Nonlinear Analysis 70 (2009) 41904194

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nonlinear Analysis
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/na
A comparison principle for quasilinear operators in unbounded domains
Evgeny Galakhov
Steklov Mathematical Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Gubkina Street 8, 119991, Moscow, Russia
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 8 April 2008
Accepted 26 September 2008
MSC:
35B05
35J60
Keywords:
Comparison principle
Quasilinear operator
Nonlinear capacity
a b s t r a c t
We establish a comparison principle for quasilinear elliptic operators in unbounded
cylindrical domains by combining the traditional test function method with nonlinear
capacity techniques. Some applications to monotonicity and symmetry of solutions to
nonlinear elliptic problems are given.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Comparison principles play an important role in the study of solutions to nonlinear elliptic and parabolic differential
equations and inequalities, in particular, for deriving such properties as monotonicity and symmetry, as well as Liouville-
type results (see [15]). However, most available versions of the comparison principle hold only in bounded domains.
Well-known counterexamples show that one cannot extend them to arbitrary unbounded domains, at least for general
nonlinearities. Therefore the problemof finding sufficient conditions for their validity in unbounded domains, both in terms
of the geometry of the domain and of the structure of the nonlinearity, is of great interest.
To our knowledge, the first result of such a kind in cylindrical domains was obtained by Dancer [4]. It can be formulated
as follows.
Theorem 1. Let N 1, > 0, and define Q = (0, ) R
N
. Then there exists a constant () > 0 such that if for a Lipschitz
continuous function f : Q R such that
(f (u(x)) f (v(x)))
+
(u(x) v(x))
+
in Q (0.1)
one has
u f (u) v f (v) in D(Q), (0.2)
and, moreover,
u v on Q = {0, } R
N
, (0.3)
then u v in Q.
For the proof, a positive function h : (0, ) R
N
R was constructed in such a way that h = h and h(x) as
|x| , which can be done for 0 < <
2

2
. If one assumes for a contradiction that Z = {x Q : u(x) < v(x)} = ,
this assumption implies that the function (v u)/h has a nonnegative maximumin Z, which is impossible. This result easily
extends to more general second-order linear elliptic operators L and domains of the form Q = R
N
2
with R
N
1
E-mail address: galakhov@mi.ras.ru.
0362-546X/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.na.2008.09.008
E. Galakhov / Nonlinear Analysis 70 (2009) 41904194 4191
smooth and bounded, N
1
, N
2
1 (see [1]). In this case, is, in fact, determined by the smallest eigenvalue of the operator
L with Dirichlet boundary conditions in .
However, it is known that such principles do not hold in general for quasilinear operators, such as the p-Laplacian defined
by
p
u := div(|Du|
p2
Du), eveninboundeddomains. Therefore additional assumptions are required, suchas a priori bounds
for Du and Dv, and the constant must in general depend on these bounds. Under these assumptions, a comparison principle
for the p-Laplacian in bounded domains was established in [2,3].
Our goal is to extend the result of [2] to unbounded cylindrical domains. For this purpose, we combine the technique
developed in [2] with the nonlinear capacity method (see [6] and references therein). That is, we use test functions of the
form (u v)

R
, where
R
is a mollified characteristic function that depends on the parameter R, in order to derive a
priori estimates for integrals of positive functions over the set Z where u > v. These estimates imply that, for R , the
integral asymptotically tends to zero, which is a contradiction unless Z = .
The rest of the paper consists of three sections. In Section 1, the assumptions and the main result are formulated. Section 2
is devoted to the proof of this result. In Section 3, some applications are given.
1. Formulation of the problem and auxiliary results
Let R
N
1
be a smooth bounded domain, and define Q = R
N
2
. Assume that f : R R is a locally Lipschitz
function. Consider functions u, v C
1
(

Q) such that
|Du(x)| +|Dv(x)| M in Q (1.1)
with some M > 0. We shall denote the Lebesgue measure of a set S by |S| and generic positive constants by c
1
, c
2
, . . . .
Now consider an operator div A(x, Du) with
A C
0
(Q R
N
; R
N
) C
1
(Q R
N
\ {0}; R
N
), (1.2)
A(x, 0) = 0 x Q, (1.3)
N

i,j=1

A
j

i
(x, )

||
p2
x Q, R
N
\ {0}, (1.4)
N

i,j=1
A
j

i
(x, )
i

j
||
p2
||
2
x Q, R
N
\ {0}, R
N
(1.5)
for suitable constants , > 0. A typical example of such an operator is the p-Laplacian where A = A() = ||
p2
.
If u, v W
1,p
loc
(Q) L

loc
(Q) and f C
0
(Q R) we say that (in a weak sense)
div A(x, Du) +f (x, u) div A(x, Dv) +f (x, v) (1.6)
if for each nonnegative test function W
1,p
0
(Q) we have
_
Q
(A(x, Du(x)) D +f (x, u(x)))dx
_
Q
(A(x, Dv(x)) D +f (x, v(x)))dx. (1.7)
For a point x = (x
1
, , x
N
) R
N
, we shall denote the vector consisting of the last N
2
coordinates by z(x):
z(x) := (x
N
1
+1
, , x
N
) R
N
2
.
For S R
N
, we shall denote its sections with respect to the last N
2
coordinates by
S
z(x)
= {y S : z(y) = z(x)}.
It is well-known that almost all such sections of a measurable set S are themselves measurable. In the sequel, we take the
supremum of |S
z(x)
| over such measurable sections.
We shall also use the notation M(S) := sup
xS:u(x)v(x)
(|Du(x)| +|Dv(x)|), where u and v are C
1
functions defined in S.
Finally, we shall assume that
u v on Q = R
N
2
. (1.8)
Our aim is to prove the following comparison principle.
4192 E. Galakhov / Nonlinear Analysis 70 (2009) 41904194
Theorem 1.1. Let Q be as described, 1 < p < 2 and N
1
, N
2
1. Assume that (1.1)(1.6) and (1.8) hold. Then there exist
constants
i
(N
1
, N
2
, p, ||, M, , ) > 0, i = 1, 2, such that if Q = Q
1
Q
2
with Q
1
, Q
2
disjoint, measurable and such that
sup
xQ
1
:u(x)v(x)
(f (u(x)) f (v(x)))
+
u(x) v(x)
|Q
z(x)
1
|
1
, (1.9)
M(Q
2
) := sup
xQ
2
:u(x)v(x)
(|Du(x)| +|Dv(x)|)
2
, (1.10)
then u v in Q.
Remark 1.1. Conditions (1.2)(1.5) coincide with assumptions (1-1)(1-4) in [2] that guarantee the validity of similar
comparison principles in bounded domains.
An important special case of this theorem (with A =
p
and Q
2
= ) is
Corollary 1.1. Let Q be as described, N
1
, N
2
1, and A =
p
with 1 < p < 2. Assume that (1.8) holds. Then there exists a
constant
1
(N
1
, N
2
, p, ||, M) > 0 such that if
sup
xQ:u(x)v(x)
(f (u(x)) f (v(x)))
+
u(x) v(x)
|Q
z(x)
| , (1.11)
then u v in Q.
In order to prove this theorem, we shall need Lemmas 2-1 and 2-2 from [2]. For the readers benefit, we reproduce their
formulation here.
Lemma 1.1. Let assumptions (1.2)(1.5) hold. Then there exist constants c
1
, c
2
, depending on p, and , such that for all
,

R
N
with || +|

| = 0 and for all x Q one has

|A(x, ) A(x,

)| c
1
(|| +|

|)
p2
|

|, (1.12)
[A(x, ) A(x,

)] [

] c
2
(|| +|

|)
p2
|

|
2
, (1.13)
where the dot stands for the scalar product in R
N
, and consequently, if 1 < p 2,
|A(x, ) A(x,

)| c
1
|

|
p1
. (1.14)
Lemma 1.2 (A Poincar-type Inequality). Let be a bounded open set and suppose = A B, with A, B measurable and
disjoint. If u W
1,p
0
(), 1 < p < , then
u
L
p
()

1
N
N
||
1
Np
_
|A|
1
Np

Du
L
p
(A)
+|B|
1
Np

Du
L
p
(B)
_
, (1.15)
where p

= p/(p 1) and
N
is the measure of the unit sphere in R
N
.
2. Proof of Theorem 1.1
We introduce a family of test functions
R
=

R
C
1
(R
N
2
; [0, 1]) with > 0 large enough and

R
(x) =
_
1 (|x| R),
0 (|x| 2R).
(2.1)
We also assume that
|D
R
(x)| cR
1
(x R
N
2
) (2.2)
with c > 0. Now, testing the differential inequality (1.6) with (u v)

R
and > 1 1/p (it is an admissible test function
since (u v)
+
W
1,p
0
() due to (1.8)), we obtain

_
Q
(|Du|
p2
Du |Dv|
p2
Dv, D(u v)
+
)(u v)
1
+

R
dx

_
Q
(|Du|
p2
Du |Dv|
p2
Dv, D
R
)(u v)

R
dx +
_
Q
(f (u) f (v))(u v)

R
dx. (2.3)
E. Galakhov / Nonlinear Analysis 70 (2009) 41904194 4193
Using inequalities (1.13) and (1.14) from Lemma 1.1 with = Du,

= Dv, from (1.1) and (1.9) we deduce

c
1

_
M
p2
_
Q
1
[uv]
|Du Dv|
2
(u v)
1

R
dx +M
p2
(Q
2
)
_
Q
2
[uv]
|Du Dv|
2
(u v)
1

R
dx
_
c
3
_
[uv]
|Du Dv|
p1
(u v)

|D
R
|dx +
_
[uv]
(f (u) f (v))(u v)

R
dx. (2.4)
In order to estimate the last integral, we make use of (1.9) and of the Poincar-type inequality (1.15), which is applicable
here due to the fact that u v on Q and hence (u v)

+
W
1,p
0
(Q
z
) for each measurable section Q
z
of Q. This yields
_
[uv]
(f (u) f (v))(u v)

R
dx
_
[uv]
(u v)
+1

R
dx
c
4
(, N
1
, ||)
_

1
_
Q
1
[uv]
|D
1
(u v)|
2
(u v)
1

R
dx +
_
Q
2
[uv]
|D
1
(u v)|
2
(u v)
1

R
dx
_
, (2.5)
where
D
1
(u v) :=
_
(u v)
x
1
, . . . ,
(u v)
x
N
1
_
,
D
2
(u v) :=
_
(u v)
x
N
1
+1
, . . . ,
(u v)
x
N
2
_
and consequently
|D
1
(u v)|
2
= |D(u v)|
2
|D
2
(u v)
2
| |D(u v)|
2
. (2.6)
For

1

c
1
M
p2
2c
4
and M
Q
2

2

_
2c
4
c
1

_ 1
p2
,
estimates (2.4)(2.6) result in
c
1

2
_
M
p2
_
Q
1
[uv]
|Du Dv|
2
(u v)
1

R
dx +M
p2
(Q
2
)
_
Q
2
[uv]
|Du Dv|
2
(u v)
1

R
dx
_
c
3
_
[uv]
|Du Dv|
p1
(u v)

|D
R
|dx. (2.7)
Now we apply to the right-hand side of (2.7) the parametric Young inequality for three factors with exponents
q
1
=
2
p 1
,
q
2
=
2( +1)
2 ( 1)(p 1)
, and
q
3
=
+1
p 1
.
We note that all three exponents are larger than 1 due to 1 < p < 2 and > 1 1/p > 1 2/(p 1). Thus we obtain
_
[uv]
|Du Dv|
p1
(u v)

|D
R
|dx
1
_
[uv]
|Du Dv|
2
(u v)
1

R
dx
+
2
_
[uv]
(u v)
+1

R
dx +c(
1
,
2
)
_
S
2R
|D
R
|
+1
2p

1
+1
2p
R
dx, (2.8)
where S
R
:= {x Q : u(x) v(x),

N
1
+N
2
i=N
1
+1
x
2
i
R
2
}. The second integral on the right-hand side of (2.8) can be estimated
using the Poincar inequality similarly to (2.5). Thus combining (2.7) and (2.8) with appropriately chosen
1
,
2
> 0 yields
c
1
M
p2
4
_
S
R
|Du Dv|
2
(u v)
1
dx c
4
_
S
2R
|D
R
|
+1
2p

1
+p
2p
R
dx. (2.9)
Nowtake R . Due to (1.5), for > max{11/p, N
2
(2p) 1} and
R
=

R
with > ( +1)/(2p) the right-hand
side of (2.9) tends to 0. Thus we finally obtain
_
[uv]
|Du Dv|
2
(u v)
1
dx 0,
which means u v in Q. This finishes the proof.
4194 E. Galakhov / Nonlinear Analysis 70 (2009) 41904194
Remark 2.1. Restrictions on f , M and/or || are essential. In fact, the conclusion of the theorem does not hold for
u(x
1
, , x
N
) = u
1
(x
1
, , x
N
1
) with 1 N
1
< N, u
1
being a positive solution of the Dirichlet problem
_

p
u
1
= u
q
1
(x R
N
1
),
u
1
= 0 (x ),
(2.10)
which is known to exist for any smooth bounded and 1 < q <
Np
Np
1, and v 0 in Q = R
NN
1
.
3. Some applications
As an application of our results, we prove monotonicity of small solutions to the problem
_
_
_

p
u = u
q
in T = (0, h) R
N1
,
u 0 in T,
u(0, x

) = 0 on R
N1
(3.1)
in the interval [0, h/2], where h > 0 and x

:= (x
2
, . . . , x
N
).
Corollary 3.1. Let 1 < p < 2 and q > 1. Then there exists a constant
0
> 0 such that for each bounded weak solution of
problem (3.1) with u
C
1
(T)
<
0
there holds
u(x
1
, x

) u(y
1
, x

) x
1
, y
1
: 0 x
1
y
1
h/2, x

R
N1
. (3.2)
Proof. It suffices to use the method of moving planes similarly to [24] by applying Corollary 1.1 to u and v = u

, where
(0, h/2) and u

(x
1
, x

) = u(2 x
1
, x

) for each x

R
N1
. One should take into account that in our case the Lipschitz
constant for u does not exceed
qu
q1
L

(T)
q
q1
0
,
and
M = sup
xT
(|Du(x)| +|Dv(x)|) c
0
.
Moreover, u

= u for x
1
= by construction and u

u = 0 for x
1
= 0 due to the very formulation of problem (3.1). So
Corollary 1.1 with
1
= q
qp+1
0
does apply to these functions in Q = (0, ) R
N1
, and we get
u(x
1
, x

) u(2 x
1
, x

) 0 x
1
h/2, x

R
N1
,
which is exactly (3.2) for = (x
1
+y
1
)/2.
Remark 3.1. Evidently, for u such that u(0, x

) = u(h, x

) = 0 for all x

R
N1
, (3.2) implies symmetry with respect to the
plane x
1
= h/2.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the RFBR grant 05-01-00370.
References
[1] H. Berestycki, L. Nirenberg, On the method of moving planes and the sliding method, Bol. Soc. Brasil. Mat. 22 (1991) 137.
[2] L. Damascelli, Comparison theorems for some quasilinear degenerate elliptic operators and applications to symmetry and monotonicity results, Ann.
Inst. H. Poincar 15 (1998) 493516.
[3] L. Damascelli, F. Pacella, Monotonicity and symmetry of solutions of p-Laplace equations, 1 < p < 2, via the moving plane method, Ann. Sc. Norm.
Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. 26 (4) (1998) 689707.
[4] E.N. Dancer, Some notes on the method of moving planes, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 46 (1992) 425434.
[5] B. Gidas, W.-M. Ni, L. Nirenberg, Symmetry and related properties via the maximum principle, Comm. Math. Phys. 68 (1979) 209243.
[6] E. Mitidieri, S. Pohozaev, A priori estimates and nonexistence of solutions to nonlinear partial differential equations and inequalities, in: Proc. Steklov
Inst. Math., vol. 234, Nauka, Moscow, 2001.