

2n
2n+(2n) :

(2, 2 ) ,

(11)
n

then we assume1

G Lq() (IRn )

F (x, s) G(x)|s| + C|s|2

such that

(12)

s IR and for a.e. x IRn .

In Section 3 we will prove

Theorem 1 Assume (6)-(12); then (2) admits a positive weak solution u
E.
Let us turn to the problem (3): we assume that f : IRn IR IR is a (nontrivial) measurable function
such that
|f (x, s)| C(|s| + |s|p ) for a.e. (x, s) IRn IR ,
(13)
n+2
where C is a positive constant and 1 < p < n2
. Here we do not assume that f (x, ) is continuous:
Rs
nevertheless, if we define F (x, s) = 0 f (x, t)dt we observe that F is a Caratheodory function which is
locally Lipschitz with respect to the second variable. We also observe that the functional

(u) =
1

IRn

F (x, u)

One could also consider the case = 2: in such case one also needs kGkn/2 to be sufficiently small.

is locally Lipschitz on E. Indeed, by (13), Holders inequality and the embedding E Lp+1 ,
|(u) (v)| C(kukE , kvkE )ku vkE ,
where C(kukE , kvkE ) > 0 depends only on max{kukE , kvkE }.
We impose to f the following additional assumptions



 f (x, s) 
n


lim esssup 
; (x, s) IR (, ) = 0
&0
s 

(14)

and there exists > 2 such that

0 F (x, s) sf (x, s)

for a.e. (x, s) IRn [0, +) .

(15)

In Section 4 we will prove

Theorem 2 Under hypotheses (9), (13)-(15), problem (3) has at least a positive solution in E.
Remark. The couple of assumptions (11) (12) is equivalent to the couple (13) (14) in the sense that
Theorems 1 and 2 hold under any one of these couples of assumptions.
2
It seems not possible to use the above mentioned nonsmooth critical point theories to obtain an existence
result for the quasilinear operator of (2) in the presence of a function f which is discontinuous with
respect to the second variable; indeed, to prove that critical points of J (in the sense of [9, 10]) solve (2)
in distributional sense, one needs, for all given Cc , the continuity of the map u 7 J 0 (u)[], see [4].
3n
Even if J 6 C 1 (E), we have at least J C 1 (W 1,p E) for p n+1
: this smoothness property in a finer
topology is in fact the basic (hidden) tool used in Theorem 1.5 in [4]; however, one cannot prove the
boundedness of the PS sequences in the W 1,p norm. On the other hand, the theory developed in [6, 7]
only applies to Lipschitz continuous functionals and therefore it does not allow to manage quasilinear
operators as that in (2).

Proof of Theorem 1

Throughout this section we assume (6)-(12): by (6) and (8) we have

u E =

n
X
aij

i,j=1

(x, u)Di uDj uu L1 (IRn )

(16)

and therefore J 0 (u)[u] can be written in integral form.

We first remark that positive solutions of (2) correspond to critical points of the functional J+ defined
by
Z
Z
Z
n
X
1
1
J+ (u) :=
aij (x, u)Di uDj u +
b(x)u2
F (x, u+ )
u E ,
2 IRn i,j=1
2 IRn
IRn
where u+ denotes the positive part of u, i.e. u+ (x) = max(u(x), 0).
5

0 (u)[] = 0 for all C ; then u is a weak positive solution of (2).

Lemma 1 Let u E satisfy J+
c

For the proof of this result we refer to [8]; without loss of generality we can therefore suppose that
f (x, s) = 0

for a.e. x IRn

s 0 ,

and, from now on, we make this assumption; for simplicity we denote J instead of J+ .
Let us establish the following boundedness criterion which applies, in particular, to PS sequences2 :
Lemma 2 Every sequence {um } E satisfying
|J(um )| C1

|J 0 (um )[um ]| C2 kum kE

and

is bounded in E.
Proof. Consider {um } E such that |J(um )| C1 , then by (10) we get
Im :=

1
2

n
X

IRn i,j=1

aij (x, um )Di um Dj um

IRn

f (x, um )um +

1
2

IRn

b(x)u2m C1 ;

by (16) we can evaluate J 0 (um )[um ] and by the assumptions we have


Z
Z
n
n
X
X

1
aij

a
(x,
u
)D
u
D
u
+
(x, um )Di um Dj um um +
ij
m
i m j m
 n
2 IRn i,j=1 s
 IR i,j=1

Z
Z

2 

f (x, um )um +
b(x)um  C2 kum kE .
n
n
IR

IR

Therefore, by (8) and computing Im 1 J 0 (um )[um ] we get

2
2

n
X

2
aij (x, um )Di um Dj um +
n
2
IR i,j=1

IRn

b(x)u2m C3 kum kE + C1 ;

by (7) this yields C4 > 0 such that C4 kum k2E C3 kum kE + C1 and the result follows.

Let us denote by Eloc the space of functions u satisfying (|Du|2 + b(x)u2 ) < for all bounded open
its dual space; we establish that the weak limit of a PS sequence solves (2):
set IRn and by Eloc
R

Lemma 3 Let {um } be a bounded sequence in E satisfying

n
X

1
aij (x, um )Di um Dj +
n
2
IR i,j=1

n
X
aij

IRn i,j=1

Cc

(x, um )Di um Dj um = hm , i

to some E . Then, up to a subsequence, {u } E converges in

with {m } converging in Eloc
m
loc
Eloc to some u E satisfying
n
X

1
aij (x, u)Di uDj +
n
2
IR i,j=1

Z
2

n
X
aij

IRn i,j=1

(x, u)Di uDj u = h, i

Cc .

We refer to [4, 9, 10] for the definition of PS sequences in our nonsmooth critical point framework.

Proof. As b is uniformly positive and locally bounded, for all bounded open set IRn we have
Z

(|Du|2 + b(x)u2 ) <

(|Du|2 + u2 ) < ;

therefore the proof is essentially the same as Lemma 3 in [8]: the basic tool is Theorem 2.1 in [3] which
is used following the idea of [4].
2
The previous results allow to prove
Proposition 1 Assume that {um } E is a PS sequence for J; then there exists u
E such that (up
to a subsequence)
(i) um * u
in E
(ii) um u
in Eloc
(iii) u
0 and u
solves (2) in weak sense.
Proof. By Lemma 2, the sequence {um } is bounded and (i) follows. To obtain (ii) it suffices to apply
Lemma 3 with m = m + f (x, um ) b(x)um E where m 0 in E : indeed, if um * u in E, then
with = f (x, u) b(x)u. Finally, (iii) follows from Lemmas 1 and 3.
m in Eloc
2
In order to build a PS sequence for the functional J we apply the mountain-pass Lemma [1] in the
nonsmooth version [10], see also Theorem 2.1 in [2]: let us check that J has such a geometrical structure.
First note that J(0) = 0; as the function F is superquadratic at +, we may choose a nonnegative
function e such that
e Cc , e 0 and J(te) < 0 t > 1 .
Moreover, it is easy to check that there exist , > 0 such that < kekE and J(u) if kukE = :
indeed by (12) we infer
Z

IRn

F (x, u) kGkq() kuk2 + Ckuk22 ;

hence, by (7) we have J(u) C1 kuk2E C2 kukE C3 kuk2E and the existence of , follows.
So, J has a mountain pass geometry; if we define the class
:= { C([0, 1]; E); (0) = 0, (1) = e}

(17)

:= inf max J((t)) ,

(18)

and the minimax value

t[0,1]

the existence of a PS sequence for J at level follows by the results of [9, 10].
We have so proved
Proposition 2 Let and be as in (17) (18); then J admits a PS sequence {um } at level .
As we are on an unbounded domain, the problem lacks compactness and we cannot infer that the above
PS sequence converges strongly; however, by using Proposition 1, the weak limit u
of the PS sequence
is a nonnegative solution of (2): the main problem is that it could be u
0. To prove that this is not
the case we make use of the following technical result:
7

Lemma 4 There exist p (2, 2 ) and C > 0 such that ku+

m kp C.
Proof. Using the relations J 0 (um )[um ] = o(1) and J(um ) = + o(1), by assumptions (8) and (10) we
have
2 = 2J(um ) J 0 (um )[um ] + o(1)
=

[f (x, u+
m )um

f (x, u+
m )um + o(1) .

IRn

IRn

2F (x, u+
m )]

n
X
aij

IRn i,j=1

(x, um )Di um Dj um um + o(1)

2n

Then, by (11), for all > 0 there exists f L n+2 (IRn ) such that
2

IRn

+ 2
|f (x)u+
m (x)| + kum k2 :

as kum k2 is bounded, one can choose > 0 so that

IRn

|f (x)u+
m (x)| .

(19)
2n

2n
Now take r ( n+2
, 2): then for all > 0 there exist f Lr and f L n+2 such that

f = f + f

and

kf k

2n
n+2

Then, by (19) and Holders inequality we infer

+
kf kr ku+
m kp + kum k2
r
r1 ;

as kum k2 is bounded, one can choose > 0 so that

kf kr ku+
m kp
2
and the result follows.
where p =

p
By the previous Lemma we deduce that {u+
m } does not converge strongly to 0 in L . Taking into
+
account that ku+
m k2 and kum k2 are bounded, by Lemma I.1 p. 231 in [12], we infer that the sequence
n
2
{u+
m } does not vanish in L , i.e. there exists a sequence {ym } IR and C > 0 such that

ym +BR

2
|u+
m| C

(20)

for some R. We claim that the sequence {ym } is bounded: if not, up to a subsequence, it follows by
(9) that
Z
b(x)u2m +
IRn

which contradicts J(um ) = + o(1). Therefore, by (20), there exists an open bounded set IRn
such that
Z
|um |2 C > 0 .
(21)

So, consider the PS sequence found in Proposition 2; by Proposition 1, it converges in the L2loc topology
to some nonnegative function u
which solves (2) in weak sense; finally, (21) entails u
6 0.
The proof of Theorem 1 is complete.
8

Proof of Theorem 2

In this section we assume (9) and (13)-(15); moreover, we set f (x, s) 0 for s 0.
To prove Theorem 2, it is sufficient to show that the functional I has a critical point u0 C, C being
the cone of positive functions of E. Indeed,
I(u) = u + b(x)u (u)

in E ,

and, by Theorem 2.2 of [5] and Theorem 3 of [13], we have

(u) [f (x, u(x)), f (x, u(x))]

for a.e. x IRn ,

in the sense that if w (u) then

f (x, u(x)) w(x) f (x, u(x))

for a.e. x IRn .

(22)

Thus, if u0 is a critical point of I, then there exists w (u0 ) such that

u0 + b(x)u0 = w

in E .

The existence of u0 will be justified by a nonsmooth variant of the mountain-pass Lemma (see Theorem
1 of [15]), even if the PS condition is not fulfilled. More precisely, we verify the following geometric
hypotheses:
I(0) = 0 and v E such that I(v) 0
(23)
, > 0

such that I

on {u E; kukE = } .

(24)

Verification of (23). It is obvious that I(0) = 0. For the second assertion we need
Lemma 5 There exist two positive constants C1 and C2 such that
f (x, s) C1 s1 C2

for a.e. (x, s) IRn [0, +) .

(25)

Proof. From the definition we clearly have

f (x, s) f (x, s)

a.e. in IRn [0, +) .

(26)

Then, by (15),
for a.e. (x, s) IRn [0, +) ,

0 F (x, s) sf (x, s)
where
F (x, s) =

(27)

f (x, t)dt .

By (27), there exist R > 0 and K1 > 0 such that

F (x, s) K1 s

for a.e. (x, s) IRn [R, +) .

9

(28)

The inequality (25) follows now by (26), (27) and (28).

Verification of (23) continued. Choose v Cc (IRn ) \ {0} so that v 0 in IRn ; we obviously have
Z

IRn

(|Dv|2 + b(x)v 2 ) < + .

Then, by Lemma 5,
I(tv) =
t2

t2
2

IRn

IRn

(|Dv|2 + b(x)v 2 ) (tv)

2

(|Dv| + b(x)v ) + C2 t

IRn

C10 t

IRn

v < 0 ,

for t > 0 large enough.

Verification of (24). First observe that (13) and (14) imply that, for any > 0, there exists a constant
A such that
|f (x, s)| |s| + A |s|p for a.e. (x, s) IRn IR .
(29)
By (29) and Sobolevs embedding Theorem we have, for any u E
(u)

IRn

u2 +

A
p+1

IRn

|u|p+1 C3 kuk2E + C4 kukp+1

E ,

where is arbitrary and C4 = C4 (). Thus, by (9)

1
I(u) =
2

IRn

(|Du|2 + b(x)u2 ) (u) C5 kuk2E C3 kuk2E C4 kukp+1

>0,
E

for kukE = , with , and sufficiently small positive constants.

Denote
= { C([0, 1], E); (0) = 0, (1) 6= 0 and I((1)) 0}
and
c = inf max I((t)) .
t[0,1]

Set
I (u) = min kkE .
I(u)

Then, by Theorem 1 of [15], there exists a sequence {um } E such that

I(um ) c

and

I (um ) 0 ;

(30)

since I(|u|) I(u) for all u E we may assume that {um } C. So, there exists a sequence {wm }
(um ) E such that
um + b(x)um wm 0
in E .
(31)

10

Note that for all u C, by (15) we have

(u)

IRn

u(x)f (x, u(x)) .

Therefore, by (22), for every u C and any w (u),

Z
1
u(x)w(x) .
(u)
IRn
Hence, if h, i denotes the duality pairing between E and E, we have
2
(|Dum |2 + b(x)u2m )
n
2
IR
1
1
+ hum + bum wm , um i + hwm , um i (um )

Z
2
1
2
2

(|Dum | + b(x)um ) + hum + bum wm , um i

2

IRn
2
2

kum kE o(1) kum kE .

2
Z

I(um ) =

This, together with (30), implies that the Palais-Smale sequence {um } is bounded in E: thus, it
converges weakly (up to a subsequence) in E and strongly in L2loc to some u0 C. Taking into account
that wm (um ) for all m, that um * u0 in E and that there exists w0 E such that wm * w0
in E (up to a subsequence), we infer that w0 (u0 ): this follows from the fact that the map
u 7 F (x, u) is compact from E into L1 . Moreover, if we take Cc (IRn ) and let := supp, then
by (31) we get
Z

(Du0 D + b(x)u0 w0 ) = 0 ;

as w0 (u0 ), by using (4) p.104 in [5] and by definition of (F )0 , this implies

Z

(Du0 D + b(x)u0 ) +

(F )0 (x, u0 ; ) 0 .

By density, this hemivariational inequality holds for all E and (5) follows; this means that u0 solves
problem (3).
It remains to prove that u0 6 0. If wm is as in (31), then by (22) (recall that um C) and (30) (for
large m) we get
Z
Z
c
1
1
1
I(um ) hum + bum wm , um i = hwm , um i
F (x, um )
um f (x, um ) . (32)
2
2
2
2 IRn
IRn
Now, taking into account its definition, one deduces that f verifies (29), too. So, by (32), we obtain
Z
c
1

(|um |2 + A |um |p+1 ) = kum k22 +

kum kp+1
p+1 ;
n
2
2 IR
2
2
hence, {um } does not converge strongly to 0 in Lp+1 . Frow now on, with the same arguments as in the
proof of Theorem 1 (see after Lemma 4), we deduce that u0 6 0, which ends our proof.
Acknowledgements. This work was done while V.R. visited the Universit`a Cattolica di Brescia with a
CNR-GNAFA grant. He would like to thank Prof. Marco Degiovanni for many stimulating discussions,
as well as for introducing him to the critical point theory for continuous functionals.
F.G. was partially supported by CNR-GNAFA.
11

References
[1] A. Ambrosetti, P.H. Rabinowitz, Dual variational methods in critical point theory and applications, J. Funct.
Anal. 14, 1973, 349-381.
[2] D. Arcoya, L. Boccardo, Critical points for multiple integrals of the calculus of variations, Arch. Rat. Mech.
Anal. 134, 1996, 249-274.
[3] L. Boccardo, F. Murat, Almost everywhere convergence of the gradients of solutions to elliptic and parabolic
equations, Nonlin. Anal. TMA 19, 1992, 581-597.
[4] A. Canino, Multiplicity of solutions for quasilinear elliptic equations, Top. Meth. Nonlin. Anal. 6, 1995,
357-370.
[5] K.C. Chang, Variational methods for non-differentiable functionals and its applications to partial differential
equations, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 80, 1981, 102-129.
[6] F.H. Clarke, Generalized gradients and applications, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 205, 1975, 247-262.
[7] F.H. Clarke, Generalized gradients of Lipschitz functionals, Adv. in Math. 40, 1981, 52-67.
[8] M. Conti, F. Gazzola, Positive entire solutions of quasilinear elliptic problems via nonsmooth critical point
theory, Top. Meth. Nonlin. Anal. 8, 1996, 275-294
[9] J.N. Corvellec, M. Degiovanni, M. Marzocchi, Deformation properties for continuous functionals and critical
point theory, Top. Meth. Nonlin. Anal. 1, 1993, 151-171.
[10] M. Degiovanni, M. Marzocchi, A critical point theory for nonsmooth functionals, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 4,
167, 1994, 73-100.
[11] F. Gazzola, Positive solutions of critical quasilinear elliptic problems in general domains, Abstract Appl.
Anal. 3, 1998, 65-84.
[12] P.L. Lions, The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations. The locally compact case,
Ann. Inst. H. Poincare (A.N.L.) 1, 1984, I 109-145, II 223-283.
[13] P. Mironescu, V. R
adulescu, A multiplicity theorem for locally Lipschitz periodic functionals, J. Math. Anal.
Appl. 195, 1995, 621-637.
[14] P.H. Rabinowitz, On a class of nonlinear Schr
odinger equations, Zeit. Angew. Math. Phys. 43, 1992, 270-291.
[15] V. Radulescu, Mountain pass type theorems for non-differentiable functions and applications, Proc. Japan
Acad. 69A, 1993, 193-198.

12