MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Hi I'm stuck with the proof of a concentration-compactness lemma. We have the following equation in $\mathbb{R}^N, N \ge 3$: $$ -\Delta u +u=|u|^{p-2}u, $$ where $2 < p < 2^{*}$.

The functional associated to that equation is given by $$ J(u) = \frac{1}{2}\|u\|^2_{H^1}-\frac{1}{p}\|u\|^p_{L^p}. $$ Because the Sobolev imbedding $H^1 (\mathbb{R}^N) \subset L^q (\mathbb{R}^N), 2 < q < 2^{*}$ is not compact, $J$ does not satisfy the Palais-Smale condition. So one considers the family $J_k$ of functionals defined by $$ J_k(u) = \frac{1}{2}\|u\|^2_{H^1 (B_k)}-\frac{1}{p}\|u\|^p_{L^p(B_k)}, $$ where $(B_k)_k$ is an open cover of $R^N$; $k$ positive integer.

Each $J_k$ now satisfies the PS condition.

The "lemma" says the following: Let $u_k \in H^1_0(B_k)$ be uniformly bounded in $H^1(\mathbb{R}^n)$, i.e. $\|u_k\| \le \Lambda$, with $\Lambda>0$ independent of $k$, and such that $J'(u_k) \to 0$ as $k \to \infty$. Then, along a subsequence, one of the following holds true:

  1. either $u_k \to 0$ in $H^1(\mathbb{R}^N)$,
  2. or, there exist $r,\delta>0$, and a sequence $a_k$ in $R^N$ such that $$ \liminf_k \int_{B_{r} (a_k)}u^2_k \ge \delta. $$ I know how to prove that if 2. does not hold then 1. holds. I need a hint on how to prove that if 1. does not hold then 2. holds.


share|cite|improve this question
What are the sets $B_k$? When you say $u_k\to 0$ in $H^1$, what is the domain on which you are discussing $H^1$? If $H^1(R^N)$, how are you extending $u_k\in H^1(B_k)$ to $H^1(R^N)$? – Willie Wong Apr 29 '11 at 23:04
Sorry! some information are missing: $B_k$ has non-empty boundary, and it is of course $H^1_0(B_k)$ instead of $H^1(B_k)$. – Mercy King Apr 30 '11 at 7:39
think of $B_k$ as $\mathbb{R}^{N-1}\times (-k,k)$. – Mercy King Apr 30 '11 at 7:51

The concentration-compactness lemma of P.L. Lions is independent of the fact your sequence is Palais-Smale. It holds for general sequences of bounded positive measure, in your case $u_k^2\; dx$.

First normalize your sequence such that $\Vert u_k^2\Vert_2 =1$.

Hence the idea is to consider the concentration function

$$Q_k(r)=\sup_{x\in R^n} \left( \int_{B(x,r)} u_k^2 \;dx\right).$$

Note that $Q_k$ is non-decreasing and non-negative bounded function on $[0,+\infty[$, with $\displaystyle \lim_{r\rightarrow +\infty }Q_k(r)=1$.

Then there exists a subsequence of $Q_k$, still denote $Q_k$, and a non-decreasing and non-negative bounded function $Q$ on $[0,+\infty[$ such that

$$Q_k(r) \rightarrow Q(r),$$

for almost all $r$. We can assume that $Q$ is left-continuous and moreover since $Q_k$ is non-decreasing and bounded, we have $$Q(r)\leq \liminf_{k\rightarrow +\infty} Q_k(r) \hbox{ for all } r.$$


$$\lambda =\lim_{r\rightarrow +\infty} Q(r).$$

If $\lambda=0$, this is the vanishing case, else let $r_0$ such that

$$Q(r_0)\geq \frac{\lambda}{2}.$$

For any $k$ there exists $x_k$ such that

$$Q_k(r_0)\leq \int_{B(x_k,r_0)} u_k^2 \;dx + \frac{1}{k}.$$

Hence for $k$ big enough, you have

$$\int_{B(x_k,r_0)} u_k^2 \;dx\geq \frac{\lambda}{3}.$$

In fact, you can refine this case in two

2.1) For all $\epsilon$ there exits $R$ such that $$\int_{B(x_k,R)} u_k^2 \;dx\geq 1-\epsilon.$$ This is the compactness-case.

2.2) the measure split on disjoint set arbitrary far, this is the dichotomy case.

You will find all the details in the two papers of Lions.

share|cite|improve this answer
Still, I can't see why "vanishing" in $L^2$ would imply "vanishing" in $H^1$ by just considering a bounded sequence in $H^1$. – Mercy King May 4 '11 at 7:08
I never say that imply "vanishing" in $H^1$, i just give you a correct formulation of the concentration compactness. You can applicate it with the measure $(\vert \nabla u_k\vert^2 +u^2_k)ds$, which will give you the a "vanishing" case in $H^1$... But i agree that doesn't answer to the question you post again:… – Raphael May 4 '11 at 8:22
Thanks to all for nice answer. Could you please prove the following assertion? We can assume that Q(r) is left-continuous and moreover since Q_k (r) is nondecreasing and bounded, w e have Q(r)≤ limit inf Q_k (r) for all r. I will be very grateful. – Farhad Jan 13 '14 at 7:10
@Mercy: you probably have figured it out by now (this question is 2+ years old), maybe you could close that question by answering it yourself. If you have not, let me know. – username Jan 14 '14 at 12:36

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.