Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Positive solutions for a weighted critical problem with mixed boundary conditions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that a weighted critical problem for the spectral fractional Laplacian with mixed Dirichlet-Neumann boundary conditions has at least as many positive solutions as the weight has strict global maxima on the Neumann…

desk verdict Solid variational paper with a genuinely new problem, but Theorem 9 overclaims the full λ range and the multiplicity proof leans on an imported dichotomy that the authors need to verify. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11497 v1 pith:ZOBXCDFW submitted 2024-12-16 math.AP

Alejandro Ortega , Luca Vilasi , Youjun Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35R1135B3335B0949J3535A1535S15
keywords spectralfractionalLaplacianmixedDirichlet-NeumannboundaryconditionscriticalSobolevexponentmultiplicityofpositivesolutionsNeharimanifoldbarycentermapconcentration-compactnessweightednonlinearity
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

This paper studies a nonlocal elliptic problem in which the spectral fractional Laplacian acts with mixed Dirichlet-Neumann boundary conditions and the reaction term is weighted and critical, of the form $\lambda u^q + Q(x) u^{2^*_s-1}$. The central result is a multiplicity theorem: if the continuous positive weight $Q$ has $k$ strict global maxima on the Neumann part of the boundary, then for all sufficiently small positive $\lambda$ the problem has at least $k$ distinct positive solutions. The proof shows that each solution concentrates near one of those maxima, with its barycenter trapped in a small disjoint neighbourhood of the maximum. This matters because the critical exponent destroys compactness, and the paper identifies an explicit energy threshold below which compactness is restored, using the flatness of $Q$ around its maxima. The work extends a classical result for the Dirichlet Laplacian to the nonlocal setting with mixed boundary conditions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Nehari manifold $\mathcal{N}_\lambda=\{w\ne 0:\|w\|^2_{X^s_{\Sigma_D^*}}-\int_\Omega Q|w|^{2^*_s}\,dx-\lambda\int_\Omega |w|^{q+1}\,dx=0\}$ together with the barycenter map $\beta(w)=\int_\Omega x|w(x,0)|^{2^*_s}dx/\int_\Omega |w(x,0)|^{2^*_s}dx$. The barycenter splits the Nehari manifold into $k$ disjoint regions, one near each maximum point $a_i$, separated by the spheres $\mathcal{M}_{\lambda,i}$ where $|\beta(w)-a_i|=r_0$. The load-bearing estimates come from fibering maps $t\mapsto J_\lambda(t z_{\varrho,\varepsilon}^i)$ built from truncated Aubin-Talenti-type instantons centered at each maximum; Lemma 6 gives explicit bounds on the maximizers of these fibers as functions of $\varepsilon$ and $\lambda$, and Lemma 4 controls their $L^p$ norms. The weight's flatness rate $\alpha$ is chosen exactly so that the fiber energies fall below $c_\star$, while the separating spheres stay above it. Finally, the classification of minimizing sequences for the mixed-boundary Sobolev constant quoted from [13, Theorem 4.5] is what converts a candidate minimizer on $\mathcal{N}_{\lambda,i}$ into a genuine positive solution.

What would settle it

Numerically solve the one-dimensional radial version of the problem with a ball-shaped domain, a small closed Dirichlet cap, the remaining Neumann boundary, and a weight with two antipodal strict maxima on $\Sigma_N$, and count the positive solutions as $\lambda\to 0$; if fewer than two distinct solutions persist, the multiplicity claim fails. Alternatively, search for a minimizing sequence for $S(\Sigma_D)$ whose concentration measure has two atoms on $\Sigma_N$, since such an example would invalidate the classification on which Proposition 13 depends.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes, under the standing assumption $S(\Sigma_D)=2^{-2s/N}S(s,N)$, that problem $(P_{\lambda,q})$ has at least $k$ positive solutions whenever the weight $Q$ satisfies condition $(Q2)$: it attains its global maximum $Q_M$ at $k$ distinct points $a_1,\dots,a_k$ of the Neumann boundary $\Sigma_N$, with the prescribed vanishing rate $Q(x)-Q(a_i)=o(|x-a_i|^\alpha)$. For each $i$, the proof restricts the Nehari manifold to the region where the barycenter map stays within a fixed small distance of $a_i$, and shows that the infimum $m_{\lambda,i}$ there lies strictly below the compactness threshold $c_\star=\frac{s}{N}S(\Sigma_D)^{N/2s}Q_M^{(N-2s)/2s}$, while any competitor whose barycenter sits exactly at distance $r_0$ from $a_i$ has energy strictly above $c_\star$ for small $\lambda$. A minimizing sequence then converges to a nontrivial nonnegative solution, which the strong maximum principle makes positive. Since the regions around the distinct maxima are disjoint, the resulting solutions are distinct.

Load-bearing premise

The proof leans on a quoted classification theorem: any near-best sequence for the mixed-boundary Sobolev inequality must either converge or concentrate all its mass at a single point of the Neumann boundary, and if that classification failed, the contradiction in Proposition 13 forcing the concentration point to be a strict maximum of $Q$ would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For sufficiently small $\lambda$, the problem has at least $k$ positive solutions, each arising as a minimizer in a different disjoint region of the Nehari manifold and hence tied to a different strict maximum point $a_i$ of the weight on the Neumann boundary.
  • In the non-attained case $S(\Sigma_D)=2^{-2s/N}S(s,N)$, the existence theorem covers all $\lambda>0$ in case (Q1)-(ii), sufficiently large $\lambda$ in case (Q1)-(i), and the stated ranges of $\lambda$ in case (Q1)-(iii), with the linear case $q=1$ restricted to $\lambda\in(0,\lambda_1^s)$.
  • In the attained case $S(\Sigma_D)<2^{-2s/N}S(s,N)$, the same existence conclusions hold for $q>1$, but the linear case $q=1$ is ruled out because the extremal functions for $S(\Sigma_D)$ are not explicitly available.
  • The admissible flatness rate $\alpha$ of the weight is fixed by the relation $\alpha=[N-(N-2s)(q+1)]/2$, so the multiplicity result applies precisely to weights whose decay near each maximum is matched to the dimension, the order of the operator, and the subcritical exponent.
  • The positive solutions are obtained as limits of minimizing sequences below the explicit threshold $c_\star$, so the Palais-Smale condition, rather than the nonexistence of solutions to the pure critical problem, is the operative compactness mechanism in the mixed-boundary setting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, not pursued in the paper, would be to ask whether the number of solutions is governed by the number of isolated maxima of $Q$ on $\Sigma_N$ even when some maxima are not strict, or when infinitely many maxima accumulate; the barycenter separation argument suggests that only maxima with disjoint neighbourhoods contribute distinct solutions.
  • The same fibering-plus-barycenter strategy could plausibly be adapted to Robin-type or other nonlocal boundary conditions, provided a classification of minimizing sequences for the corresponding Sobolev constant is available; the explicit rate $\alpha$ would then depend on the new boundary geometry.
  • The theorem yields a testable prediction for numerical continuation: starting from small $\lambda$ and continuing solutions, one should observe at least $k$ distinct branches, one near each strict maximum of the weight, provided the weight satisfies the flatness condition (Q2).
  • The paper does not address whether the $k$ solutions have distinct variational indices or are ordered by energy; one might expect, but would need to prove, that the solution associated with a more isolated maximum carries a Morse index related to the geometry of the maximizer.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the weighted critical problem for the spectral fractional Laplacian with mixed Dirichlet--Neumann boundary conditions, namely (P_{\lambda,q}) with critical exponent 2^*_s and subcritical perturbation \lambda u^q. Using the s-harmonic extension, the authors define a variational framework in X^s_{\Sigma^*_D}(C_\Omega), prove a Palais--Smale compactness result below the threshold c_\star (Proposition 3), and then construct positive solutions by the mountain pass theorem, distinguishing the two cases (C=) and (C<) for the mixed Sobolev constant S(\Sigma_D). The main existence results are Theorems 8 and 9. In the final section, under the assumption (C=) and a weight condition (Q2) on strict maximizers on the Neumann boundary, the authors use the Nehari manifold and a barycenter map to prove a multiplicity result: Theorem 15 gives at least k positive solutions for small \lambda, one near each maximizer a_i of Q.

Significance. If the technical points are fully justified, the paper gives a substantial extension of the classical Liao--Liu--Zhang--Tang result to the spectral fractional Laplacian with mixed boundary conditions. The compactness analysis, the explicit asymptotic estimates for truncated instantaneous functions (Lemmas 4--6), and the careful separation of the equality and strict-inequality cases for S(\Sigma_D) are genuine strengths. The multiplicity mechanism via barycenter constraints is standard but is adapted here in a nontrivial way. However, the main claims currently rest on two unresolved points: the proof of Theorem 9 does not establish the claimed 'any \lambda>0' conclusion, and Proposition 13 depends on an imported classification of minimizing sequences from [13, Theorem 4.5] whose applicability to the present (C=) setting and whose treatment of the interface \Gamma are not verified. These points are load-bearing for the stated theorems, so the paper needs a careful revision before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 9] The statement of Theorem 9 claims, under (Q1)-(ii), existence for any \lambda>0, and similarly under (Q1)-(iii) for all \lambda>0 when q>1. The proof, however, only establishes the desired upper bound sup_t \zeta_\lambda(t)<c_\star when the bracketed expression is negative; in the 'otherwise' branch the inequality is shown only for large \lambda. For small fixed \lambda the term -\lambda/(q+1)\int |\tilde w|^{q+1} is small, so the bracket is typically positive, and no argument is given to exclude this case. Thus the proof does not support the 'any \lambda>0' assertions for (Q1)-(ii) and (Q1)-(iii). The authors should either supply an argument covering all \lambda in those branches or weaken the theorem accordingly.
  2. [Proposition 13] The proof of Proposition 13, and through it the lower bound \tilde m_{\lambda,i}>c_\star in (4.7), relies entirely on the dichotomy quoted from [13, Theorem 4.5]: any minimizing sequence for S(\Sigma_D) is either relatively compact or concentrates at a point x_0\in\Sigma_N with the measure convergences in (4.6). The manuscript neither states this theorem nor verifies its hypotheses in the present setting, and the paper is working under (C=), whereas the classification in [13] may be formulated for a different regime. In particular, it is not shown that the concentration point x_0 lies in the interior of \Sigma_N rather than on the interface \Gamma; if x_0\in\Gamma is allowed, the conclusion Q(x_0)=Q_M does not contradict (Q2) unless (Q2) explicitly excludes all maximizers outside \{a_1,\dots,a_k\}. Because this dichotomy is the only mechanism producing the strict separation m_{\lambda,i}<c_\star<\tilde m_{\lambda,i}, the authors must provide the precise statement of [13, Theorem 4.5] and a verification of its applicability, or prove the needed special case.
  3. [Assumption (Q2)] The phrase 'strict global maximizers' in (Q2) is ambiguous. With the standard meaning, a strict global maximizer is unique, so k>1 would be impossible and the multiplicity theorem would be vacuous. The proof of Proposition 13 uses the stronger fact that Q(x_0)=Q_M with x_0\neq a_i cannot occur; this requires the global maximum set to be exactly \{a_1,\dots,a_k\}. The assumption should be restated precisely, for example by requiring Q(a_i)=Q_M for i=1,\dots,k and Q(x)<Q_M for all x\notin\{a_1,\dots,a_k\}, together with the stated rate condition near each a_i.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Proposition 13, case (i)] In the compact alternative of the proof of Proposition 13, the text says that convergence to a minimizer would mean that S(s,N) is attained. The contradiction should be with the non-attainment of S(\Sigma_D) under (C=); as written, attaining S(\Sigma_D)=2^{-2s/N}S(s,N) does not by itself imply attainment of S(s,N). Please correct the sentence.
  2. [Throughout] The notation for the first eigenvalue is inconsistent: the paper uses \lambda_s^1 in Proposition 3 and Theorem 8, and \lambda_{1,s} in Propositions 10 and 12 and Theorem 15. Please unify the notation.
  3. [Lemma 4] In the proof of Lemma 4, a diffeomorphism D_\rho is introduced to reduce the boundary region to a half-ball, but the subsequent estimates are written directly with integrals over B_\rho(a_0). Please clarify how the boundary flattening is used, or remove the unused object.
  4. [General] The paper would benefit from a careful proofreading pass; for example, 'Dirichet' in Section 2 and 'funcional' in Section 1 are typographical errors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the load-bearing external results are independent prior theorems, not restatements of the present claims.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a standard variational argument. Proposition 3's compactness threshold is derived directly from the Sobolev constant S(Σ_D) and the weight maximum Q_M, with no fitted constants. Lemma 6 and Proposition 7 construct truncated-instanton fibers and compare their energy with the critical threshold using explicit asymptotic estimates; the norm estimates (3.7) are quoted from [23, Lemma 12], while (3.9)-(3.12) are proved in the paper. Theorems 8 and 9 then follow from the mountain pass theorem together with Proposition 3. The multiplicity result Theorem 15 rests on Proposition 13, whose only imported step is the dichotomy for minimizing sequences of S(Σ_D) taken from [13, Theorem 4.5]. That theorem is a published, parameter-free classification result about the mixed-boundary Sobolev constant; its assumptions do not include the present theorem or its conclusions, and it is not obtained from the energy levels m_{λ,i} or ~m_{λ,i} that are being compared. The self-citations to [13] and [23], which share co-author Ortega, are therefore genuine external support rather than circular inputs. The legitimate concern is a correctness risk, not circularity: if [13, Theorem 4.5] were not valid in the (C=) case, the contradiction in Proposition 13 would lose its dichotomy; but reliance on an external theorem is ordinary mathematical dependence, not a reduction of the central claim to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard variational machinery, on the Caffarelli-Silvestre extension theory for the spectral fractional Laplacian, and on deep prior results by the same research group: the mixed-boundary Sobolev constant inequalities and the concentration classification of minimizing sequences from [13]. The weight rate exponent α is a hand-chosen condition on Q, not a fitted constant; no new entities are introduced. The ledger shows that the paper imports most of its hard analysis from [13] and [23].

free parameters (1)
  • α, the admissible flatness rate of the weight Q near maxima = α ∈ (0,N) under (Q1)-(i); α = (N − (N − 2s)(q + 1))/2 under (Q1)-(ii),(iii) and (Q2)
    The exponent α is chosen by hand as a hypothesis on Q, not fitted to data. It controls the size of the error terms in the fiber-energy expansion (Lemma 5) so that the subcritical perturbation dominates near the compactness threshold.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard variational machinery: Mountain Pass Theorem, Ekeland variational principle, implicit function theorem, Brezis-Lieb lemma, compact Sobolev embeddings.
    Invoked throughout Sections 3 and 4, especially in Proposition 3, Theorem 8, and Theorem 15.
  • domain assumption Spectral fractional Laplacian defined through the eigenfunction expansion of −Δ with mixed boundary conditions; the space H^s_Σ_D(Ω) and the s-harmonic extension isometry (2.4).
    Section 2 establishes the functional setting and the equivalence of (P_{λ,q}) with (P*_{λ,q}); this is the framework on which all energy estimates rely.
  • domain assumption Mixed Sobolev constant comparison: S(Σ_D) < S(s,N), S(Σ_D) ≤ 2^{-2s/N} S(s,N), with attainment exactly in the strict case, from [13, Prop. 3.6 and Thm 2.9].
    Defines the two regimes (C=) and (C<) used in Theorem 8, Theorem 9, and Section 4; the compactness threshold c* is built from these constants.
  • domain assumption Classification of minimizing sequences for S(Σ_D): either relatively compact or concentrating at a point of Σ_N, from [13, Theorem 4.5].
    Used in Proposition 13 to derive the contradiction that places the barycenter level above the compactness threshold, a key step for multiplicity.
  • domain assumption Hypotheses (Q1)/(Q2) on the weight Q: strict global maxima on Σ_N with the stated rate α.
    Used in Lemmas 5-6 and Proposition 7 to place the fiber energies below the compactness threshold, and in Proposition 13 to force a concentration point to be one of the a_i.
  • domain assumption Strong maximum principle for the spectral fractional Laplacian with mixed boundary conditions.
    Invoked at the end of Theorems 8, 9, and 15 to upgrade nonnegative solutions to strictly positive solutions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Positive solutions for a weighted critical problem with mixed boundary conditions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZOBXCDFW

@misc{pith2026241211497,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Positive solutions for a weighted critical problem with mixed boundary conditions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZOBXCDFW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11497}
}
read the original abstract

We analyze the existence and multiplicity of positive solutions to a nonlocal elliptic problem involving the spectral fractional Laplace operator endowed with homogeneous mixed Dirichlet-Neumann boundary conditions and weighted critical nonlinearities. By means of variational methods and the Nehari manifold approach, we deduce the existence of multiple positive solutions under some assumptions on the behavior of the weight function around its maximum points. Such a behavior, formulated in terms of some rate growth, is explicitly determined and depends on the relation between the dimension, the order of the operator and the subcritical perturbation. In this way we extend and improve the results in "J.F. Liao, J. Liu, P. Zhang, C.L. Tang, Existence and multiplicity of positive solutions for a class of elliptic equations involving critical Sobolev exponents, RACSAM 110 (2016) 483--501", dealing with the Dirichlet problem for the classical Laplace operator, to the nonlocal setting involving mixed boundary conditions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    J.F. Liao, J. Liu, P. Zhang, C.L. Tang, Existence and multiplicity of positive solutions for a clas s of elliptic equations involving critical Sobolev exponents . RACSAM 110 (2016) 483–501

    work page 2016

  2. [13]

    Colorado, A

    E. Colorado, A. Ortega, The Brezis-Nirenberg problem for the fractional Laplacian with mixed Dirichlet- Neumann boundary conditions . J. Math. Anal. Appl. 473(2) (2019), 1002–1025

    work page 2019

  3. [23]

    Ortega, Concave-convex critical problems for the spectral fractio nal laplacian with mixed boundary condi- tions

    A. Ortega, Concave-convex critical problems for the spectral fractio nal laplacian with mixed boundary condi- tions. Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 26 (2023) 305–335

    work page 2023

  4. [1]

    Ambrosetti, H

    A. Ambrosetti, H. Brezis, G. Cerami, Combined effects of concave and convex nonlinearities in some elliptic problems. J. Funct. Anal. 122(2) (1994), pp. 519–543

    work page 1994

  5. [2]

    Ambrosetti, J.G

    A. Ambrosetti, J.G. Azorero, I. Peral, Elliptic variational problems in RN with critical growth . J. Differ. Equ. 168 (2000), pp. 10–32

    work page 2000

  6. [3]

    Br¨ andle, E

    C. Br¨ andle, E. Colorado, A. de Pablo and U. S´ anchez, A concave-convex elliptic problem involving the fractional Laplacian. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, 143 A (2013), 39–71

    work page 2013

  7. [4]

    Barrios, E

    B. Barrios, E. Colorado, A. de Pablo and U. S´ anchez, On some critical problems for the fractional Laplacian operator. J. Differential Equations 252 (2012), no. 11, pp. 6133–6162

    work page 2012

  8. [5]

    Barrios, E

    B. Barrios, E. Colorado, R. Servadei, F. Soria, A critical fractional equation with concave-convex power nonlinearities. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e Anal. Non Lin´ eaire32(4) (2015), 875–900

    work page 2015

Show all 25 references
  1. [6]

    Bhakta, D

    M. Bhakta, D. Mukherjee, Multiplicity results and sign changing solutions of non-lo cal equations with concave- convex nonlinearities. Differential Integral Equations 30 (5/6) (2017), pp. 387–422

    2017

  2. [7]

    Brezis, L

    H. Brezis, L. Nirenberg, Positive solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations involv ing critical Sobolev exponents . Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 36 (1983), no. 4, 437-477

    1983

  3. [8]

    Cabr´ e and J

    X. Cabr´ e and J. Tan, Positive solutions of nonlinear problems involving the squ are root of the Laplacian . Adv. Math. 224 (2010), no. 5, pp. 2052–2093

    2010

  4. [9]

    Caffarelli and L

    L. Caffarelli and L. Silvestre, An extension problem related to the fractional Laplacian . Comm. Partial Dif- ferential Equations 32 (2007), no. 7-9, 1245–1260

    2007

  5. [10]

    Cao, H.S

    D.M. Cao, H.S. Zhou, Multiple positive solutions of nonhomogeneous semilinear elliptic equations in RN . Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, 126 A (1996), pp 443–463

    1996

  6. [11]

    Capella, J

    A. Capella, J. D´ avila, L. Dupaigne and Y. Sire, Regularity of radial extremal solutions for some non-local semilinear equations. Comm. Partial Differential Equations 36 (2011), no. 8, pp. 1353–1384

    2011

  7. [12]

    Clapp, M

    M. Clapp, M. del Pino, M. Musso, Multiple solutions for a non-homogeneous elliptic equatio n at the critical exponent. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, 134 A (2004), pp. 69–87

    2004

  8. [14]

    Colorado, I

    E. Colorado, I. Peral, Semilinear elliptic problems with mixed Dirichlet-Neuman n boundary conditions . J. Funct. Anal. 199 (2003), no. 2, 468–507

    2003

  9. [15]

    Escobar, Positive solutions for some semilinear elliptic equations with critical Sobolev exponents

    J.F. Escobar, Positive solutions for some semilinear elliptic equations with critical Sobolev exponents . Com- mun. Pure Appl. Math. 40 (1987), pp. 623–657

    1987

  10. [16]

    Hirano, Multiplicity of solutions for nonhomogeneous nonlinear el liptic equations with critical exponents

    N. Hirano, Multiplicity of solutions for nonhomogeneous nonlinear el liptic equations with critical exponents . Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 18 (2001), pp. 269–281

    2001

  11. [17]

    Kuhestani, H

    N. Kuhestani, H. Mahyar, A. Moameni, Multiplicity results for a non-local problem with super-cr itical concave and convex nonlinearities . Nonlinear Anal. 182 (2019), pp. 263–279

    2019

  12. [18]

    T.X. Li, T.F. Wu, Multiple positive solutions for a Dirichlet problem involv ing critical Sobolev exponent . J. Math. Anal. Appl. 369 (2010), pp. 245–257

    2010

  13. [20]

    J.F. Liao, Y. Pu, C.L. Tang, Multiplicity of positive solutions for a class of concave-c onvex elliptic equations with critical growth . Acta Math. Sci. Ser. B (Engl. Ed.) 38 (2018), no. 2, pp. 497–518

    2018

  14. [21]

    Lin, Positive solutions for nonhomogeneous elliptic equations involving critical Sobolev exponent

    H.L. Lin, Positive solutions for nonhomogeneous elliptic equations involving critical Sobolev exponent . Non- linear Anal. 75 (2012), pp. 2660–2671

    2012

  15. [22]

    Lions and E

    J.-L. Lions and E. Magenes, Non-homogeneous boundary value problems and applications . Vol. I . Springer- Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1972

    1972

  16. [24]

    P. S. Stinga and J. L. Torrea, Extension problem and Harnack’s inequality for some fracti onal operators . Comm. Partial Differential Equations 35 (2010), pp. 2092–2122. 28 POSITIVE SOLUTIONS FOR A WEIGHTED MIXED CRITICAL PROBLEM

    2010

  17. [25]

    Tarantello, On nonhomogeneous elliptic involving critical Sobolev exp onent

    G. Tarantello, On nonhomogeneous elliptic involving critical Sobolev exp onent. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e Anal. Non Lineaire 9 (1992), 281–304

    1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.