Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 34 references

Comparison principle for Singular Fractional $ g- $Laplacian Problems

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves a comparison principle for singular fractional g-Laplacian problems, yielding uniqueness of weak solutions in local Orlicz-Sobolev spaces.

desk verdict The fractional g-Laplacian comparison principle is a real extension with a genuinely new toolbox, but Theorem 2.9 is stated without a sign condition on f and the proof quietly requires f≥0, so the stated theorem is not proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21185 v1 pith:RL2ZFXBU submitted 2025-07-27 math.AP

Abdelhamid Gouasmia , Kaushik Bal This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35J7535R1135J62
keywords comparisonprinciplefractionalg-LaplaciansingularnonlinearityuniquenessOrlicz-SobolevspacesPiconeinequalityDiaz-Saaweaksolutions
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 seeks to show that singular fractional g-Laplacian equations of the form $(-\Delta)_g^s u = f(x)u^{-\alpha} + k(x)u^{\beta}$ admit at most one positive weak solution, even when solutions have infinite energy and lie only in a local Orlicz-Sobolev space. It establishes a weak comparison principle: any weak sub-solution stays almost everywhere below any weak super-solution, under suitable integrability and growth conditions. If correct, this settles uniqueness for a broad class of problems where solutions are not in the finite-energy space, and it also makes the unique solution inherit symmetries of the data. The proof rests on new nonlocal analogues of the D\'iaz-Saa inequality and Picone's identity for the fractional g-Laplacian.

What carries the argument

The central objects are two inequalities for the fractional g-Laplacian: a G-fractional D\'iaz-Saa inequality (Lemma 2.8) and a pointwise G-fractional Picone inequality (Proposition 2.6). The D\'iaz-Saa inequality, derived from a hidden-convexity property of the modular functional and strict ray-convexity, controls the difference of two nonlocal operator terms by a nonnegative quantity. The comparison proof minimizes a penalized energy functional $J_\epsilon$ on the convex set $\{\phi \in W_0^{s,G} : 0 \le \phi \le \overline{u}\}$, then uses carefully truncated test functions to pass to limits and force $\underline{u} \le \overline{u}$.

What would settle it

In the model case $G(t) = t^p/p$ (the fractional p-Laplacian), set $\alpha = 1$, choose $\beta < p-1$ and $k > 0$, and take a sign-changing $f$ in the required Orlicz space with $f < 0$ on a set of positive measure. If two distinct positive weak solutions can be exhibited, or a weak sub-solution exceeds a weak super-solution somewhere, the comparison principle fails as stated, since the proof's step dropping the $f$-term is valid only for $f \ge 0$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 2.9 states that under assumptions (H1)-(H4) on the Young function G, with $k$ in a suitable Orlicz space and one of the conditions (A1)-(A3) on the singular term, any weak sub-solution $\underline{u}$ and weak super-solution $\overline{u}$ of problem (P) in the sense of Definition 2.2 satisfy $\underline{u} \le \overline{u}$ almost everywhere in $\Omega$. Corollary 2.11 concludes that any weak solution in this class is unique, and Corollary 2.12 adds that the unique solution inherits symmetries of the domain and the data. The result covers the fractional p-Laplacian and mixed (p,q)-fractional operators as special cases, and it extends to the general problem (GP) under a monotonicity condition on the nonlinearity.

Load-bearing premise

The proof silently assumes the coefficient $f$ is nonnegative when it drops the singular term, and it assumes every weak solution admits a transformation $\Psi(u)$ lying in the finite-energy space; neither condition is stated explicitly as a hypothesis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any weak solution of problem (P) in the stated class is unique, so existence results from other works automatically yield a well-defined solution.
  • The unique solution inherits symmetries of the domain and of the data, such as radial symmetry for balls and annuli.
  • The general comparison theorem (Theorem 2.10) applies to a wider class of singular problems whose nonlinearity satisfies a monotonicity condition.
  • The G-fractional D\'iaz-Saa and Picone inequalities are established as tools that can be used in eigenvalue simplicity, Sturmian comparison, and Hardy-type inequalities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The proof silently assumes the coefficient $f$ is nonnegative when it drops the singular term in Claim 3.3; if $f$ changes sign, the comparison principle as stated may fail, and a separate argument or an explicit sign hypothesis would be needed.
  • The membership condition Definition 2.2(i), requiring a function $\Psi \in F_C$ with $\Psi(u) \in W_0^{s,G}$, is assumed rather than verified for solutions constructed elsewhere; checking it for those solutions would settle whether the uniqueness result applies to them.
  • The condition $\beta < p_- - 1$ appears sharp in the proof, since the final integral estimate uses it to force a nonpositive limit; testing the borderline case $\beta = p_- - 1$ could reveal whether non-uniqueness emerges at the critical exponent.
  • The G-fractional Picone inequality likely has applications beyond uniqueness, for example proving simplicity of the first eigenvalue; that would make the tool independently useful even where the comparison principle does not directly apply.
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 studies uniqueness for the singular fractional g-Laplacian problem (-Delta)_g^s u = f(x)u^{-alpha} + k(x)u^beta with u>0 in Omega and u=0 outside Omega, under the condition beta < p_- - 1. It develops several auxiliary tools: a hidden-convexity statement (Proposition 2.5), a G-fractional Picone-type inequality (Proposition 2.6), a ray-convexity result (Proposition 2.7), and a G-fractional Diaz-Saa inequality (Lemma 2.8). The central result, Theorem 2.9, asserts a weak comparison principle for sub- and super-solutions in the local Orlicz-Sobolev class of Definition 2.2 under one of the integrability conditions (A1)-(A3); Corollary 2.11 derives uniqueness and Corollary 2.12 derives symmetry. A second comparison principle for general nonlinearities satisfying (F1)-(F2) is stated as Theorem 2.10. The proof follows the variational minimization and truncation strategy of Canino-Sciunzi, adapted to the nonlocal Orlicz setting.

Significance. The auxiliary inequalities in Propositions 2.5-2.8 are plausible and, if correct, are of independent interest for spectral, Sturmian, and Hardy-type applications. The variational comparison argument is a substantial technical extension of known methods for singular p-Laplacian problems to the fractional Orlicz framework. There is no machine-checkable proof or numerical verification, so the assessment rests on the written argument. The significance is conditional: the main comparison theorem would be a genuine new result once a missing sign hypothesis on f is added, but as stated the central claim is not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 2.9 and Eq. (3.27)] The statement of Theorem 2.9 does not assume f >= 0; it only assumes that f is nonzero and satisfies one of (A1)-(A3). In the proof of Claim 3.3, the transition from (3.19) to (3.27) drops the f-integral involving f(x)[u^{-alpha}/(u+m)^{p_- - 1} - (w0+epsilon)^{-alpha}/(w0+m+epsilon)^{p_- - 1}] T_k(...) dx. On the set where the truncation is positive one has u+m > w0+m+epsilon, and since t -> t^{-(alpha+p_- - 1)} is decreasing, the bracket is negative. Dropping this term is legitimate only if f >= 0 a.e.; if f is negative on a set of positive measure, the dropped integral is positive, so (3.27) and the later liminf/monotone-convergence step (3.28)-(3.30) do not follow. Moreover, for sign-changing f the map u -> f(x)u^{-alpha} + k(x)u^beta is not monotone in u, so the usual sub/super-solution comparison is not a routine consequence. The authors should add f >= 0 a.e. to the hypotheses of Problem (P), Theorem 2.9, and Corollaries 2.11-2.12 (and to the abstract), or provide an alternative argument that controls the f-term without discarding it.
  2. [Definition 2.2 and Corollary 2.11] The uniqueness statement is proved only within the class of Definition 2.2, whose condition (i) requires, for each weak solution, a function Psi in F_C such that Psi(u) in W_0^{s,G} and a positive lower bound on compact sets. The paper does not verify that the weak solutions constructed in [10] for the singular problem (1.1) satisfy this condition; those solutions are only obtained in W^{s,G}_{loc}(Omega). Since [10] is the existence result on which the paper builds, the connection between the existence theory and the uniqueness theorem is incomplete. Please either verify condition (i) for the solutions of [10] or state explicitly in Corollary 2.11 and Remark 2.4 that uniqueness is conditional on membership in the restricted class of Definition 2.2.
  3. [Eq. (3.21)] The lower bound (3.21) is obtained by applying Lemma 2.8 to the pair (u+m, w0+m+epsilon) on Omega_2 x Omega_2, but Lemma 2.8 is stated only for pairs in W_0^{s,G}(Omega) with positive functions and bounded ratios, while u is only in W^{s,G}_{loc}(Omega). The manuscript does not supply the localization or approximation argument needed to justify this application. Since (3.21) feeds directly into the conclusion (3.26), this is a load-bearing technical gap in the proof of Claim 3.3; if the intended argument is to use truncations of u on Omega_2, it should be written out.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, Examples] The example G(t) = t does not satisfy hypothesis (H4), since g' = 0 makes the condition 1 < p_- - 1 <= t g'(t)/g(t) impossible; this example should be removed or the hypotheses adjusted accordingly.
  2. [Theorem 2.9] In the statement of Theorem 2.9, the sentence 'K denotes the complementary function of the N-function K' is self-referential; please use different symbols for the N-function and the Orlicz space, for instance call the N-function mathcal K and the space L^{mathcal K}.
  3. [Section 3, Claim 3.2] The heading 'Estimate of I3' just before (3.14) refers to a quantity that was called I2 in (3.10); the notation should be unified.
  4. [Eq. (3.27)] In (3.27) and nearby lines the left-hand side is written as an integral over Omega of E2(x,y)dx although E2 is a function of x only; also, the truncation level k and the coefficient k(x) use the same letter, which makes the passages k -> infinity in (3.22) and (3.30) confusing. Rename the truncation parameter, for example ell.
  5. [Remark 2.2] Remark 2.2 refers to 'Theorem 4.2', which does not exist in the manuscript; it should refer to Lemma 2.8 or to Proposition 2.6, depending on the intended statement.
  6. [References] References [23] and [24] appear to be the same paper by Durastanti and Oliva with different page data; please merge them or correct the citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the comparison proof proceeds through independent variational, convexity, and truncation estimates; self-citations are auxiliary technical lemmas, not the target comparison result.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained at the level of the argument: Theorem 2.9 is proved by constructing a minimizer w0 of J_epsilon over K, deriving the variational inequality (3.2), testing with truncations Psi_m and Phi_m, and combining the G-fractional Diaz-Saa type inequality (Lemma 2.8) with modular estimates. Lemma 2.8 is itself proved inside the paper from Proposition 2.5 (hidden convexity) and Proposition 2.7 (ray-strict convexity), so the main comparison statement is not obtained by assuming its own conclusion. References [10] and [23] are used for auxiliary estimates, such as modular bounds and limit-passing arguments, not for the comparison principle itself. The fact that one author of the present paper also appears in [10] is therefore not load-bearing circularity. The substantive caveat is a correctness gap rather than circularity: in Claim 3.3 the transition to (3.27) drops the f-term using a monotonicity argument that requires f >= 0, while Theorem 2.9 states no sign condition on f; for sign-changing f the comparison is not established. Similarly, Definition 2.2(i) imposes a strong class condition via Psi(u) in W_0^{s,G}, and the paper does not prove that solutions arising from [10] satisfy it. These issues affect the validity of the theorem as stated, but they do not reduce the derivation to its inputs, and no fitted parameters or prediction-from-fit structure are present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters and no invented physical entities. The proof rests on structural assumptions on the Young function G, on the cited technical lemmas from [10], and on two implicit premises: nonnegativity of f, and membership of solutions in the class defined by Definition 2.2. The latter two are not derived.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption G is an N-function satisfying (H1)-(H4) with g in C^1(R_+)
    The whole fractional Orlicz-Sobolev framework and the convexity arguments depend on these structural conditions, stated in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption f is nonnegative
    Never stated in Problem (P) or Theorem 2.9, but the proof of Claim 3.3, specifically the passage to (3.27), discards the f-term using monotonicity that requires f >= 0.
  • ad hoc to paper Definition 2.2(i): for each solution there exists Psi in F_C with Psi(u) in W_0^{s,G} and positive lower bound on compact sets
    This class restriction is assumed rather than derived; the paper notes it is crucial but does not prove that solutions from [10] satisfy it. The uniqueness result is therefore conditional on membership in this class.
  • domain assumption Quoted technical lemmas from [10]: Lemmas 2.1, 2.3, 3.10, 3.11
    Used to control modulars, differences of g terms, and truncations; accepted on citation, not reproved here.
  • standard math Embedding W_0^{s,G} into L^{G_*} and compactness for H << G_*
    Invoked via Remark 2.1 and [5, Theorem 1.2] to justify coercivity and Holder estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparison principle for Singular Fractional $ g- $Laplacian Problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RL2ZFXBU

@misc{pith2026250721185,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparison principle for Singular Fractional $ g- $Laplacian Problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RL2ZFXBU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21185}
}
abstract

In this paper, we establish a novel comparison principle of independent interest and prove the uniqueness of weak solutions within the local Orlicz--Sobolev space framework, for the following class of fractional elliptic problems: \begin{equation*} (-\Delta)^{s}_{g} u = f(x) u^{-\alpha} + k(x) u^{\beta}, \quad u > 0 \quad \text{in } \Omega; \quad u = 0 \quad \text{in } \mathbb{R}^{N} \setminus \Omega, \end{equation*} where \( \Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^{N} \) is a smooth bounded domain, \( \alpha > 0 \), and \( \beta > 0 \) satisfies a suitable upper bound. Here, \( (-\Delta)^{s}_{g} \) denotes the fractional \( g \)-Laplacian, with \( g \) being the derivative of a Young function \( G \). The function \( f \) is assumed to be nontrivial, while \( k \) is a positive function, and both \( f \) and \( k \) are assumed to lie in suitable Orlicz spaces. Our analysis relies on a refined variational approach that incorporates a \( G \)-fractional version of the D\'iaz--Saa inequality together with a \( G \)-fractional analogue of Picone's identity. These tools, which are of independent interest, also play a key role in the study of simplicity of eigenvalues, Sturmian-type comparison results, Hardy-type inequalities, and related topics.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    On the singular problem involving fractional g-laplacian

    Kaushik Bal, Riddhi Mishra, and Kaushik Mohanta. On the singular problem involving fractional g-laplacian. Complex Variables and Elliptic Equations, pages 1–23, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Adams and John J

    Robert A. Adams and John J. F. Fournier. Sobolev Spaces, volume 140 of Pure and Applied Mathematics (Amsterdam). Elsevier/Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2 edition, 2003

    work page 2003

  3. [2]

    Fractional orlicz-sobolev embeddings

    Angela Alberico, Andrea Cianchi, Luboˇ s Pick, and Lenka Slav ´ ıkov´ a. Fractional orlicz-sobolev embeddings. Journal de Math´ ematiquesPures et Appliqu´ ees, 149:216–253, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    Regularity results for a class of nonlinear fractional laplacian and singular problems

    Rakesh Arora, Jacques Giacomoni, and Guillaume Warnault. Regularity results for a class of nonlinear fractional laplacian and singular problems. Nonlinear Differential Equations and Applications NoDEA, 28:1–35, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Density properties for orlicz sobolev spaces with fractional order

    Azeddine Baalal, Achraf El Wazna, and Mohamed Amine Zaoui. Density properties for orlicz sobolev spaces with fractional order. Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo Series 2, 73(4):1715–1730, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    Embedding theorems in the fractional Orlicz-Sobolev space and applications to non-local problems

    Sabri Bahrouni and Hichem Ounaies. Embedding theorems in the fractional orlicz-sobolev space and applications to non-local problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06584, 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1909

  7. [6]

    Espaces d'Orlicz, Orlicz-Sobolev et application aux E-D-P

    Sabri Bahrouni and Hichem Ounaies. Espaces d’orlicz, orlicz-sobolev et application aux edp. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13623, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    Variational eigenvalues of the fractional g-laplacian

    Sabri Bahrouni, Hichem Ounaies, and Ariel Salort. Variational eigenvalues of the fractional g-laplacian. Complex Variables and Elliptic Equations, 68(6):1021–1044, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 34 references
  1. [8]

    Basic results of fractional orlicz-sobolev space and applications to non-local problems

    Sabri Bahrouni, Hichem Ounaies, and Leandro S Tavares. Basic results of fractional orlicz-sobolev space and applications to non-local problems. Topological Methods in Nonlinear Analysis, pages 681–695, 2020

    2020

  2. [9]

    Regularity results for a class of mixed local and nonlocal singular problems involving distance function

    Kaushik Bal and Stuti Das. Regularity results for a class of mixed local and nonlocal singular problems involving distance function. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14217, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Hardy and poincar´ e inequalities in fractional orlicz-sobolev spaces

    Kaushik Bal, Kaushik Mohanta, Prosenjit Roy, and Firoj Sk. Hardy and poincar´ e inequalities in fractional orlicz-sobolev spaces. Nonlinear Analysis, 216:112697, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Semilinear problems for the fractional laplacian with a singular nonlinearity

    Bego˜ na Barrios, Ida De Bonis, Mar ´ ıa Medina, and Ireneo Peral. Semilinear problems for the fractional laplacian with a singular nonlinearity. Open Mathematics, 13(1):000010151520150038, 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    Interior and up to the boundary regularity for the fractional g-laplacian: the convex case

    Juli´ an Fern´ andez Bonder, Ariel Salort, and Hern´ an Vivas. Interior and up to the boundary regularity for the fractional g-laplacian: the convex case. Nonlinear Analysis, 223:113060, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Fractional order orlicz-sobolev spaces

    Juli´ an Fern´ andez Bonder and Ariel M Salort. Fractional order orlicz-sobolev spaces. Journal of Functional Analysis, 277(2):333–367, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    A new class of fractional orlicz-sobolev space and singular elliptic problems

    Hamza Boujemaa, Badr Oulgiht, and Maria Alessandra Ragusa. A new class of fractional orlicz-sobolev space and singular elliptic problems. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 526(1):127342, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Convexity properties of dirichlet integrals and picone-type inequalities

    Lorenzo Brasco and Giovanni Franzina. Convexity properties of dirichlet integrals and picone-type inequalities. Kodai Mathematical Journal, 37(3):769–799, 2014

    2014

  9. [17]

    A variational approach to a class of singular semilinear elliptic equations

    Annamaria Canino, Marco Degiovanni, et al. A variational approach to a class of singular semilinear elliptic equations. Journal of Convex Analysis, 11(1):147–162, 2004

    2004

  10. [18]

    The moving plane method for singular semilinear elliptic problems

    Annamaria Canino, Luigi Montoro, and Berardino Sciunzi. The moving plane method for singular semilinear elliptic problems. Nonlinear Analysis, 156:61–69, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Nonlocal problems with singular nonlinearity

    Annamaria Canino, Luigi Montoro, Berardino Sciunzi, and Marco Squassina. Nonlocal problems with singular nonlinearity. Bulletin des Sciences Math´ ematiques, 141(3):223–250, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    A uniqueness result for some singular semilinear elliptic equations

    Annamaria Canino and Berardino Sciunzi. A uniqueness result for some singular semilinear elliptic equations. Communications in Contemporary Mathematics, 18(06):1550084, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    A type of br´ ezis–oswald problem to the ϕ-laplacian operator with very singular term

    ML Carvalho, JV Goncalves, ED Silva, and CAP Santos. A type of br´ ezis–oswald problem to the ϕ-laplacian operator with very singular term. Milan Journal of Mathematics, 86(1):53–80, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Interior and boundary regularity of mixed local nonlocal problem with singular data and its applications

    R Dhanya, Jacques Giacomoni, and Ritabrata Jana. Interior and boundary regularity of mixed local nonlocal problem with singular data and its applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18505, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Comparison principle for elliptic equations with mixed singular nonlinearities

    R Durastanti, F Oliva, et al. Comparison principle for elliptic equations with mixed singular nonlinearities. POTENTIAL ANALYSIS, 57(1):83–100, 2022. 26 ABDELHAMID GOUASMIA AND KAUSHIK BAL

    2022

  16. [24]

    Comparison principle for elliptic equations with mixed singular nonlinearities

    Riccardo Durastanti and Francescantonio Oliva. Comparison principle for elliptic equations with mixed singular nonlinearities. Potential Analysis, pages 1–18

  17. [25]

    A h¨ older infinity laplacian obtained as limit of orlicz fractional laplacians

    Juli´ an Fern´ andez Bonder, Mayte P´ erez-Llanos, and Ariel M Salort. A h¨ older infinity laplacian obtained as limit of orlicz fractional laplacians. Revista Matem´ aticaComplutense, 35(2):447–483, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Fractional p-eigenvalues

    Giovanni Franzina, G Palatucci, et al. Fractional p-eigenvalues. RIVISTA DI MATEMATICA DELLA UNIVERSIT`A DI PARMA, 2(5):373–386, 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    Sobolev and h¨ older regularity results for some singular nonhomogeneous quasilinear problems

    Jacques Giacomoni, Deepak Kumar, and K Sreenadh. Sobolev and h¨ older regularity results for some singular nonhomogeneous quasilinear problems. Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 60(3):121, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Singular quasilinear elliptic equations and h¨ older regularity

    Jacques Giacomoni, Ian Schindler, and Peter Tak´ aˇ c. Singular quasilinear elliptic equations and h¨ older regularity. Comptes Rendus. Math´ ematique, 350(7-8):383–388, 2012

    2012

  21. [29]

    Uniqueness results for mixed local and nonlocal equations with singular nonlinearities and source terms

    Abdelhamid Gouasmia. Uniqueness results for mixed local and nonlocal equations with singular nonlinearities and source terms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.01026, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    M. A. Krasnosel’ski ˘ ı and Ja. B. Ruticki ˘ ı.Convex Functions and Orlicz Spaces. P. Noordhoff Ltd., Groningen, 1961. Translated from the first Russian edition by Leo F. Boron

    1961

  23. [31]

    The natural generalizationj of the natural conditions of ladyzhenskaya and urall’tseva for elliptic equations

    Gary M Lieberman. The natural generalizationj of the natural conditions of ladyzhenskaya and urall’tseva for elliptic equations. Communications in Partial Differential Equations, 16(2-3):311–361, 1991

    1991

  24. [32]

    A minimum problem with free boundary in orlicz spaces

    Sandra Mart ´ ınez and Noemi Wolanski. A minimum problem with free boundary in orlicz spaces. Advances in Mathematics, 218(6):1914–1971, 2008

    1914

  25. [33]

    Existence and multiplicity of solutions for a dirichlet problem in fractional orlicz–sobolev spaces

    Pablo Ochoa, Anal ´ ıa Silva, and Maria Jos´ e Suarez Marziani. Existence and multiplicity of solutions for a dirichlet problem in fractional orlicz–sobolev spaces. Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata (1923-), 203(1):21–47, 2024

    1923

  26. [34]

    Eigenvalues and minimizers for a non-standard growth non-local operator

    Ariel M Salort. Eigenvalues and minimizers for a non-standard growth non-local operator. Journal of Differential Equations, 268(9):5413–5439, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.