Search

In this paper we study a Dirichlet-type differential inclusion involving the Finsler-Laplace operator on a complete Finsler manifold. Depending on the positive $\lambda$ parameter of the inclusion, we establish non-existence, as well as existence and multiplicity results by applying non-smooth variational methods. The main difficulties are given by the problem's highly nonlinear nature due to the general Finslerian setting, as well as the nonsmooth context., Comment: 6 pages

In this paper we study the existence of solutions to the following generalized nonlinear two-parameter problem \begin{equation*} a(u, v) \; =\; \lambda\, b(u, m) + \mu\, m(u, v) + \varepsilon\, F(u, v), \end{equation*} for a triple $(a, b, m)$ of continuous, symmetric bilinear forms on a real separable Hilbert space $V$ and nonlinear form $F$. This problem is a natural abstraction of nonlinear problems that occur for a large class of differential operators, various elliptic pde's with nonlinearities in either the differential equation and/or the boundary conditions being a special subclass. First, a Fredholm alternative for the associated linear two-parameter eigenvalue problem is developed, and then this is used to construct a nonlinear version of the Fredholm alternative. Lastly, the Steklov-Robin Fredholm equation is used to exemplify the abstract results.

We prove an existence result for a quasilinear elliptic equation satisfying natural growth conditions. As a consequence, we deduce an existence result for a quasilinear elliptic equation containing a singular drift. A key tool, in the proof, is the study of an auxiliary variational inequality playing the role of "natural constraint", Comment: 11 pages

We consider a quasilinear elliptic equation, with right hand side measure, which does not satisfy the usual coercivity assumption. We prove an existence result in the line of the Fredholm alternative. For this purpose we develop a variant of degree theory suited to this setting., Comment: 32 pages. With respect to the previous version, the proof of Theorem 1.1 has been divided in the new Lemma 4.1 and the remaining part