Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 36 references

On the Kirchhoff type equations in $\mathbb{R}^{N}$

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For the autonomous Kirchhoff equation, positive solutions are unique in dimensions 1 through 4 and come in pairs in dimension 5 and higher.

desk verdict The non-autonomous results rest on a contradictory pair of hypotheses, making Theorems 1.6 and 1.7 vacuous; the autonomous core is plausible but the paper as submitted overclaims. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01326 v1 pith:3UCWYUEV submitted 2019-08-04 math.AP

Juntao Sun , Tsung-Fang Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35J6235J2035A1535B09
keywords KirchhofftypeequationpositivesolutionsNeharimanifoldnonlocaluniquenessandmultiplicityvariationalmethodsconcentration-compactnessdimensionthreshold
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper studies a nonlocal Kirchhoff equation with power nonlinearity $f(x)|u|^{p-2}u$, where the coefficient $a$ multiplies the squared gradient integral. Its central claim is a dimension threshold: when $f$ is constant, for every small $a$ ($0

What carries the argument

The central object is the energy functional $$ J_a(u)=\frac{a}{4}\left(\int_{\mathbb R^N}|\nabla u|^2dx\right)^2+\frac12\int_{\mathbb R^N}(|\nabla u|^2+$u^{2}$)dx-\frac1p\int_{\mathbb R^N}f(x)|u|^pdx, $$ together with its Nehari manifold $M_a=\{u\ne0:\langle J_a'(u),u\rangle=0\}$. The decisive mechanism is the fibering map $h_{a,u}(t)=J_a(tu)$, whose second derivative classifies $M_a$ into $M_a^-$ (where $h''<0$), $M_a^+$ ($h''>0$), and the inflection set $M_a^0$. A level filtration $M_a(c)=M_a^{(1)}\cup M_a^{(2)}$ separates the small-norm, positive-energy critical point from the large-norm, negative-energy ground state; minimizing $J_a$ on each part and applying a concentration-compactness argument gives the two solutions in $N\ge5$. The constants $T_f(u)$, $D(p)$, $a_*$, and $\Lambda$ encode where the quartic nonlocal term outweighs the quadratic and $p$-power terms.

What would settle it

Take any continuous $f$ with $f_{\max}<f_\infty D(p)^{(p-2)/2}$ and the autonomous positive solution $v^-_a$ from Theorem 1.5; computing $\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}(f(x)-f_\infty)(v^-_a)^p\,dx$ yields a negative number, so no pair $(f,v^-_a)$ satisfies (D5), and a single explicit example satisfying both (D4) and (D5) would refute this observation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a dimension-dependent dichotomy for positive solutions of $$ -\left(a\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\nabla u|^2dx+1\right)\$\Delta$ u+u=f(x)|u|^{p-2}u $$ with $2<p<\min\{4,2^*\}$. For constant $f\equiv f_\infty>0$ and $0<a<\Lambda$, Theorem 1.5 proves that a positive solution $v^-_a$ exists in every dimension $N\ge1$, with $\|v^-_a\|_{H^1}<(2S_p^p/(f_\infty(4-p)))^{1/(p-2)}$ and positive energy; that it is the unique positive solution and is radially symmetric for $1\le N\le4$; and that for $N\ge5$ a second solution $v^+_a$ exists with $\|v^+_a\|_{H^1}$ strictly larger and $J^\infty_a(v^+_a)<0<J^\infty_a(v^-_a)$, where $v^+_a$ is a ground state. The energy functional's geometry is the organizing fact: $J_a$ is unbounded below for $N\le3$, bounded below for $N\ge5$, and in $N=4$ bounded below exactly when $a$ exceeds a threshold $a_*$; for large $a$ in $N\ge4$ there are no nontrivial solutions. The same one-and-two solution pattern is asserted for non-constant $f$ in Theorems 1.6 and 1.7 under assumptions (D4) and (D5).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise of the non-autonomous theorems is that assumptions (D4) and (D5) can hold simultaneously: (D4) makes $f(x)<f_\infty$ pointwise, while (D5) asks for $\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}(f(x)-f_\infty)(v^-_a)^p\,dx>0$ with $v^-_a>0$, so the integrand is negative wherever it is nonzero and the integral cannot be positive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $N\le4$ and $0<a<\Lambda$, the positive solution of the autonomous equation is unique and radially symmetric, so any method that finds one positive solution has found all of them.
  • For $N\ge5$, the two solutions have opposite energy signs: $v^-_a$ is a small-norm positive-energy solution, and $v^+_a$ is a larger-norm ground state with negative energy, giving an a priori separation that can be tested numerically.
  • For $N\ge5$ and $0<a<a_*$, the infimum of $J_a$ is negative and attained, while for $a>a_*$ the infimum is positive, so the sign of the ground-state energy flips at $a_*$.
  • In $N\le3$, the functional is never bounded below, so no global minimization argument can produce a solution; solutions in these dimensions must come from constrained minimization or other critical-point methods.
  • For $N\ge4$ and $a>p^{2/(p-2)}2^{-p/(p-2)}a_*$, no nontrivial solution exists, giving a large-$a$ cutoff.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the dimension threshold is robust, the same one-to-two transition at $N=5$ should appear in other fourth-power nonlocal problems with the same scaling, such as Schrödinger–Poisson systems, though the paper does not make this comparison.
  • The apparent incompatibility of (D4) and (D5) suggests that the non-autonomous two-solution theorems are vacuous as stated; a repair would replace (D5) by a condition that lets $f$ exceed $f_\infty$ in a weighted sense, or prove existence without (D5).
  • A numerical continuation in $a$ for fixed $N$ could trace the positive-energy solution $v^-_a$ and its disappearance as $a$ crosses $\Lambda$ in high dimensions; the paper does not perform such a computation.
  • The uniqueness proof for $N\le4$ reduces any positive solution to the unique rescaled solution of $-\Delta w+w=w^{p-1}$, so computational verification of uniqueness can be reduced to one-dimensional shooting.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper considers the Kirchhoff-type equation -(a∫_{R^N}|∇u|²dx + b)Δu + u = f(x)|u|^{p-2}u in R^N, with a,b>0, 2<p<min{4,2*}, and f∈C(R^N)∩L∞(R^N) satisfying fmin>0. Setting b=1, the authors study the geometry of the energy functional Ja, the Nehari manifold and its decomposition into M±_a and M0_a, and prove: (Theorem 1.1) Ja is unbounded below on H¹ for N=1,2,3; for N=4 it is unbounded below for a<a* and bounded below with positive infimum for a>a*; for N≥5 it is bounded below, with negative infimum for a<a*; (Theorem 1.2) nonexistence of nontrivial solutions for large a; (Theorem 1.3) existence of a negative-energy ground state for N≥5, in the autonomous case and, under (D3), in the non-autonomous case; (Theorem 1.5) for f≡f∞ and 0<a<Λ, existence of one positive solution in all dimensions, uniqueness and radial symmetry for 1≤N≤4, and two positive solutions v±_a for N≥5; (Theorems 1.6–1.7) analogous existence and multiplicity claims for non-constant f under (D1)–(D2) and (D4)–(D5); (Theorem 1.8) ground-state characterizations for N=1,2. The abstract concludes that a unique positive solution exists for 1≤N≤4 and at least two for N≥5. The main technical contribution is the filtration of the Nehari manifold into M^(1)_a, M^(2)_a and a concentration-compactness appendix.

Significance. If the autonomous results are correct, they provide a systematic dimension-dependent picture of the constant-coefficient Kirchhoff problem with 2<p<4, extending earlier work of Azzollini, Li-Ye, Guo, and Tang-Chen to a unified treatment for all N≥1; the filtration of the Nehari manifold and the compactness material in the Appendix (Proposition 7.1) are nontrivial and potentially reusable. The paper is not circular: the thresholds a* and Λ are derived from the energy functional and Sobolev/Gagliardo-Nirenberg constants, and external benchmarks (Kwong, Azzollini, Lions) are used appropriately. However, the advertised novelty is the non-autonomous extension, and that part fails in the present form: (D4) and (D5) are mutually inconsistent, so Theorems 1.6 and 1.7 cover no function f at all, and the abstract's headline claim, stated without the restriction f≡f∞, is not established. Because the defect is structural (the pointwise bound imposed by (D4) contradicts the sign required by (D5) and (D3), while the filtration argument relies on that bound), the paper in its current form cannot be recommended for publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [1, Assumptions (D4)–(D5); Lemma 5.2] (D4) requires fmax < f∞ D(p)^{(p−2)/2}. By Remark 1.4, 1/2 ≤ D(p) < 1/√e < 1 for 2<p<4, so D(p)^{(p−2)/2} < 1; hence (D4) implies fmax < f∞. Since f is continuous, f(x) ≤ fmax < f∞ for all x. The function v^-_a of Theorem 1.5 is a positive solution of the limit problem, so v^-_a(x) > 0 on a set of positive measure and (f(x)−f∞)(v^-_a(x))^p ≤ (fmax−f∞)(v^-_a(x))^p < 0 there; the integral in (D5) is therefore strictly negative, contradicting (D5). Thus the hypothesis set of Theorem 1.6, and a fortiori of Theorem 1.7, is empty. Lemma 5.2, which invokes (D5) to assert T_f(v^-_a) ≤ T_f∞(v^-_a) and b_a(t) ≤ b∞_a(t), and Lemma 5.6, which inherits (D5), have empty hypotheses, so the proofs of Theorems 1.6 and 1.7 do not establish existence or multiplicity for any nonconstant f. Since the abstract's conclusion ('unique positive solution for 1≤N≤4, at least two for N≥5') is stated without the restriction f≡f∞, the paper's main advertised claim is unsupported.
  2. [5, proof of Theorem 1.7; Theorem 1.3(ii)] Theorem 1.7 assumes '(D1)−(D5)', which on the usual reading includes condition (D3), ∫(f−f∞)(v^+_a)^p dx > 0; the proof then calls on Theorem 1.3(ii), whose hypothesis is exactly (D3), so formally that step is licensed only if (D3) is included. But (D3) is itself incompatible with (D4): (D4) gives f(x) < f∞ pointwise, so ∫(f−f∞)(v^+_a)^p dx < 0, the opposite of (D3). Hence Theorem 1.7's hypothesis set is empty for two independent reasons, (D4)+(D3) and (D4)+(D5). If, alternatively, '(D1)−(D5)' was intended to omit (D3) (as in Theorem 1.6, which lists '(D1)−(D2),(D4)' and then 'In addition (D5)'), then the proof's use of Theorem 1.3(ii) is unjustified. No reading of the hypotheses rescues the theorem as stated.
  3. [3, proof of Theorem 1.1(ii); Corollary 2.2] The proof of Theorem 1.1(ii) states: 'It follows from Corollary 2.2 that for each a > a*, Ja is bounded below on H¹(R⁴) and inf_{u∈H¹(R⁴)\{0}} Ja(u) > 0.' Corollary 2.2, which is derived from Lemma 2.1(ii), asserts only inf_{u≠0} Ja(u) ≥ 0. The paper does not rule out a sequence u_n with ‖u_n‖_{H¹} bounded away from zero and Ja(u_n) ↓ 0, so the strict positivity of the infimum is not established by the cited results. Since Theorem 1.1(ii) is the basis for the N=4 row of the summary table and for the contrast with Theorem 1.2, this gap needs to be repaired.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and summary table] The abstract's concluding sentence and the summary table state the one-solution/two-solution conclusions without the qualification f≡f∞; the statements should make explicit which results are autonomous and which are intended to cover nonconstant f, once the hypotheses are corrected.
  2. [1, (1.8)–(1.10)] The three constants denoted A0 in (1.8), A0 in (1.9), and A*0 in (1.10) appear with identical symbols in the text; please use distinct notations so that the statements of Theorem 1.9 and Lemma 6.4 are unambiguous.
  3. [5, Lemma 5.3 and Lemma 5.2] The statement of Lemma 5.3 repeats the conclusion 'Ja(t^{(2),+}_a v^+_a) = inf_{t≥t^{(1),+}_a} Ja(tv^+_a)' in two lines with inconsistent superscripts (t^{(2)}_a versus t^{(2),+}_a), and Lemma 5.2 uses the undefined notation M^{(2),-}_a where M^{(2)}_a is meant.
  4. [5, Lemma 5.4] In the displayed formula for ⟨(t*)′(0), φ⟩, the term 4a(∫|∇u|dx)²∫∇u∇φ dx should presumably read 4a(∫|∇u|²dx)(∫∇u∇φ dx), and the denominator ‖u‖²_H1 − (p−1)∫f|u|^p dx does not match the value of (∂/∂t)F_u(1,0) computed earlier in the proof, namely 2‖u‖²_H1 + 4a(∫|∇u|²dx)² − p∫f|u|^p dx; please verify the formula.
  5. [4, proof of Theorem 1.5(ii)] The uniqueness proof reduces to the scalar equation −Δw + w = |w|^{p−2}w and cites [17] (Kwong). For N=4 and 3<p<4, the exponent p exceeds the classical range 1<p<(N+2)/(N−2) of Kwong's theorem; please indicate which result covers this range or restrict the statement accordingly.
  6. [2, Lemma 2.6] The inequalities (2.7) and (2.8) are asserted by reference to Remark 1.4 but are not immediate and should be derived; also the computation of h″ at t±_a u contains a likely typo: h″_{a,t^+_a u}(1) should involve (t^+_a)^5 m′(t^+_a), not (t^-_a)^5 m′(t^+_a).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central existence/multiplicity results rest on external uniqueness and concentration-compactness benchmarks; self-citations are methodological only.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The central thresholds a* and Λ are defined from Gagliardo-Nirenberg/Sobolev constants and the energy functional, not from the solutions whose existence is asserted. Theorem 1.3 uses the concentration-compactness principle of Lions, Theorem 1.5 uses Kwong's uniqueness theorem for -Δw+w=|w|^{p-2}w, and Lemmas 6.3-6.5 use Azzollini's classification; these are independent external results. Self-citations to [30]-[33] are limited to methodological tools (filtration of the Nehari manifold, implicit-function-type arguments) and are not load-bearing for the main predictions: the existence, uniqueness, and multiplicity statements are proved within the paper from the stated variational structure. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to itself by construction. A separate correctness concern, not a circularity, is that (D4) forces f(x)<f∞ pointwise while (D5) requires ∫(f-f∞)(v^-_a)^p>0, making Theorems 1.6-1.7 vacuously conditional; this affects validity of the non-autonomous claims but does not constitute a circular reduction of the derived results to their inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Central claims rely on standard variational machinery and on two external structural results: Kwong's uniqueness theorem for the semilinear ground state and Azzollini's classification of solutions for N=3,4. No free parameters are fitted; thresholds are derived from the energy functional.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The normalization b=1 is adopted without loss of generality.
    The authors state 'without loss of generality, we always assume b=1' in Section 1; the proofs for general b follow by rescaling, but the details are not shown.
  • standard math Sharp Gagliardo-Nirenberg and Sobolev inequalities with best constants Cp and Sp hold (Eqs. (1.4) and (1.7)).
    Used throughout Sections 2 and 3 to bound the energy functional and to define the thresholds a* and Λ.
  • domain assumption Kwong's uniqueness theorem: the positive solution w0 of -Δw+w=f∞|w|^{p-2}w is unique and radially symmetric (Ref. [17]).
    Used in Theorem 1.5(ii) to prove uniqueness of the Kirchhoff solution after rescaling.
  • domain assumption Azzollini's classification: for N=3,4 every positive solution of the autonomous Kirchhoff equation is a rescaling of w0 (Ref. [2, Theorem 1.1]).
    Used in Lemmas 6.3 and 6.4 to locate solutions in the Nehari decomposition.
  • standard math Pohozaev-type identities for the Kirchhoff equation hold (Eqs. (6.2), (6.6), (6.8)).
    Used in Section 6 to derive the sign of the second derivative of the fibering map.
  • standard math Lions concentration-compactness principle and Ekeland variational principle apply.
    Used in the appendix and in constructing Palais-Smale sequences.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Kirchhoff type equations in $\mathbb{R}^{N}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3UCWYUEV

@misc{pith2026190801326,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Kirchhoff type equations in $\mathbbR^N$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3UCWYUEV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01326}
}
abstract

Consider a nonlinear Kirchhoff type equation as follows \begin{equation*} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} -\left( a\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u|^{2}dx+b\right) \Delta u+u=f(x)\left\vert u\right\vert ^{p-2}u & \text{ in }\mathbb{R}^{N}, \\ u\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N}), & \end{array}% \right. \end{equation*}% where $N\geq 1,a,b>0,2<p<\min \left\{ 4,2^{\ast }\right\}$($2^{\ast }=\infty $ for $N=1,2$ and $2^{\ast }=2N/(N-2)$ for $N\geq 3)$ and the function $f\in C(\mathbb{R}^{N})\cap L^{\infty }(\mathbb{R}^{N})$. Distinguishing from the existing results in the literature, we are more interested in the geometric properties of the energy functional related to the above problem. Furthermore, the nonexistence, existence, unique and multiplicity of positive solutions are proved dependent on the parameter $a$ and the dimension $N.$ In particular, we conclude that a unique positive solution exists for $1\leq N\leq4$ while at least two positive solutions are permitted for $N\geq5$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Azzollini, The elliptic Kirchhoff equation in RN perturbed by a local nonlinearity, Differential and Integral equations 25 (2012) 543–554

    A. Azzollini, The elliptic Kirchhoff equation in RN perturbed by a local nonlinearity, Differential and Integral equations 25 (2012) 543–554

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Azzollini, A note on the elliptic Kirchhoff equation in RN perturbed by a local nonlinearity, Comm

    A. Azzollini, A note on the elliptic Kirchhoff equation in RN perturbed by a local nonlinearity, Comm. Contemporary Math. 17 (2015) 1450039

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Berestycki and P.L

    H. Berestycki and P.L. Lions, Nonlinear scalar field equa tions, I. Existence of a ground state, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 82 (1983) 313–345

    work page 1983

  4. [4]

    Brown, Y

    K.J. Brown, Y. Zhang, The Nehari manifold for a semilinea r elliptic equation with a sign-changing weight function, J. Differential Equations 193 (2003) 481–49 9

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Chen, Y.C

    C.Y. Chen, Y.C. Kuo, T.F. Wu, The Nehari manifold for a Kir chhoff type problem involving sign- changing weight functions, J. Differential Equations 250 (20 11) 1876–1908

    work page 1908

  6. [6]

    D’Aprile, D

    T. D’Aprile, D. Mugnai, Non-existence results for the co upled Klein-Gordon-Maxwell equations, Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 4 (2004) 307–322

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    D’Ancona, Y

    P. D’Ancona, Y. Shibata, On global solvability of non-li near viscoelastic equations in the analytic category, Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 17 (1994) 477-489

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    D’Ancona, S

    P. D’Ancona, S. Spagnolo, Global solvability for the deg enerate Kirchhoff equation with real analytic data, Invent. Math. 108 (1992) 247–262

    work page 1992

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Dr´ abek, S.I

    P. Dr´ abek, S.I. Pohozaev, Positive solutions for the p–Laplacian: application of the fibering method, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 127 (1997) 703–726

    1997

  2. [10]

    Y. Deng, S. Peng, W. Shuai, Existence and asymptotic beh avior of nodal solutions for the Kirchhoff- type problems in R3, J. Funct. Anal. 269 (2015) 3500–3527

    2015

  3. [11]

    Ekeland, On the variational principle, J

    I. Ekeland, On the variational principle, J. Math. Anal . Appl. 17 (1974) 324–353

    1974

  4. [12]

    Guo, Ground states for Kirchhoff equations without co mpact condition, J

    Z. Guo, Ground states for Kirchhoff equations without co mpact condition, J. Differential Equations, 259 (2015) 2884–2902

    2015

  5. [13]

    Q. Han, F. Lin, Elliptic Partial Differential Equations, Lect. Notes, Am. Math. Soc., Providence, 2000

    2000

  6. [14]

    Y. He, G. Li, Standing waves for a class of Kirchhoff type p roblems in R3 involving critical Sobolev exponents, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 54 (201 5) 3067–3106

  7. [15]

    X. He, W. Zou, Existence and concentration behavior of p ositive solutions for a Kirchhoff equation in R3, J. Differential Equations 252 (2012) 1813–1834. 40

    2012

  8. [16]

    Jeanjean, On the existence of bounded Palais–Smale s equences and application to a Landsman– Lazer-type problem set on RN , Proc

    L. Jeanjean, On the existence of bounded Palais–Smale s equences and application to a Landsman– Lazer-type problem set on RN , Proc. Edinburgh. Math. Soc. 129 (1999) 787–809

    1999

  9. [17]

    Kwong, Uniqueness of positive solution of ∆ u − u + up = 0 in RN , Arch

    M.K. Kwong, Uniqueness of positive solution of ∆ u − u + up = 0 in RN , Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 105 (1989) 243–266

    1989

  10. [18]

    Y. Li, F. Li, J. Shi, Existence of a positive solution to K irchhoff type problems without compactness conditions, J. Differential Equations 253 (2012) 2285–2294

    2012

  11. [19]

    G. Li, H. Ye, Existence of positive ground state solutio ns for the nonlinear Kirchhoff type equations in RN , J. Differential Equations 257 (2014) 566–600

    2014

  12. [20]

    Liang, F

    Z. Liang, F. Li, J. Shi, Positive solutions to Kirchhoff t ype equations with nonlinearity having prescribed asymptotic behavior, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e An al. Non Lin´ eaire 31 (2014) 155-167

    2014

  13. [21]

    J.L. Lions, On some questions in boundary value problem s of mathematical physics, in: Contem- porary Developments in Continuum Mechanics and Partial Diffe rential Equations, in: North-Holl. Math. Stud., vol. 30, NorthHolland, Amsterdam, New York, 19 78, pp. 284–346

  14. [22]

    Lions, The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations

    P.L. Lions, The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations. The locally com- pact case I, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e Anal. Non Lin´ eaire 1 (1984) 109–145

    1984

  15. [23]

    Lions, The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations

    P.L. Lions, The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations. The locally com- pact case II, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e Anal. Non Lin´ eaire 1 (1984) 223–283

    1984

  16. [24]

    W.M. Ni, I. Takagi, On the shape of least energy solution to a Neumann problem, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 44 (1991) 819–851

    1991

  17. [25]

    Naimen, The critical problem of Kirchhoff type ellipt ic equations in dimension four, J

    D. Naimen, The critical problem of Kirchhoff type ellipt ic equations in dimension four, J. Differential Equations 257 (2014) 1168–1193

    2014

  18. [26]

    Nishihara, On a global solution of some quasilinear h yperbolic equation, Tokyo J

    K. Nishihara, On a global solution of some quasilinear h yperbolic equation, Tokyo J. Math. 7 (1984) 437–459

    1984

  19. [27]

    Pohozaev, A certain class of quasilinear hyperbol ic equations

    S.I. Pohozaev, A certain class of quasilinear hyperbol ic equations. Mat. Sb. (N.S.) 96 (1975) 152–166

    1975

  20. [28]

    Ruiz, The Schr¨ odinger–Poisson equation under the e ffect of a nonlinear local term, J

    D. Ruiz, The Schr¨ odinger–Poisson equation under the e ffect of a nonlinear local term, J. Funct. Anal. 237 (2006) 655–674

    2006

  21. [29]

    D. Sun, Z. Zhang, Uniqueness, existence and concentrat ion of positive ground state solutions for Kirchhoff type problems in R3, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 461 (2018) 128–149

    2018

  22. [30]

    Sun, T.F

    J. Sun, T.F. Wu, Ground state solutions for an indefinite Kirchhoff type problem with steep potential well, J. Differential Equations 256 (2014) 1791–1792

    2014

  23. [31]

    Sun, T.F

    J. Sun, T.F. Wu, Existence and multiplicity of solution s for an indefinite Kirchhoff-type equation in bounded domains, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 146 (2016 ) 435–448

    2016

  24. [32]

    Sun, T.F

    J. Sun, T.F. Wu, Z. Feng, On the non-autonomous Schr¨ odi nger–Poisson problems in R3, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 38 (2018) 1889–1933

    2018

  25. [33]

    Sun, T.F

    J. Sun, T.F. Wu, Z. Feng, Multiplicity of positive solut ions for a nonlinear Schr¨ odinger–Poisson system, J. Differential Equations 260 (2016) 586–627. 41

    2016

  26. [34]

    X. Tang, S. Chen, Ground state solutions of Nehari–Poho zaev type for Kirchhoff-type problems with general potentials, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equatio ns (2017) 56:110

    2017

  27. [35]

    Tarantello, On nonhomogeneous elliptic equations i nvolving critical Sobolev exponent, Ann

    G. Tarantello, On nonhomogeneous elliptic equations i nvolving critical Sobolev exponent, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e Anal. Non Lin´ eaire 9 (1992) 281–304

    1992

  28. [36]

    Ye, Positive high energy solution for Kirchhoff equat ion in R3 with superlinear nonlinearities via Nehari-Pohozaev manifold, Discrete Contin

    H. Ye, Positive high energy solution for Kirchhoff equat ion in R3 with superlinear nonlinearities via Nehari-Pohozaev manifold, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 35 ( 2015) 3857–3877. 42

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.