Infinitely many homoclinic orbits for the second order Hamiltonian systems with general potentials (Q961068)

From MaRDI portal
scientific article
Language Label Description Also known as
English
Infinitely many homoclinic orbits for the second order Hamiltonian systems with general potentials
scientific article

    Statements

    Infinitely many homoclinic orbits for the second order Hamiltonian systems with general potentials (English)
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    29 March 2010
    0 references
    The authors consider the second order Hamiltonian system \[ \text{(HS)}\;\;-\ddot{u}(t)+L(t)u(t)=\nabla R(t,u),\;\forall t\in \mathbb{R}, \] where \(L(t)\in C(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}^{N^2})\) is a \(N\times N\) symmetric matrix valued function and \(R(t,u)\in C^1(\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^N, \mathbb{R})\). They use the variant fountain theorem to prove that the system (HS) possesses infinitely many homoclinic orbits, assuming that \(L(t)\) satisfies the coercive condition and \(R(t,u)\) satisfies the conditions that (\(R_1\))\ \ \(R(t,u)=F(t,u)+G(t,u)\;\text{and}\;F, G\in C^1(\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^N, \mathbb{R})\) are even in \(u\); (\(R_2\))\ \ There exist \(\sigma, \delta\in (1,2), c_1>0, c_2>0, c_3>0\) such that \[ c_1|u|^\sigma\leq F_u(t,u)u\leq c_2|u|^\sigma+c_3|u|^\delta \] for all \((t,u)\in \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^N;\) (\(R_3\))\ \ There exist \(\rho\geq2\) and \(c_4>0\) such that \(|G_u(t,u)|\leq c_4(1+|u|^{p-1})\) for all \((t,u)\in \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^{N}\), moreover, \(\lim_{u\to0}\frac{G_u(t,u)}{|u|}=0\) uniformly for \(t\in \mathbb{R}\); (\(R_4\))\ \ \(G(t,u)\geq0\) and \(\lim_{|u|\to\infty}\frac{G_u(t,u)}{|u|}=+\infty\) uniformly for all \(t\in \mathbb{R}.\) Conditions (\(R_2\))--(\(R_4\)) imply that \(F(t,u)\) is sub-quadratic and \(G(t,u)\) is super-quadratic, which generalize the sub-quadratic condition that (\(R\))\ \ \(0<u\cdot \nabla R(t,u)\leq \gamma R(t,u),\;\forall (t,u)\in \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^N\setminus\{0\},\) where \(\gamma\in(1,2)\). Reviewer's remark: In the proof of Lemma 3.3, the authors say that \`\` Set \(w_{n}:=\frac{u_{n}}{\|u_{n}\|}\), then \(\|w_{n}\|=1\), \(w_{n}\rightarrow w,\;w^{+}_{n}\rightarrow w^{+},\;w^{0}_{n}\rightarrow w^{0}\) and \(w^{-}_{n}\rightarrow w^{-}\)''. It seems that this conclusion is incorrect.
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    Hamiltonian systems
    0 references
    homoclinic orbits
    0 references
    variational methods
    0 references
    \((C)\)c-sequence
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references