Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 38 references

Rigidity of weak solutions for anisotropic N-Laplacian equation with Neumann or Robin boundary condition

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Anisotropic N-Laplacian: every Neumann weak solution on a convex domain is constant

desk verdict Genuine p=N extension with a load-bearing gap: Theorem 1.2 needs an unstated growth assumption on f, and Lemma 3.3 is stated without proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21123 v1 pith:SXERBF7Z submitted 2026-07-23 math.AP math.DG

Yuxia Guo , Yichen Hu , Shaolong Peng , Tingfeng Yuan This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.APmath.DG MSC 35J9235B53
keywords anisotropicN-LaplacianrigidityofweaksolutionsNeumannboundaryconditionRobinconvexdomainsolutionintegralinequalitycriticalexponentp=N
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 works at the critical exponent p=N for the anisotropic operator div(H^{N-1}(∇u)∇H(∇u)), where H is a strictly convex norm. It aims to show that on bounded convex domains, rigidity is the rule: under the natural monotonicity condition that e^{-t}f(t) is non-increasing, every weak solution of the anisotropic N-Laplacian Neumann problem is constant, and every admissible weak solution of the Robin problem satisfying a boundary sign condition must be one of two explicit logarithmic profiles. The engine is a new integral inequality that controls an interior gradient-weighted quantity by a boundary integral built from the anisotropic gradient and the convex boundary's second fundamental form. The result matters because it fills the gap between the well-understood subcritical case 1

What carries the argument

The central tool is the Newton defect S2(W)=1/2(−tr(W^2)+tr(W)^2) for W=∇a(∇v) with v=Ne^{−u/N}; the Newton-type bound S2(W)≤(N−1)/(2N)tr(W)^2 measures how far the Hessian-type matrix W is from being scalar, and equality holds only when W=λI. Combining this with weighted integration by parts and a cut-off to the boundary yields the integral inequality of Proposition 1.7. The boundary quantity B_Ω[u] contains the second fundamental form Π_x(a_T(∇u),a_T(∇u)); convexity of Ω makes this contribution nonnegative, which is why convexity is assumed. When all terms force equality, Legendre duality for the homogeneous convex function H^N/N turns the scalar-Hessian condition into the two explicit loga

What would settle it

A direct check of the exclusion step: for the profile u=NlogN−Nlog(ℓ·x+c) with ℓ≠0, the paper computes 0=∫_∂Ω(â(∇v)·x)(â(∇v)·ν)dσ=|â(ℓ)|²|Ω|, an impossibility; recomputing this divergence-theorem identity for any convex domain verifies why the linear profile cannot survive Neumann data. Alternatively, a nonconstant weak solution of the pure Neumann problem with H=|·| and f(s)=−e^s (so Φ'=0) would refute Theorem 1.2 outright.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On a bounded, connected, convex C^2 domain Ω, take a C^2 strictly convex norm H and f∈C^1(R) with (e^{-t}f(t))'≤0. Theorem 1.2 asserts that any weak solution of div(H^{N-1}(∇u)∇H(∇u))+f(u)=0 in Ω with a(∇u)·ν=0 on ∂Ω is constant. The proof derives the inequality (N-1)/N ∫_Ω e^{u/N}H^N(∇u)Φ'(u)dx ≥ ∫_∂Ω B_Ω[u]dσ for classical or admissible solutions, where B_Ω[u] packages the anisotropic gradient, the second fundamental form, and boundary terms. Because Φ'≤0 makes the left side non-positive and, for Neumann data, the boundary integral reduces to the nonnegative second-fundamental-form term, both must vanish; the equality case of the underlying Newton-type inequality has only the two profiles

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that every weak solution can be approximated in C^1 by smooth classical solutions and remains bounded (the boundedness lemma uses the growth condition |f(t)|≤C e^{|t|}), because without that the boundary integral in the central inequality is not known to be well defined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central inequality applies, the Robin classification is unconditional: the only admissible weak solutions satisfying the boundary sign condition are the two explicit logarithmic profiles.
  • In the pure Neumann case, the two profiles are excluded by a divergence-theorem argument, so every weak solution is constant; thus no nonconstant rigid states exist at the critical exponent on convex domains.
  • The sign condition ∫_∂Ω B_Ω dσ≥0 is sufficient but not necessary: the paper exhibits nonconstant Robin solutions with zero boundary integral and nonconstant solutions with negative boundary integral, so the concrete sufficient conditions on h in Corollary 1.9 matter for applications.
  • The same proof scheme, applied to approximating bounded convex domains, extends rigidity and classification to suitable unbounded convex domains under an integrability condition and boundary sign condition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The admissibility condition is the load-bearing gap: the paper does not construct smooth approximating classical solutions for a general weak solution. If that approximation can be established, or replaced by a direct W^{1,2} pass for a(∇u) in the boundary integral, the Robin classification becomes a theorem about all weak solutions rather than only admissible ones.
  • The boundedness lemma (Lemma 2.2) that feeds the higher-regularity step requires a growth bound |f(t)|≤C e^{|t|}; since the statement of Theorem 1.2 does not list this hypothesis, the theorem should be read as conditional on boundedness or on some replacement regularity assumption unless the gap is filled.
  • The equality profiles are the anisotropic analogues of standard Liouville bubbles in the critical case p=N; a testable extension is whether the sign condition ∫_∂Ω B_Ω≥0 is also necessary for classification, i.e., whether every non-profile solution has negative boundary integral, as the small ε x_1 example suggests.
  • The method depends only on strict convexity and Legendre duality of H^N/N, so the same machinery should classify solutions for other convex, sufficiently smooth homogeneous integrands whose dual profile is explicit.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies rigidity of weak solutions to the anisotropic N-Laplacian equation div(a(∇u))+f(u)=0 with Neumann or Robin boundary conditions on bounded convex C^2 domains, where a(ξ)=H^{N-1}(ξ)∇H(ξ). The main results are Theorem 1.2 (all weak solutions of the Neumann problem are constant under Φ'≤0 with Φ(t)=e^{-t}f(t)) and Theorem 1.8 (under an admissibility condition and sign condition ∫∂Ω B_Ω[u] dσ≥0, solutions have one of two explicit logarithmic profiles). The proofs rely on a key integral inequality (Proposition 1.7) obtained via a Newton-type inequality, an omitted divergence identity (Lemma 3.3), and an approximation/boundedness framework (Definition 1.5, Proposition 2.4).

Significance. If correct, the results would meaningfully extend the subcritical rigidity theory of Ciraolo–Corso–Roncoroni to the critical case p=N for anisotropic operators and nonlinear Robin conditions, with explicit classification of equality profiles. The paper also presents concrete sufficient conditions for the boundary sign condition and two nontrivial examples showing sharpness. However, the main claims currently rest on several unproved or insufficiently justified steps, so the significance is conditional on those gaps being closed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 1.2 and Lemma 2.2 / Proposition 2.4] Theorem 1.2 is stated for arbitrary weak solutions with only f∈C^1 and Φ'≤0. The proof of the boundary limit (3.7)–(3.8) and the use of Proposition 2.4 require u∈L^∞. Lemma 2.2 proves L^∞ only under the additional growth assumption |f(t)|≤C e^{|t|}, which is absent from Theorem 1.2 and is not implied by (1.4). For example, f(t)=1−e^{t+e^t} satisfies Φ'≤0 but grows faster than any e^{c|t|}. The abstract's claim of no a priori boundedness is therefore not supported. Either the growth hypothesis must be added to Theorem 1.2 or a new boundedness/approximation argument for (1.4) alone must be supplied.
  2. [Lemma 3.3] Lemma 3.3 is the core divergence identity used to derive the principal inequality (3.4) and then Proposition 1.7, but its proof is omitted with only 'Here we omit the proof.' The cited Lemma 3.3 in [10] and Lemma 3.1 in [9] concern the subcritical anisotropic p-Laplacian; the adaptation to p=N involves different powers and the change of variables v=N e^{-u/N}, so the omission is not routine. Since Proposition 1.7 is the main engineering tool, this gap is load-bearing and must be filled with a complete proof or a precise theorem–reference chain.
  3. [Definition 1.5 and proof of Theorem 1.2] Definition 1.5 postulates the existence of smooth regularized classical solutions converging in C^1 without any construction. For Theorem 1.8 this admissibility is an assumption, but for Theorem 1.2 the text says 'we do not need to assume u is an admissible weak solution to use the argument of Proposition 2.4.' This is not justified: Proposition 2.4 yields a(∇u)∈W^{1,2} only for bounded weak solutions, and it does not produce the C^1 approximation needed to pass the boundary integral in (3.7)–(3.8) to the limit δ→0. The trace convergence and the integrability of e^{u/N}H^N(∇u)Φ'(u) require additional arguments that are not provided.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The abstract states results hold 'without requiring any a priori boundedness assumption,' but the proof of Lemma 2.2 requires |f(t)|≤C e^{|t|}. The wording should be aligned with the actual hypotheses.
  2. [Lemma 2.2 proof] In the proof, the Hölder exponents p0 and p0' are used inconsistently; for instance, after (2.8) the L^{p0} norms of f(u) and h(u) are used with L^{p0'} norms of u−k, but p0 is never quantified relative to N. The exponent θ=1/p0'−1/N requires p0'>N for positivity, which is not stated. This should be clarified.
  3. [Definition 1.4] The definition of classical solution requires u∈C^2(Ω)∩C^1(Ω) and a(∇u)∈C^1(Ω;R^N); the latter is redundant for C^2 u if a is C^1, but if a is merely continuous the condition should be stated explicitly as an additional regularity assumption on a.
  4. [Theorem 1.10 and Definition 1.5] Theorem 1.10 refers to solutions that 'locally satisfy the condition of admissible weak solution,' but no local version of Definition 1.5 is given. It is unclear whether admissibility is required on each approximating domain D_j or on compact subsets of Ω.
  5. [Proposition 1.7 and Lemma 3.1] The profile (1.10) and (1.13) involve H0, which is not defined in the statement of Proposition 1.7. H0 presumably denotes the dual norm of H, but this should be stated explicitly.
  6. [Remark 4.6] In the computation for u_ε=ε x_1, the second fundamental form term is not written explicitly; the displayed expression begins with ε^2(2c^2−1), but the derivation from (4.11) is not shown. A short explanation would help the reader verify the sign computation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the core inequality and classification are derived from the equation, external Newton-type and regularity results, and an explicit admissibility hypothesis; the flagged weak-solution gaps are rigor gaps, not reductions to inputs.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained relative to its stated assumptions. Proposition 1.7 proves the key integral inequality for classical solutions by substituting v=N e^{-u/N}, using the algebraic Newton inequality (cited to [13]) and Lemma 3.3 (borrowed from external [9,10]); the equality case is handled in Lemma 3.1 by Legendre duality, not by assuming the profiles. The passage from classical to weak solutions is governed by Definition 1.5, which explicitly postulates C^1-convergent regularized classical solutions, and by Proposition 2.4 (from external [9,10]); this is an extra admissibility hypothesis, not a restatement of constancy or of the two explicit profiles. The monotonicity condition Φ'≤0 and the boundary sign condition (1.11) are inputs that force equality in (1.7); they do not encode the conclusion. Self-citations [15] and [25] are background only and are never load-bearing in the proof. Flagged but non-circular: the proof of Theorem 1.2 asserts "we do not need to assume u is an admissible weak solution to use the argument of Proposition 2.4" (Section 4), while Proposition 2.4 requires boundedness and Lemma 2.2 proves L∞ only under |f(t)|≤C e^{|t|}, a hypothesis absent from Theorem 1.2; Lemma 3.3 is also stated with "Here we omit the proof" and deferred to [9,10]. These are completeness/rigor gaps concerning the weak-solution bridge, not a circular equivalence between the theorem's output and its inputs, so they do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No empirical constants are fitted; the paper is pure analysis. The central claim rests on standard regularity theorems plus two paper-specific assumptions that are not fully established: the admissibility of weak solutions (Definition 1.5) and the local identity of Lemma 3.3. An unflagged extra hypothesis, the exponential growth bound |f(t)| ≤ C e^{|t|}, is needed for the boundedness step in Theorem 1.2.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption H is a C^2 strictly convex norm on R^N; the associated H^N is strictly convex and has the Legendre-dual properties used in Lemma 3.1.
    Invoked throughout Theorems 1.2, 1.8, 1.10 and in the equality-profile classification (Section 3, Lemma 3.1).
  • domain assumption Ω is bounded, connected, convex, and of class C^2, so the second fundamental form of ∂Ω is nonnegative.
    Needed for the boundary term ∫∂Ω Π_x(a_T,a_T) dσ ≥ 0 and for the convex-domain approximation in Proposition 2.4.
  • domain assumption f ∈ C^1 satisfies Φ' ≤ 0 with Φ(t)=e^{-t}f(t).
    This monotonicity yields the nonpositive bulk term in the main inequality; used in Theorems 1.2, 1.8, 1.10.
  • domain assumption The solution is bounded, or f satisfies |f(t)| ≤ C e^{|t|} (and h satisfies the hypotheses of Lemma 2.2), so the Moser-Trudinger argument gives u ∈ L∞.
    Lemma 2.2 and Proposition 2.4 require boundedness; the growth condition is not stated in Theorem 1.2 but appears necessary for the proof.
  • ad hoc to paper Definition 1.5 admissibility: there exist smooth uniformly elliptic regularizations a_j, f_j, h_j and classical solutions u_j converging to u in C^1.
    Assumed for Theorem 1.8 and Theorem 1.10; no construction or existence theorem is given for general weak solutions, yet the boundary integral identity is applied through this assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Lemma 3.3: the divergence identity (3.3) holds; proof omitted.
    Stated without proof in Section 3 ('Here we omit the proof'), citing [9,10]. This identity is the engine of Proposition 1.7.
  • standard math Standard regularity and embedding results: Moser-Trudinger inequalities, C^{1,α} regularity for the N-Laplacian, and the Calderón-Zygmund-type estimate of Proposition 2.4.
    External results cited from [2,8] and used without proof in the regularity and L∞ arguments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rigidity of weak solutions for anisotropic N-Laplacian equation with Neumann or Robin boundary condition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SXERBF7Z

@misc{pith2026260721123,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rigidity of weak solutions for anisotropic N-Laplacian equation with Neumann or Robin boundary condition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SXERBF7Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21123}
}
abstract

This paper is devoted to the rigidity of weak solutions for anisotropic $N$-Laplacian equations with Neumann or Robin boundary conditions on smooth bounded convex domains of $\mathbb{R}^N$. The anisotropic operator is given by $$a(\xi) = H^{N-1}(\xi)\nabla H(\xi),$$ where $H$ stands for a norm on $\mathbb{R}^N$; this formulation contains the classical $N$-Laplacian as a special case. We establish a key integral inequality involving the anisotropic gradient and the second fundamental form of the domain boundary, which acts as the core technical tool in our proofs. Under natural monotonicity assumptions on the nonlinearity, we prove that all weak solutions to the Neumann boundary problem are constant, without requiring any a priori boundedness assumption on the solution. Furthermore, we extend this rigidity result to Robin boundary value problems by imposing suitable constraints on the boundary nonlinear term. Moreover, our rigidity results remain valid not only on bounded convex domains but also on suitable unbounded domains. By working under substantially weaker assumptions than those previously available, we establish rigidity results that fill the gaps in the existing literature for anisotropic $N$-Laplacian equations with nonlinear boundary conditions and substantially extend the rigidity theory of anisotropic quasilinear elliptic equations at the critical exponent $p=N$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [10]

    Ciraolo, A

    G. Ciraolo, A. Figalli, A. Roncoroni, Symmetry results for critical anisotropic p-Laplacian equations in convex cones, Geom. Funct. Anal.30(2020), no. 3, 770–803

    2020

  2. [9]

    Ciraolo, R

    G. Ciraolo, R. Corso, A. Roncoroni, Classification and non-existence results for weak solutions to quasilinear elliptic equations with Neumann or Robin boundary conditions, J. Funct. Anal.280(2021), no. 1, Paper No. 108787, 27 pp

    2021

  3. [1]

    Scuola Norm

    Adimurthi, Existence of positive solutions of the semilinear Dirichlet problem with critical growth for the n-Laplacian, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4)17(1990), no. 3, 393–413

    1990

  4. [2]

    Avelin, T

    B. Avelin, T. Kuusi, G. Mingione, Nonlinear Calder´ on-Zygmund theory in the limiting case, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 227 (2018), 663-714

    2018

  5. [3]

    Bianchini and G

    C. Bianchini and G. Ciraolo, Wulff shape characterizations in overdetermined anisotropic elliptic problems, Comm. Partial Differential Equations43(2018), no. 5, 790-820

    2018

  6. [4]

    Birindelli, F

    I. Birindelli, F. Demengel, Some Liouville theorems for the p-Laplacian, inProceedings of the 2001 Luminy Conference on Quasilinear Elliptic and Parabolic Equations and System, 35–46, Electron. J. Differ. Equ. Conf., 8, Southwest Texas State Univ., San Marcos, TX

    2001

  7. [5]

    Bidaut-V´ eron, S

    M.-F. Bidaut-V´ eron, S. I. Pohozaev, Nonexistence results and estimates for some nonlinear elliptic problems, J. Anal. Math.84(2001), 1–49

    2001

  8. [6]

    L. ´A. Caffarelli, B. Gidas, J. Spruck, Asymptotic symmetry and local behavior of semilinear elliptic equations with critical Sobolev growth, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.42(1989), no. 3, 271-297

    1989

Show all 38 references
  1. [7]

    Catino, D

    G. Catino, D. D. Monticelli, A. Roncoroni, On the critical p-Laplace equation, Adv. Math.433(2023), Paper No. 109331, 38 pp

    2023

  2. [8]

    Cianchi, Moser-Trudinger trace inequalities, Adv

    A. Cianchi, Moser-Trudinger trace inequalities, Adv. Math.217(2008), no. 5, 2005-2044

    2008

  3. [11]

    Ciraolo and X

    G. Ciraolo and X. Li, Classification of solutions to the anisotropic N -Liouville equation in RN , Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN2024, no. 19, 12824–12856

  4. [12]

    Ciraolo, P

    G. Ciraolo, P. Esposito, X. Li, On the Classification of Solutions to a Class of N -Liouville Equations in RN , arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.10050. ANISOTROPIC N-LAPLACIAN EQUATION 23

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Cianchi, P

    A. Cianchi, P. Salani, Overdetermined anisotropic elliptic problems, Math. Ann. 345 (4) (2009) 859-881

    2009

  6. [14]

    W. Dai, L. X. Duan, C. F. Gui, Y. Li, Nonradial solutions for the critical quasi-linear H´ enon equation involving p-Laplacian inR N , Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3)132(2026)

    2026

  7. [15]

    W. Dai, C. Gui, Y. Hu, S. Peng, Nonlinear Neumann boundary problems for n-Laplacian Liouville equation on a half space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.06414

  8. [16]

    W. Dai, C. Gui, Y. P. Luo, Anisotropic Finsler N -Laplacian Liouville equation in convex cones, arXiv:2407.04987, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    L. Chen, W. Dai, C. F. Gui, Y. P. Luo, Liouville theorems for p-Laplacian equations in convex cones without finite-energy condition, arXiv:2605.29281, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Damascelli, S

    L. Damascelli, S. Merch´ an, L. Montoro, B. Sciunzi, Radial symmetry and applications for a problem involving the−∆ p(·) operator and critical nonlinearity inR N , Adv. Math.265(2014), 313–335

    2014

  11. [19]

    A. L. A. de Araujo, L. F. de Oliveira Faria, Existence, nonexistence, and asymptotic behavior of solutions for N -Laplacian equations involving critical exponential growth in the whole RN , Math. Ann.384(2022), no. 3-4, 1469–1507

    2022

  12. [20]

    J. M. B. do ´O, Semilinear Dirichlet problems for the N -Laplacian in RN with nonlinearities in the critical growth range, Differential Integral Equations9(1996), no. 5, 967–979

    1996

  13. [21]

    Esposito, A classification result for the quasi-linear Liouville equation, Ann

    P. Esposito, A classification result for the quasi-linear Liouville equation, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e C Anal. Non Lin´ eaire35(2018), no. 3, 781–801

    2018

  14. [22]

    X. L. Fan, X. Han, Existence and multiplicity of solutions for p(x)-Laplacian equations in RN , Nonlinear Anal. 59(2004), no. 1-2, 173-188

    2004

  15. [23]

    Gidas, W.-M

    B. Gidas, W.-M. Ni and L. Nirenberg, Symmetry and related properties via the maximum principle, Comm. Math. Phys.68(1979), no. 3, 209–243

    1979

  16. [24]

    Gidas and J

    B. Gidas and J. Spruck, Global and local behavior of positive solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.34(1981), no. 4, 525–598

    1981

  17. [25]

    Y. X. Guo and J. Q. Liu, Solutions of p-sublinear p-Laplacian equation via Morse theory, J. London Math. Soc. 72(2005), no. 2, 632–644

    2005

  18. [26]

    Lam and G

    N. Lam and G. Lu, Existence and multiplicity of solutions to equations of N -Laplacian type with critical exponential growth inR N , J. Funct. Anal.262(2012), no. 3, 1132–1165

    2012

  19. [27]

    E. L. Mitidieri, S. I. Pohozaev, Absence of positive solutions for quasilinear elliptic problems on RN , Proc. Steklov Inst. Math.227(1999), no. 4, 186–216

    1999

  20. [28]

    E. L. Mitidieri and S. I. Pohozaev, A priori estimates and the absence of solutions of nonlinear partial differential equations and inequalities, Proc. Steklov Inst. Math.234(2001), no. 3, 1-362

    2001

  21. [29]

    J. K. Moser, A sharp form of an inequality by N. Trudinger, Indiana Univ. Math. J.20(1971), 1077–1092

    1971

  22. [30]

    Ou, On the classification of entire solutions to the critical p-Laplace equation, Math

    Q. Ou, On the classification of entire solutions to the critical p-Laplace equation, Math. Ann.392(2025), no. 2, 1711–1729

    2025

  23. [31]

    S. I. Pohozaev, On the eigenfunctions of the equation ∆ u + λf (u) = 0, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR165(1965), 36-39

    1965

  24. [32]

    Pellacci, G

    B. Pellacci, G. Pisante, D. Schiera, Spectral optimization for weighted anisotropic problems with Robin conditions, J. Differential Equations.378(2024), 303-338

    2024

  25. [33]

    Sciunzi, Classification of positive D1,p(RN )-solutions to the critical p-Laplace equation in RN , Adv

    B. Sciunzi, Classification of positive D1,p(RN )-solutions to the critical p-Laplace equation in RN , Adv. Math. 291(2016), 12–23

    2016

  26. [34]

    J. B. Serrin Jr. and H. Zou, Cauchy-Liouville and universal boundedness theorems for quasilinear elliptic equations and inequalities, Acta Math.189(2002), no. 1, 79–142

    2002

  27. [35]

    E. A. B. Silva and S. H. M. Soares, Liouville-Gelfand type problems for the N -Laplacian on bounded domains ofR N , Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4)28(1999), no. 1, 1–30

    1999

  28. [36]

    Stampacchia, Le probl` eme de Dirichlet pour les ´ equations elliptiques du second ordre ` a coefficients discontinus, Ann

    G. Stampacchia, Le probl` eme de Dirichlet pour les ´ equations elliptiques du second ordre ` a coefficients discontinus, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble)15(1965), fasc. 1, 189–258

    1965

  29. [37]

    N. S. Trudinger, On imbeddings into Orlicz spaces and some applications, J. Math. Mech.17(1967), 473–483

    1967

  30. [38]

    V´ etois, A priori estimates and application to the symmetry of solutions for critical p-Laplace equations, J

    J. V´ etois, A priori estimates and application to the symmetry of solutions for critical p-Laplace equations, J. Differential Equations.260(2016), no. 1, 149–161. 24 YUXIA GUO, YICHEN HU, SHAOLONG PENG, AND TINGFENG YUAN (Yuxia Guo)Department of Mathematical Sciences, Tsinghu...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.