text:
# Some existence results for the Webster scalar curvature problem in presence of symmetry

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we prove some existence results for the equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_^nu(\xi )=K(\xi )u(\xi )^{\frac{Q+2}{Q2}},\xi ^n,$$
(1.1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_^n`$ is the sublaplacian on the Heisenberg group $`^n`$ and $`Q=2n+2`$ is the homogeneous dimension of $`^n`$. Our results provide existence of solutions for the Webster scalar curvature problem on $`^n`$ and on the unit sphere $`𝕊^{2n+1}`$ of $`^{n+1}`$, under suitable assumption on the prescribed curvatures. This problem is the CR counterpart of the classical Nirenberg problem. In this paper we shall mainly assume that the prescribed curvature $`K`$ has a natural symmetry, namely a cylindrical-type symmetry. Our main results are contained in Theorems 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 and 2.8 below.

We remark that one of the main features of the above equation (1.1) is a lack of compactness due both to the criticality of the exponent $`(Q+2)/(Q2)`$ and to the unboundedness of the domain. Non-existence results for (1.1) can be obtained using the Pohozaev-type identities of  under certain conditions on $`K`$. In particular it turns out that a positive solution $`u`$ to (1.1) in the Sobolev space $`S_0^1(^n)`$ (with the notation of Section 2) satisfies the following identity

$$_^n(z,2t),K(z,t)u(z,t)^{\frac{2Q}{Q2}}𝑑z𝑑t=0$$

provided the integral is convergent and $`K`$ is bounded and smooth enough. This implies that there are no such solutions if $`(z,2t),K(z,t)`$ does not change sign in $`^n`$ and $`K`$ is not constant.

The link between equation (1.1) and the Webster scalar curvature problem on the sphere is briefly discussed below. Let us denote by $`\theta _0`$ the standard contact form of the CR manifold $`𝕊^{2n+1}`$. Given a smooth function $`\overline{K}`$ on $`𝕊^{2n+1}`$, the Webster scalar curvature problem on $`𝕊^{2n+1}`$ consists in finding a contact form $`\theta `$ conformal to $`\theta _0`$ such that the corresponding Webster scalar curvature is $`\overline{K}`$ (for the definition of the Webster scalar curvature see ). This problem is equivalent to solve the semilinear equation

$$b_n\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta _0}v(\zeta )+\overline{K}_0v(\zeta )=\overline{K}(\zeta )v(\zeta )^{b_n1},\zeta 𝕊^{2n+1},$$
(1.2)
where $`b_n=2+\frac{2}{n}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\theta _0}`$ is the sublaplacian on $`(𝕊^{2n+1},\theta _0)`$ and $`\overline{K}_0=\frac{n(n+1)}{2}`$ is the Webster scalar curvature of $`(𝕊^{2n+1},\theta _0)`$. If $`v`$ is a positive solution to (1.2), then $`(𝕊^{2n+1},\theta =v^{\frac{2}{n}}\theta _0)`$ has Webster scalar curvature $`\overline{K}`$. Using the CR equivalence $`F`$ (given by the Cayley transform, see definition (2.6) below) between $`𝕊^{2n+1}`$ minus a point and $`^n`$, equation (1.2) is equivalent to (1.1) with $`K=\overline{K}F^1`$, up to an uninfluent constant. We refer to  for a more detailed presentation of the problem.

Indeed in the papers , Jerison and Lee extensively studied the Yamabe problem on CR manifolds (see also the recent papers ). On the contrary, at the authors’ knowledge, very few results have been established on the Webster scalar curvature problem. In the recent paper  by Malchiodi and one of the authors, a new result is obtained in the perturbative case, i.e. when $`K`$ is assumed to be a small perturbation of a constant (see the papers , for analogous results concerning the Riemannian context).

The aim of this paper is to begin to study a case analogous to the radial one in the Riemannian setting. The natural counterpart in our context seems to be that of cylindrical curvatures

$$K(z,t)=K(|z|,t)$$

(see Section 2 for all the notation) and not that of “radial” ones $`K=K(\rho )`$. Indeed cylindrical curvatures $`K`$ on $`^n`$ correspond on $`𝕊^{2n+1}`$ to curvatures $`\overline{K}`$ depending only on the last complex variable of $`𝕊^{2n+1}^{n+1}`$,

$$\overline{K}(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _{n+1})=\overline{K}(\zeta _{n+1}),$$

in analogy with the Riemannian case where radial curvatures $`R`$ on $`^N`$ correspond to curvatures $`\overline{R}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{N+1})=\overline{R}(x_{N+1})`$ in $`𝕊^N^{N+1}`$, via the stereographic projection.

However, the cylindrical case presents higher difficulties with respect to the radial Riemannian case. Indeed, when $`K`$ is cylindrical, one can reduce equation (1.1) to a two variables PDE, but not to an ODE as in the radial case. Nevertheless we are able to adapt a technique by Bianchi and Egnell  in order to obtain our first existence result Theorem 2.1. This technique consists in a minimization on a space of cylindrically symmetric functions and is based on a concentration-compactness lemma which can be proved just adapting the classical result by P. L. Lions  holding in the euclidean context.

We then deal with the perturbative case, obtaining some results via the abstract Ambrosetti-Badiale finite dimensional reduction method  (see Theorems 2.3, 2.5 and 2.8). This method allows to prove for the Webster scalar curvature the results found in  for the scalar curvature problem in the perturbative case. More precisely in , Section 4, the radial symmetry allows to reduce the perturbation problem to the study of critical points of a one variable function, thus obtaining more precise and neat results than for the non radial case. Similarly in our setting the cylindrical symmetry leads us to treat a two variables problem and to find results like Theorems 2.3 and 2.8, which have no counterpart in , where the Webster curvature problem is treated without requiring any symmetry, and like Theorem 2.5 which requires assumptions of the type of  only on the function $`K`$ restricted to the axis $`\{z=0\}`$. For other results related to the Riemannian case in presence of simmetry we refer to .

We finally remark that some other results for equation (1.1) on the Heisenberg group have been obtained in the papers . However, our hypotheses on $`K`$ are very different from the ones in such papers where $`K`$ is assumed to satisfy suitable decaying conditions at infinity. In particular in  it is required an estimate of the type $`K_1(\rho )\mathrm{\Delta }_^n\rho KK_2(\rho )\mathrm{\Delta }_^n\rho `$ ($`\rho `$ is the homogeneous norm on $`^n`$ defined in (2.1) below) involving the degenerate term $`\mathrm{\Delta }_^n\rho `$, which allows to “radialize” the problem and to apply ODE methods.

Acknowledgments. We wish to thank Proff. A. Ambrosetti and E. Lanconelli for having suggested the study of this problem. V. F. is supported by M.U.R.S.T. under the national project “Variational Methods and Nonlinear Differential Equations”. F. U. is supported by University of Bologna, funds for selected research topics.

## 2 Notation and main results

Denoting by $`\xi =(z,t)=(x+iy,t)(x,y,t)`$ the points of $`^n=^n\times ^{2n+1}`$, let us recall that the group law on the Heisenberg group is

$$(x,y,t)(x^{},y^{},t^{})=(x+x^{},y+y^{},t+t^{}+2x^{}y2xy^{})$$

where $``$ denotes the usual inner product in $`^n`$. Let us denote by $`\tau _\xi (\xi ^{})=\xi \xi ^{}`$ the left translations, by $`\delta _\lambda (\xi )=(\lambda z,\lambda ^2t)`$, $`\lambda >0`$ the natural dilations, by $`Q=2n+2`$ the homogeneous dimension, and by

$$\rho (\xi )=(|z|^4+t^2)^{1/4}$$
(2.1)
the homogeneous norm on $`^n`$. The Lie algebra of left-invariant vector fields on $`^n`$ is generated by

$$X_j=\frac{}{x_j}+2y_j\frac{}{t},Y_j=\frac{}{y_j}2x_j\frac{}{t},j=1,2,\mathrm{},n.$$

The sub-elliptic gradient on $`^n`$ is given by $`_^n=(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n,Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_n)`$ and the Kohn Laplacian on $`^n`$ is the degenerate-elliptic PDO

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_^n=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(X_j^2+Y_j^2).$$

We will say that a function $`f:^n`$ is continuous on $`\overline{}^n`$ if it is continuous and there exists $`lim_{(z,t)\mathrm{}}f(z,t)`$. In this case we will denote by $`f(\mathrm{})`$ such a limit.

Let $`K`$ be a continuous function on $`\overline{}^n`$. We shall always suppose that $`K`$ has cylindrical symmetry, i.e. $`K(z,t)=\stackrel{~}{K}(|z|,t)`$, and that $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ is locally Hölder continuous in $`]0,\mathrm{}[\times `$. Let us consider the following equation on $`^n`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_^nu=Ku^{Q^{}1},u>0\text{in}^n,$$
($`𝒫`$)
where $`Q^{}=\frac{2Q}{Q2}`$. We will work in the space of cylindrically symmetric functions of the Folland-Stein Sobolev space $`S_0^1(^n)`$, namely in

$$S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)=\{uS_0^1(^n):u(z,t)=u(|z|,t)\},$$

where $`S_0^1(^n)`$ is defined as the completion of $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^n)`$ with respect to the norm

$$u_{S_0^1(^n)}^2=_^n|_^nu|^2𝑑z𝑑t.$$

Let us remark that $`Q^{}`$ is the critical exponent for the embedding $`S_0^1(^n)L^Q^{}(^n)`$. Choosing suitable regularization functions, it is not difficult to recognize that we have

$$S_0^1(^n)=\{uL^Q^{}(^n):_^n|_^nu|^2𝑑z𝑑t<\mathrm{}\}$$

and that $`S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$ is equal to the closure in $`S_0^1(^n)`$ of the set of cylindrically symmetric $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}`$ functions. Let us also observe that $`S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$ is a Hilbert space endowed with the scalar product $`(u,v)=_^n_^nu_^nvdzdt`$. Let us denote by $`S`$ the best constant in the Sobolev-type inequality (see )

$$Sv_Q^{}^2v_{S_0^1(^n)}^2vS_0^1(^n).$$
(2.2)
It is known (see ) that all the positive cylindrically symmetric solutions in $`S_0^1(^n)`$ to the problem

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_^nU=S^{\frac{Q}{Q2}}U^{Q^{}1}$$

are of the form

$$U_{\mu ,s}(z,t)=c_n\mu ^{\frac{Q2}{2}}U_0(\frac{r}{\mu },\frac{ts}{\mu ^2})$$
(2.3)
(for $`\mu >0`$ and $`s`$) where $`r=|z|`$,

$$U_0(r,t)=\left(\frac{1}{t^2+(1+r^2)^2}\right)^{\frac{Q2}{4}}$$

and $`c_n`$ is a positive constant to be chosen in such a way that $`_^n|_^nU_{\mu ,s}|^2=1`$. By solutions to problem $`(𝒫)`$ we mean weak solutions in the sense of $`S_0^1(^n)`$. On the other hand, under our hypotheses we have that solutions in the $`S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$-sense are also solutions in the $`S_0^1(^n)`$-sense, as it is shown in Lemma A.2 in the Appendix.

Our first result is the counterpart in the Heisenberg context of a result of Bianchi and Egnell  about radial solutions of the corresponding problem for the Laplacian on the euclidean space.

###### Theorem 2.1.

Assume that $`K`$ is a continuous cylindrically symmetric function on $`^n`$ such that there exists $`K(\mathrm{})=lim_{(z,t)\mathrm{}}K(z,t)`$, $`K`$ is positive somewhere and

$$\underset{t}{sup}K(0,t)K(\mathrm{}).$$
(2.4)
If either $`K(\mathrm{})0`$ or there exist $`\mu >0`$ and $`s`$ such that

$$_^n(K(z,t)K(\mathrm{}))U_{\mu ,s}^Q^{}𝑑z𝑑t0,$$
(2.5)
then problem $`(𝒫)`$ has a cylindrically symmetric solution.

###### Remark 2.2.

The solution $`u`$ found in Theorem 2.1 above, satisfies the decay condition $`u=O(\rho ^{2Q})`$ at infinity (see e.g. \[20, Proposition 2\]). Moreover, by means of standard regularization techniques based on the results of Folland and Stein , one can prove that $`u`$ is smooth if $`K`$ is smooth. We finally remark that Theorem 2.1 gives also an existence result for the Webster scalar curvature problem on the sphere $`𝕊^{2n+1}`$, by means of the CR equivalence $`F:𝕊^{2n+1}\{(0,\mathrm{},0,1)\}^n`$,

$$F(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _{n+1})=(\frac{\zeta _1}{1+\zeta _{n+1}},\mathrm{},\frac{\zeta _n}{1+\zeta _{n+1}},\mathrm{Re}\left(i\frac{1\zeta _{n+1}}{1+\zeta _{n+1}}\right)).$$
(2.6)
We also remark that the set $`\{(0,t)|t\}^n`$ (i.e. the center of the Heisenberg group) corresponds via $`F`$ to the circle $`\{(0,w)^n\times |w𝕊^1\}𝕊^{2n+1}`$. Hence condition (2.4) is equivalent to

$$\underset{w𝕊^1}{\mathrm{max}}\overline{K}(0,w)\overline{K}(0,1)$$

(where $`\overline{K}=KF`$ is the prescribed curvature on $`𝕊^{2n+1}`$).

Theorem 2.1 is proved by a minimization technique which makes use of some concentration compactness argument; since the solution is found as a constrained minimum, it is not possible to obtain in the same way an analogous result with inequalities (2.4) and (2.5) in the opposite sense.

In the second part of the paper, we shall deal with the case in which $`K`$ is close to a constant, namely $`K(z,t)=1+\epsilon k(z,t)`$. We will consider the perturbation problem

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_^nu=(1+\epsilon k)u^{Q^{}1},u>0\text{in}^n,$$
($`𝒫_\epsilon `$)
where $`\epsilon `$ is a small parameter and $`k`$ is a bounded cylindrically symmetric function on $`^n`$. Following the Ambrosetti and Badiale  finite dimensional reduction method we are able to prove some perturbative existence results, which in most cases require weaker assumptions than Theorem 2.1. Our first perturbation result is the counterpart of , Theorem 4.5.

###### Theorem 2.3.

Assume that $`k`$ is a continuous cylindrically symmetric function on $`^n`$ with $`k(\mathrm{}):=lim_{(z,t)\mathrm{}}k(z,t)`$ and that there exist $`\mu >0`$ and $`s`$ such that either

$$_^n\left(k(z,t)\underset{\sigma }{sup}k(0,\sigma )\right)U_{\mu ,s}^Q^{}𝑑z𝑑t>0$$
(2.7)
or

$$_^n\left(k(z,t)\underset{\sigma }{inf}k(0,\sigma )\right)U_{\mu ,s}^Q^{}𝑑z𝑑t<0.$$
(2.8)
Then problem $`(𝒫_\epsilon )`$ has a cylindrically symmetric solution for $`|\epsilon |`$ sufficiently small.

###### Remark 2.4.

1. In fact, from the proof it will be clear that we do not need to assume that the limit of $`k`$ at $`\mathrm{}`$ exists, if we assume instead that either

$`{\displaystyle _^n}\left(k(z,t)\underset{(\mu ,s)\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}k(\mu ,s)\right)U_{\mu ,s}^Q^{}𝑑z𝑑t>0`$
or

$`{\displaystyle _^n}\left(k(z,t)\underset{(\mu ,s)\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}k(\mu ,s)\right)U_{\mu ,s}^Q^{}𝑑z𝑑t<0.`$
2. Note the presence of the strict inequality in (2.7) and (2.8) which is due to technical reasons.
3. Assumption (2.7) is weaker than assumptions (2.4) and (2.5), with strict inequality in at least one of them. The case covered by (2.8) has no counterpart in Theorem 2.1. Actually in such a case the solutions we will found are not constrained minima like the ones found in Theorem 2.1.

Using the perturbation method, it is also possible to find some other results, requiring assumptions on the behavior of $`k`$ on the axis $`\{z=0\}`$ instead of integral assumptions of the type (2.7) and (2.8). The following result is the analogous for the Heisenberg group of , Theorem 4.4.

###### Theorem 2.5.

Assume that $`k`$ is a cylindrically symmetric function such that $`\overline{k}=kF`$ is a smooth function on $`𝕊^{2n+1}`$, and that there exists a point $`(0,\overline{s})^n`$ such that $`k(0,\overline{s})=\mathrm{max}_\sigma k(0,\sigma )`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,y}k(0,\overline{s})>0$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,y}k=_{i=1}^n[\frac{^2k}{x_i^2}+\frac{^2k}{y_i^2}]`$. Then problem $`(𝒫_\epsilon )`$ has a cylindrically symmetric solution for $`|\epsilon |`$ sufficiently small.

###### Remark 2.6.

It is also possible to find solutions under the assumption that there exists a point $`(0,\overline{s})^n`$ such that $`k(0,\overline{s})=\mathrm{min}_\sigma k(0,\sigma )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,y}k(0,\overline{s})<0`$.

###### Remark 2.7.

Let us remark that the assumption that $`k`$ comes from a regular function on the sphere through the Cayley transform implies that $`k`$ has finite limit at $`\mathrm{}`$ and that $`|k|,|k|,|^2k|`$, and $`|t^2_t^2k|`$ are bounded.

Our last result is inspired by , Theorem 5.1(a).

###### Theorem 2.8.

Assume that $`k`$ is a cylindrically symmetric continuous function such that there exists $`lim_{(z,t)\mathrm{}}k(z,t)`$ and $`k(0,t)k(\mathrm{})`$ for any $`t`$. Then problem $`(𝒫_\epsilon )`$ has a cylindrically symmetric solution for $`|\epsilon |`$ sufficiently small.

## 3 Proof of Theorem 2.1

In this section we shall prove Theorem 2.1 by finding a solution of $`(𝒫)`$ as a minimizer on the constraint

$$M=\{fS_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n):f_{S_0^1(^n)}=1,_^nK|f|^Q^{}>0\}.$$

Note that the assumption that $`K`$ is positive somewhere ensures that $`M`$ is nonempty. Let us consider the minimum problem

$$\gamma =\underset{uM}{inf}_K(u)$$
($`_K`$)
where $`_K:M`$ is defined by

$$_K(u)=\left(_^nK|u|^Q^{}\right)^{\frac{Q}{Q^{}}}=\left(_^nK|u|^Q^{}\right)^{\frac{Q2}{2}}.$$

Suppose that $`uM`$ attains the infimum in $`(_K)`$. Then $`u`$ is a critical point of $`_K`$ constrained on $`M`$. Then there exists a Lagrange multiplier $`\lambda `$ such that

$$(_K^{}(u),v)=\lambda (𝒢^{}(u),v)vS_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)$$

where $`𝒢(u)=_^n|_^nu|^2`$, namely for any $`vS_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$

$$Q\left(_^nK|u|^Q^{}\right)^{\frac{Q}{2}}_^nK|u|^{Q^{}2}uv=2\lambda _^n_^nu_^nv.$$
(3.1)
Testing (3.1) with $`v=u`$, we can easily compute the value of $`\lambda `$, thus finding $`\lambda =\frac{Q}{2}_K(u)`$. Hence (3.1) can be written in the form

$$_^n_^nu_^nv=\left(_^nK|u|^Q^{}\right)^1_^nK|u|^{Q^{}2}uvvS_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)$$

which is equivalent to the fact that $`u`$ is a weak solution in the $`S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$-sense of the equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_^nu=\left(_^nK|u|^Q^{}\right)^1K|u|^{Q^{}2}u.$$

Without loss of generality, we can assume $`u0`$; otherwise one takes $`|u|`$ after noticing that if $`uM`$, then $`|u|M`$ and $`_K(|u|)=_K(u)`$. From Lemma A.2, \[20, Proposition 2\] and the Harnack inequality proved in \[14, Proposition 5.12\] it follows that $`u`$ is strictly positive and hence $`u`$ satisfies

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_^nu=\left(_^nK|u|^Q^{}\right)^1Ku^{Q^{}1}.$$

Let us consider the rescaled function

$$\overline{u}=\left(_^nK|u|^Q^{}\right)^{\frac{1}{2Q^{}}}u.$$

It is easy to check that $`\overline{u}>0`$ satisfies

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_^n\overline{u}=K\overline{u}^{Q^{}1},$$

hence $`\overline{u}`$ is a solution to problem $`(𝒫)`$. Therefore, the above argument shows that the existence of minimizers of $`(_K)`$ provides a weak solution in $`S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$ to $`(𝒫)`$ (and hence in $`S_0^1(^n)`$, thanks to Lemma A.2).

A sufficient condition for the existence of minimizers of $`(_K)`$ is given in the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`\delta =sup\{K^+(0,t):t\}`$ and assume that there exists $`VM`$ such that

$$_K(V)\underset{vM}{inf}_\delta (v)=_\delta (U_{\mu ,s})=\delta ^{\frac{Q2}{2}}S^{\frac{Q}{2}}.$$

If $`\delta =0`$ it is enough to assume $`M\mathrm{}`$ (i.e. $`K`$ positive somewhere). Then the infimum in $`(_K)`$ is attained.

Proof. Let $`(u_m)_m`$ be a minimizing sequence for $`(_K)`$, i.e.

$$\left(_^nK|u_m|^Q^{}\right)^{\frac{2Q}{2}}\underset{m+\mathrm{}}{}\gamma ,_^nK|u_m|^Q^{}>0,_^n|_^nu_m|^2=1.$$

Up to a subsequence, we can assume that $`u_mu`$ in $`S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$ (and in $`S_0^1(^n)`$ and $`L^Q^{}(^n)`$). In view of Lemma A.3 we have that $`u_m`$ converges to $`u`$ in $`L^q(C)`$ for any set $`C`$ of the type $`\{z:0<c_1|z|c_2\}\times [c_3,c_3]`$ (and hence on any compact set away from the axis $`\{z=0\}`$) and for any $`1q<+\mathrm{}`$. From a suitable $`^n`$-version of the concentration-compactness principle of P. L. Lions (see Theorem A.4) we have that there exist some nonnegative finite regular Borel measures $`\nu ,\nu _K,\mu `$ on $`\overline{}^n`$, an at most countable index set $`J`$, a sequence $`(z_j,t_j)^n`$, $`\nu ^j,\nu ^{\mathrm{}}(0,\mathrm{})`$ such that (passing to a subsequence) the following convergences in the weak sense of measures hold

$`|u_m|^Q^{}dx`$ $`\stackrel{}{}\nu =|u|^Q^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{jJ}{}}\nu ^j\delta _{(z^j,t^j)}+\nu ^{\mathrm{}}\delta _{\mathrm{}}`$ (3.2)
$`K|u_m|^Q^{}dx`$ $`\stackrel{}{}\nu _K=K|u|^Q^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{jJ}{}}K(z^j,t^j)\nu ^j\delta _{(z^j,t^j)}+K(\mathrm{})\nu ^{\mathrm{}}\delta _{\mathrm{}}`$ (3.3)
$`|_^nu_m|^2dx`$ $`\stackrel{}{}\mu |_^nu|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}S(\nu ^j)^{\frac{2}{Q^{}}}\delta _{(z^j,t^j)}+S(\nu ^{\mathrm{}})^{\frac{2}{Q^{}}}\delta _{\mathrm{}}.`$ (3.4)
Moreover if $`(z^j,t^j)`$ does not belong to the axis $`\{z=0\}`$, i.e. if $`z^j0`$, then $`(z^j,t^j)`$ is in some compact set of the type $`\{z:0<c_1|z|c_2\}\times [c_3,c_3]`$. Hence, in view of Lemma A.3 in the Appendix, $`_C|u_mu|^Q^{}0`$ and consequently $`_C|u_m|^Q^{}_C|u|^Q^{}`$. Take some continuous nonnegative function $`\phi `$ with compact support and satisfying $`\phi (z^j,t^j)0`$. For such a $`\phi `$ we have that $`_C\phi |u_m|^Q^{}_C\phi |u|^Q^{}`$ and hence

$$0=\nu ^j\phi (z^j,t^j).$$

Therefore it must be $`\nu ^j=0`$, so that we can assume, without loss of generality, that $`z^j=0`$ for any $`jJ`$. We claim that $`uM`$. Let us distinguish two cases.
Case $`\delta \mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. We can assume $`\gamma <\delta ^{\frac{Q2}{2}}S^{\frac{Q}{2}}`$. Otherwise if $`\gamma \delta ^{\frac{Q2}{2}}S^{\frac{Q}{2}}`$ we have $`_k(V)\delta ^{\frac{Q2}{2}}S^{\frac{Q}{2}}\gamma `$ and hence $`V`$ is a minimizer. Let $`\gamma <\delta ^{\frac{Q2}{2}}S^{\frac{Q}{2}}`$. Since $`u_m`$ is a minimizing sequence, from (3.3) and (3.4) we have

$`\delta S^{\frac{Q^{}}{2}}<\gamma ^{\frac{2}{Q2}}`$ $`=\nu _K(\overline{^n})={\displaystyle _^n}K|u|^Q^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}K(0,t^j)\nu ^j+K(\mathrm{})\nu ^{\mathrm{}},`$ (3.5)
$`1`$ $`{\displaystyle _^n}|_^nu|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}S(\nu ^j)^{\frac{2}{Q^{}}}+S(\nu ^{\mathrm{}})^{\frac{2}{Q^{}}}.`$ (3.6)
We claim that $`_^n|_^nu|^2=1`$. By a way of contradiction, assume that $`_^n|_^nu|^2=\rho `$ with $`\rho [0,1[`$. From (3.6) we have

$$S^{\frac{Q^{}}{2}}(1\rho )^{\frac{Q^{}}{2}}\left[\underset{j}{}(\nu ^j)^{\frac{2}{Q^{}}}+(\nu ^{\mathrm{}})^{\frac{2}{Q^{}}}\right]^{\frac{Q^{}}{2}}.$$
(3.7)
(3.5) and (3.7) imply that

$$\gamma ^{\frac{2}{Q2}}>\delta (1\rho )^{\frac{Q^{}}{2}}\left[\underset{j}{}(\nu ^j)^{\frac{2}{Q^{}}}+(\nu ^{\mathrm{}})^{\frac{2}{Q^{}}}\right]^{\frac{Q^{}}{2}}$$

hence $`\gamma ^{\frac{2}{Q2}}>\delta (1\rho )^{\frac{Q^{}}{2}}\left(_j\nu ^j+\nu ^{\mathrm{}}\right)`$. Therefore

$$\delta \left(\underset{j}{}\nu ^j+\nu ^{\mathrm{}}\right)<(1\rho )^{\frac{Q^{}}{2}}\gamma ^{\frac{2}{Q2}}.$$
(3.8)
(3.5), (3.8), and the definition of $`\delta `$ imply that

$$\gamma ^{\frac{2}{Q2}}=_^nK|u|^Q^{}+\underset{j}{}K(0,t^j)\nu ^j+K(\mathrm{})\nu ^{\mathrm{}}<_^nK|u|^Q^{}+(1\rho )^{\frac{Q^{}}{2}}\gamma ^{\frac{2}{Q2}}.$$
(3.9)
Hence $`_^nK|u|^Q^{}>0`$. Set $`\overline{u}=u\rho ^{1/2}M`$; we have

$$\frac{_^nK|u|^Q^{}}{\rho ^{Q^{}/2}}=_^nK|\overline{u}|^Q^{}<\gamma ^{\frac{2}{Q2}}.$$
(3.10)
¿From (3.9) and (3.10) we obtain that

$$\gamma ^{\frac{2}{Q2}}<\gamma ^{\frac{2}{Q2}}\left[\rho ^{\frac{Q^{}}{2}}+(1\rho )^{\frac{Q^{}}{2}}\right]$$

namely $`1<\rho ^{Q^{}/2}+(1\rho )^{Q^{}/2}\rho +(1\rho )=1`$ which is not possible.
Case $`\delta \mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. In this case $`K(\mathrm{})0`$ and $`K(0,t)0`$ for any $`t`$ and thus (3.5) and (3.10) imply

$$0<\gamma ^{\frac{2}{Q2}}_^nK|u|^Q^{}\gamma ^{\frac{2}{Q2}}\left(_^n|_^nu|^2\right)^{\frac{Q^{}}{2}}.$$

Hence $`_^n|_^nu|^21`$. Since from (3.6) we have $`_^n|_^nu|^21`$, we can conclude $`_^n|_^nu|^2=1`$.
The claim that $`uM`$ is thereby proved. From (3.6) we obtain also that it must be $`\nu ^j=\nu ^{\mathrm{}}=0`$. Hence, in view of (3.5), we deduce that the minimum in $`(_K)`$ is attained by $`u`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 2.1 completed.  Let $`\delta `$ be as in Lemma 3.1. If $`K(\mathrm{})0`$ then $`\delta =0`$. If $`K(\mathrm{})>0`$ then $`\delta =K(\mathrm{})>0`$ and from (2.5) we have

$$_^nKU_{\mu ,s}^Q^{}\delta _^nU_{\mu ,s}^Q^{}$$

and hence

$$\left(_^nKU_{\mu ,s}^Q^{}\right)^{\frac{2Q}{2}}\left(_^n\delta U_{\mu ,s}^Q^{}\right)^{\frac{2Q}{2}}.$$

Lemma 3.1 (with $`V=U_{\mu ,s}`$) allows us to conclude. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 The perturbation problem

In this section, we focus our attention on the case in which $`K`$ is close to a constant, namely $`K(z,t)=1+\epsilon k(z,t)`$. We deal with the perturbation problem

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_^nu=(1+\epsilon k)u^{Q^{}1},u>0\text{in}^n,$$
($`𝒫_\epsilon `$)
where $`\epsilon `$ is a small real perturbation parameter and $`k`$ is a bounded cylindrically symmetric function on $`^n`$. Our approach is based on the finite dimensional reduction method developed by Ambrosetti and Badiale  and recently applied by Malchiodi and one of the authors  to the problem of prescribing the Webster scalar curvature on the unit sphere of $`^{n+1}`$. Cylindrically symmetric solutions of $`(𝒫_\epsilon )`$ can be obtained as critical points on the space $`S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$ of the functional

$$f_\epsilon (u)=\frac{1}{2}_^n|_^nu|^2\frac{1}{Q^{}}_^n(1+\epsilon k)u_+^Q^{}.$$

Indeed, if $`u`$ is a nontrivial critical point of $`f_\epsilon `$, testing $`f_\epsilon ^{}(u)`$ with $`u_{}=\mathrm{max}\{u,0\}`$ we obtain that $`0=(f_\epsilon ^{}(u),u_{})=u_{}_{S_0^1(^n)}^2`$ and hence $`u_{}=0`$. From Lemma A.2, \[20, Proposition 2\] and the Harnack inequality proved in \[14, Proposition 5.12\] it follows that $`u>0`$.

For $`\epsilon =0`$, the unperturbed functional $`f_0`$ has a manifold of critical points $`Z`$ given by

$$Z=\{z_{\mu ,s}:\mu >0,s\}$$
(4.1)
where $`z_{\mu ,s}`$ is given, up to a constant, by the function $`U_{\mu ,s}`$ defined in (2.3), namely

$$z_{\mu ,s}(z,t)=\mu ^{\frac{Q2}{2}}\omega (\frac{z}{\mu },\frac{ts}{\mu ^2})$$

where

$$\omega (z,t)=(Q2)^{\frac{Q2}{2}}\left(t^2+(1+|z|^2)^2\right)^{\frac{Q2}{4}}.$$
(4.2)
### 4.1 The abstract perturbation method

For the reader’s convenience, here we recall the abstract result we will use in the sequel, for the proof of which we refer to . Let $`E`$ be a Hilbert space and $`f_0`$, $`GC^2(E,)`$. Let us denote by $`D^2f_0(u)(E,E^{})`$ the second Fréchet derivative of $`f_0`$ at $`u`$. Through the Riesz Representation Theorem, we can identify $`D^2f_0(u)`$ with $`f_0^{\prime \prime }(u)(E,E)`$ given by $`f_0^{\prime \prime }(u)v=𝒦(D^2f_0(u)v)`$ where $`𝒦:E^{}E`$, $`(𝒦(\phi ),\psi )_E={}_{E^{}}{}^{}\phi ,\psi _{E}^{}`$, for any $`\phi E^{},\psi E`$. Suppose that $`f_0`$ satisfies

$`(\mathrm{a})`$ $`f_0\text{has a finite dimensional manifold of critical points}Z;`$
$`(\mathrm{b})`$ for all $`zZ`$, $`f_0^{\prime \prime }(z)`$ is a Fredholm operator of index $`0`$;
$`(\mathrm{c})`$ for all $`zZ`$, there results $`T_zZ=\mathrm{ker}f_0^{\prime \prime }(z)`$.
Condition (c) is in fact a nondegeneracy condition which is needed to apply the Implicit Function Theorem. The inclusion $`T_zZ\mathrm{ker}f_0^{\prime \prime }(z)`$ always holds due to the criticality of $`Z`$, so that to prove (c) is enough to prove that $`\mathrm{ker}f_0^{\prime \prime }(z)T_zZ`$.

Consider the perturbed functional $`f_\epsilon (u)=f_0(u)\epsilon G(u)`$, and denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the functional $`G|_Z`$. Due to assumptions (a), (b), and (c), it is possible to prove (see Lemma 4.4) that there exists, for $`|\epsilon |`$ small, a smooth function $`w_\epsilon (z):Z(T_zZ)^{}`$ such that any critical point $`\overline{z}Z`$ of the functional

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon :Z,\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon (z)=f_\epsilon (z+w_\epsilon (z))$$

gives rise to a critical point $`u_\epsilon =\overline{z}+w_\epsilon (\overline{z})`$ of $`f_\epsilon `$; in other words, the perturbed manifold $`Z_\epsilon =\{z+w_\epsilon (z):zZ\}`$ is a natural constraint for $`f_\epsilon `$. Moreover $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon `$ admits an expansion of the type

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon (z)=b\epsilon \mathrm{\Gamma }(z)+o(\epsilon )\text{as}\epsilon 0$$
(4.3)
where $`b=f_0(z)`$ for any $`zZ`$.

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`f_0`$ satisfy (a), (b), and (c) and assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a proper local maximum or minimum point $`\overline{z}`$. Then for $`|\epsilon |`$ small enough, the functional $`f_\epsilon `$ has a critical point $`u_\epsilon `$ such that $`u_\epsilon \overline{z}`$ as $`\epsilon 0`$.

###### Remark 4.2.

If $`Z_0=\{zZ:\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)=\mathrm{min}_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$ is compact, it is still possible to prove that $`f_\epsilon `$ has a critical point near $`Z_0`$. The set $`Z_0`$ can also consist of local minimum points; the same holds for maximum points.

### 4.2 The unperturbed problem

In order to apply the abstract result stated above, we have to prove that the unperturbed functional

$$f_0(u)=\frac{1}{2}_^n|_^nu|^2\frac{1}{Q^{}}_^nu_+^Q^{},uS_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n),$$

satisfies (a), (b) and (c). Condition (a) clearly holds; indeed, as remarked above, $`f_0`$ has a two dimensional manifold of critical points $`Z`$, see (4.1). Moreover, it is quite standard to prove that (b) holds. Indeed $`f_0C^2(S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n),)`$,

$$(f_0^{\prime \prime }(u)v,h)=(v,h)(Q^{}1)_^nu_+^{Q^{}2}vhu,v,hS_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n),$$

and for any $`zZ`$ the operator $`f_0^{\prime \prime }(z):S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$ is of the type $`IC_z`$, where $`I`$ is the identity and $`C_z`$ is a compact operator and hence $`f_0^{\prime \prime }(z)`$ is a Fredholm operator of index $`0`$.

Let us now prove (c). The tangent space $`T_{z_{\mu ,s}}Z`$ is given by

$$T_{z_{\mu ,s}}Z=\{\alpha \frac{z_{\lambda ,t}}{\lambda }\text{}_{\begin{array}{c}\lambda =\mu \\ t=s\end{array}}+\beta \frac{z_{\lambda ,t}}{t}\text{}_{\begin{array}{c}\lambda =\mu \\ t=s\end{array}}:\alpha ,\beta \}.$$

###### Lemma 4.3.

For any $`\mu >0`$, $`s`$, there holds

$$T_{z_{\mu ,s}}Z=\mathrm{ker}f_0^{\prime \prime }(z_{\mu ,s}).$$

Proof. As remarked in the previous subsection, it is enough to prove the inclusion $`\mathrm{ker}f_0^{\prime \prime }(z_{\mu ,s})T_{z_{\mu ,s}}Z`$. We can assume $`\mu =1`$ and $`s=0`$, since $`\mathrm{ker}f_0^{\prime \prime }(z_{\mu ,s})`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{ker}f_0^{\prime \prime }(z_{1,0})`$, due to the invariance of the problem under dilations and translations along the $`t`$-axis. If $`u\mathrm{ker}f_0^{\prime \prime }(z_{1,0})`$, we have that $`u`$ is a solution in the weak sense of $`S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$ of the linearized problem

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_^nu=(Q^{}1)z_{1,0}^{Q^{}2}u\text{in}S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n).$$

Due to Lemma A.2, $`u`$ solves the above equation also in $`S_0^1(^n)`$. It has been proved by Malchiodi and one of the authors  that any solution $`u`$ in $`S_0^1(^n)`$ of such equation is of the type

$$u(\xi ^{})=\alpha \frac{\omega _{\lambda ,\xi }}{\lambda }\text{}_{\begin{array}{c}\lambda =1\\ \xi =0\end{array}}(\xi ^{})+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}\nu _i\frac{\omega _{\lambda ,\xi }}{\xi _i}\text{}_{\begin{array}{c}\lambda =1\\ \xi =0\end{array}}(\xi ^{}),\xi ^{}^n,$$

for some coefficients $`\alpha `$ and $`\nu =(\nu _1,\mathrm{},\nu _{2n+1})^{2n+1}`$, where, for $`\lambda `$ and $`\xi ^n`$, $`\omega _{\lambda ,\xi }=\lambda ^{\frac{Q2}{2}}\omega \delta _{\lambda ^1}\tau _{\xi ^1}`$, namely if $`\xi ^{}=(z^{},t^{})=(x^{},y^{},t^{})`$, $`\xi =(z,t)=(x,y,t)`$, then

$`u(z^{},t^{})=`$ $`u(x^{},y^{},t^{})=\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{\lambda ,x,y,t}}{\lambda }}\text{}_{(1,0,0,0)}(x^{},y^{},t^{})+\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{\lambda ,x,y,t}}{t}}\text{}_{(1,0,0,0)}(x^{},y^{},t^{})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\gamma _i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{\lambda ,x,y,t}}{x_i}}\text{}_{(1,0,0,0)}(x^{},y^{},t^{})+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\tau _i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{\lambda ,x,y,t}}{y_i}}\text{}_{(1,0,0,0)}(x^{},y^{},t^{})`$ (4.4)
for some $`\alpha ,\beta `$, $`\gamma =(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n)^n`$, and $`\tau =(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _n)^n`$. We claim that the cylindrical symmetry of $`u`$ implies that, for any $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$, $`\gamma _i=\tau _i=0`$. We have that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{\lambda ,\xi }}{\lambda }}\text{}_{\begin{array}{c}\lambda =1\\ \xi =0\end{array}}(z^{},t^{})=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q2}{2}}\omega (z^{},t^{})+(Q2)^{Q/2}\left(t_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+(1+|z^{}|^2)^2\right)^{\frac{Q+2}{4}}(1+|z^{}|^2)|z^{}|^2`$
$`+(Q2)^{Q/2}\left(t_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+(1+|z^{}|^2)^2\right)^{\frac{Q+2}{4}}t_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{\lambda ,\xi }}{\xi }}\text{}_{\begin{array}{c}\lambda =1\\ \xi =0\end{array}}(z^{},t^{})=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(Q2)^{Q/2}}{\left(t_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+(1+|z^{}|^2)^2\right)^{\frac{Q+2}{4}}}}((1+|z^{}|^2)x^{}t^{}y^{},(1+|z^{}|^2)y^{}+t^{}x^{},t^{}/2).`$
Therefore $`\frac{\omega _{\lambda ,\xi }}{\lambda }\text{}_{(1,0)}`$ and $`\frac{\omega _{\lambda ,x,y,t}}{t}\text{}_{(1,0,0,0)}(x^{},y^{},t^{})=\frac{1}{2}(Q2)^{Q/2}\left(t_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+(1+|z^{}|^2)^2\right)^{\frac{Q+2}{4}}t^{}`$ are cylindrically symmetric functions. If $`u`$ is cylindrical, in view of the cylindrical symmetry of $`\frac{\omega _{\lambda ,x,y,t}}{\lambda }`$ and $`\frac{\omega _{\lambda ,x,y,t}}{t}`$, from (4.2) we deduce that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\gamma _i\frac{\omega _{\lambda ,x,y,t}}{x_i}\text{}_{(1,0,0,0)}(z^{},t^{})+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\tau _i\frac{\omega _{\lambda ,x,y,t}}{y_i}\text{}_{(1,0,0,0)}(z^{},t^{})$$

must be cylindrical, hence $`h(x^{},y^{},t^{})=_{i=1}^n\gamma _i\left((1+|z^{}|^2)x_i^{}t_i^{}y_i^{}\right)+\tau _i\left((1+|z^{}|^2)y_i^{}+t_i^{}x_i^{}\right)`$ must be cylindrical. From

$$h(\underset{x^{}}{\underset{}{0,\mathrm{},\stackrel{i}{1}\mathrm{},0}},\underset{y^{}}{\underset{}{0,\mathrm{},0}},0)=h(\underset{x^{}}{\underset{}{0,\mathrm{},\stackrel{i}{1}\mathrm{},0}},\underset{y^{}}{\underset{}{0,\mathrm{},0}},0)$$

it follows that $`2\gamma _i=2\gamma _i`$ and hence $`\gamma _i=0`$ for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. In the same way $`\tau _i=0`$ for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. The claim is thereby proved. As a consequence, we have that $`\mathrm{ker}f_0^{\prime \prime }(z_{1,0})`$ is contained in $`T_{z_{1,0}}Z`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 4.3 Study of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and proof of Theorems 2.3 and 2.5

In our case, the reduced functional $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu ,s)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q^{}}}{\displaystyle _^n}k(z,t)z_{\mu ,s}^Q^{}(z,t)𝑑z𝑑t={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q^{}}}{\displaystyle _^n}k(\mu z,\mu ^2t+s)\omega ^Q^{}(z,t)𝑑z𝑑t`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _n}{Q^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}0<r<\mathrm{}\\ t\end{array}}{}}k(\mu r,\mu ^2t+s)\omega ^Q^{}(r,t)r^{2n1}𝑑r𝑑t,`$
where $`\gamma _n`$ is the measure of the unit $`(2n1)`$-sphere. The function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be extended with continuity to $`\mu =0`$ by setting

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,s)=\frac{\gamma _n}{Q^{}}k(0,s)\underset{\begin{array}{c}0<r<\mathrm{}\\ t\end{array}}{}\omega ^Q^{}(r,t)r^{2n1}𝑑r𝑑t=b_0k(0,s)$$
(4.5)
where $`b_0=\frac{1}{Q^{}}_^n\omega ^Q^{}`$. By the Dominated Convergence Theorem it follows that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}):=\underset{(\mu ,s)\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu ,s)=b_0k(\mathrm{}).$$
(4.6)
Moreover, if $`k=\overline{k}F^1`$ with $`\overline{k}`$ a smooth function on the sphere $`𝕊^{2n+1}`$, we have that

$`D_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu ,s)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q^{}}}{\displaystyle _^n}\left[_zk(\mu z,\mu ^2t+s)z+2_tk(\mu z,\mu ^2t+s)\mu t\right]\omega ^Q^{}(z,t)𝑑z𝑑t`$
$`D_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }(0,s)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q^{}}}{\displaystyle _^n}\left[_zk(0,s)z\right]\omega ^Q^{}(z,t)𝑑z𝑑t=0`$ (4.7)
and

$`D_{\mu ,\mu }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,s)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q^{}}}{\displaystyle _^n}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2k}{x_ix_j}}(0,s)x_ix_j+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2k}{y_iy_j}}(0,s)y_iy_j+2_tk(0,s)t\right]`$
$`\omega ^Q^{}(x,y,t)dxdydt`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2nQ^{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,y}k(0,s){\displaystyle _^n}|z|^2\omega ^Q^{}(z,t)𝑑z𝑑t.`$ (4.8)
Proof of Theorem 2.3.  Assumption (2.7) and (4.6) imply that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})<\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu ,s)`$ whereas assumption (2.7) and (4.5) imply that $`sup_\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }(0,\sigma )<\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu ,s)`$ hence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ must have a compact set of global maximum points in the interior of the half-plane $`\{(\mu ,s):\mu >0\}`$. From Remark 4.2 we get the conclusion. In the case of (2.8) we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})>\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu ,s)`$ and $`inf_\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }(0,\sigma )>\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu ,s)`$ hence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ must have a compact set of global minimum points. $`\mathrm{}`$ Proof of Theorem 2.5.  The assumptions of Theorem 2.5 imply, in view of (4.5), (4.6), (4.3) and (4.3), that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,\overline{s})=\mathrm{max}_\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }(0,\sigma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})`$ and $`D_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }(0,\overline{s})=0`$, $`D_{\mu ,\mu }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,\overline{s})>0`$ hence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ must have a compact set of global maximum points in the interior of the half-plane $`\{(\mu ,s):\mu >0\}`$. The conclusion follows from Remark 4.2. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 4.4 Study of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon `$

To prove Theorem 2.8, the study of the functional $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not sufficient since in this case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ may be constant even if $`k`$ is a non-constant function. This fact leads to a loss of information, being the first order expansion (4.3) not enough to deduce the existence of critical points of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon `$ from the existence of critical points of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Therefore we need to study directly the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon `$ which in our case is a function of the two variables $`(\mu ,s)^+\times `$.

For $`\mu >0`$ and $`s`$, let us define the map

$$𝒰_{\mu ,s}:S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n),𝒰_{\mu ,s}(u)(z,t)=\mu ^{\frac{Q2}{2}}u(\frac{z}{\mu },\frac{ts}{\mu ^2}).$$

It is easy to check that $`𝒰_{\mu ,s}(u)_{S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)}=u_{S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)}`$ , for any $`uS_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$, $`\mu >0`$, and $`s`$, and that $`f_0=f_0𝒰_{\mu ,s}`$. Moreover we have that $`\left(𝒰_{\mu ,s}\right)^1=𝒰_{\mu ^1,\mu ^2s}=\left(𝒰_{\mu ,s}\right)^t`$ where $`\left(𝒰_{\mu ,s}\right)^t`$ denotes the adjoint of $`𝒰_{\mu ,s}`$. Differentiating the identity $`f_0=f_0𝒰_{\mu ,s}`$ we observe that

$$f_0^{}=\left(𝒰_{\mu ,s}\right)^1f_0^{}𝒰_{\mu ,s}$$

and

$$f_0^{\prime \prime }(u)=\left(𝒰_{\mu ,s}\right)^1f_0^{\prime \prime }\left(𝒰_{\mu ,s}(u)\right)𝒰_{\mu ,s},uS_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n).$$
(4.9)
Clearly we have $`𝒰_{\mu ,s}:T_\omega ZT_{z_{\mu ,s}}Z\text{and}𝒰_{\mu ,s}:(T_\omega Z)^{}\left(T_{z_{\mu ,s}}Z\right)^{}.`$ Because of nondegeneracy, the self adjoint Fredholm operator $`f_0^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ maps $`S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$ into $`(T_\omega Z)^{}`$ and $`f_0^{\prime \prime }(\omega )\left((T_\omega Z)^{}\right)`$. Moreover (4.9) implies that

$$f_0^{\prime \prime }(\omega )^1_{((T_\omega Z)^{})}=f_0^{\prime \prime }(z)^1_{((T_zZ)^{})}zZ.$$
(4.10)
###### Lemma 4.4.

Assume $`kL^{\mathrm{}}(^n)`$. Then there exist constants $`\epsilon _0,C>0`$ and a smooth function

$$w=w(\mu ,s,\epsilon ):(0,+\mathrm{})\times \times (\epsilon _0,\epsilon _0)S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)$$

such that for any $`\mu >0`$, $`s`$, and $`\epsilon (\epsilon _0,\epsilon _0)`$

$`w(\mu ,s,\epsilon )\text{ is orthogonal to }T_{z_{\mu ,s}}Z`$ (4.11)
$`f_\epsilon ^{}\left(z_{\mu ,s}+w(\mu ,s,\epsilon )\right)T_{z_{\mu ,s}}Z`$ (4.12)
$`w(\mu ,s,\epsilon )C|\epsilon |.`$ (4.13)
Proof. Since it will be useful in the sequel, we write the complete proof of the lemma which follows the proofs of analogous results of . Let us define

$`H:`$ $`(0,+\mathrm{})\times \times S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)\times \times \times S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)\times \times `$
$`(\mu ,s,w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\epsilon )(f_\epsilon ^{}(z_{\mu ,s}+w)\alpha _1\dot{\xi }_{\mu ,s}\alpha _2\dot{\zeta }_{\mu ,s},(w,\dot{\xi }_{\mu ,s}),(w,\dot{\zeta }_{\mu ,s})),`$
where $`\dot{\xi }_{\mu ,s}`$ (resp. $`\dot{\zeta }_{\mu ,s}`$) denotes the normalized tangent vector $`\frac{}{\mu }z_{\mu ,s}`$ (resp. $`\frac{}{s}z_{\mu ,s}`$). If $`H(\mu ,s,w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\epsilon )=0`$ then $`w`$ satisfies (4.11)-(4.12) and $`H(\mu ,s,w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\epsilon )=0`$ if and only if $`(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)`$ is a fixed point for the map $`F_{\mu ,s,\epsilon }`$ defined as

$$F_{\mu ,s,\epsilon }(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2):=\left(\frac{H}{(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)}(\mu ,s,0,0,0,0)\right)^1H(\mu ,s,w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\epsilon )+(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2).$$

To prove the existence of $`w`$ satisfying (4.11) and (4.12) it is enough to prove that $`F_{\mu ,s,\epsilon }`$ is a contraction in some ball $`B_\rho (0)`$, with $`\rho =\rho (\epsilon )>0`$ independent of $`zZ`$, whereas the regularity of $`w(\mu ,s,\epsilon )`$ follows from the Implicit Function Theorem. We have that

$$\left(\frac{H}{(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)}(\mu ,s,0,0,0,0)\right)(w,\beta _1,\beta _2)=(f_0^{\prime \prime }(z_{\mu ,s})w\beta _1\dot{\xi }_{\mu ,s}\beta _2\dot{\zeta }_{\mu ,s},(w,\dot{\xi }_{\mu ,s}),(w,\dot{\zeta }_{\mu ,s})).$$

¿From (b) we deduce that $`\left(\frac{H}{(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)}(\mu ,s,0,0,0)\right)`$ is an injective Fredholm operator of index zero, hence it is invertible and

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{H}{(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)}}(\mu ,s,0,0,0,0)\right)^1(w,\beta _1,\beta _2)`$
$`=(\beta _1\dot{\xi }_{\mu ,s}+\beta _2\dot{\zeta }_{\mu ,s}+f_0^{\prime \prime }(z_{\mu ,s})^1\left(w(w,\dot{\xi }_{\mu ,s})\dot{\xi }_{\mu ,s}(w,\dot{\zeta }_{\mu ,s})\dot{\zeta }_{\mu ,s}\right),(w,\dot{\xi }_{\mu ,s}),(w,\dot{\zeta }_{\mu ,s})).`$
In view of (4.10), we have that $`\left(\frac{H}{(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)}(\mu ,s,0,0,0,0)\right)^1\mathrm{max}(1,(f_0^{\prime \prime }(z_{\mu ,s}))^1)=\mathrm{max}(1,(f_0^{\prime \prime }(\omega ))^1).`$ Set $`C_{}=\mathrm{max}(1,(f_0^{\prime \prime }(\omega ))^1)`$. For any $`(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)B_\rho (0)`$ we have that

$`F_{\mu ,s,\epsilon }(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)C_{}f_\epsilon ^{}(z_{\mu ,s}+w)f_0^{\prime \prime }(z_{\mu ,s})w`$
$`C_{}{\displaystyle _0^1}f_0^{\prime \prime }(z_{\mu ,s}+tw)f_0^{\prime \prime }(z_{\mu ,s})𝑑tw+C_{}|\epsilon |G^{}(z_{\mu ,s}+w)`$
$`C_{}{\displaystyle _0^1}f_0^{\prime \prime }(\omega +t𝒰_{\mu ,s}^1(w))f_0^{\prime \prime }(\omega )𝑑tw+C_{}|\epsilon |G^{}(z_{\mu ,s}+w)`$
$`C_{}\rho \underset{w\rho }{sup}f_0^{\prime \prime }(\omega +w)f_0^{\prime \prime }(\omega )+C_{}|\epsilon |\underset{w\rho }{sup}G^{}(z_{\mu ,s}+w).`$ (4.14)
For $`(w_1,\alpha _1,\beta _1),(w_2,\alpha _2,\beta _2)B_\rho (0)`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F_{\mu ,s,\epsilon }(w_1,\alpha _1,\beta _1)F_{\mu ,s,\epsilon }(w_2,\alpha _2,\beta _2)}{C_{}w_1w_2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_\epsilon ^{}(z_{\mu ,s}+w_1)f_\epsilon ^{}(z_{\mu ,s}+w_2)f_0^{\prime \prime }(z_{\mu ,s})(w_1w_2)}{w_1w_2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^1}f_0^{\prime \prime }(z_{\mu ,s}+w_2+t(w_1w_2))f_0^{\prime \prime }(z_{\mu ,s})𝑑t`$
$`+|\epsilon |{\displaystyle _0^1}G^{\prime \prime }(z_{\mu ,s}+w_2+t(w_1w_2))𝑑t`$
$`\underset{w3\rho }{sup}f_0^{\prime \prime }(\omega +w)f_0^{\prime \prime }(\omega )+|\epsilon |\underset{w3\rho }{sup}G^{\prime \prime }(z_{\mu ,s}+w).`$ (4.15)
Choose $`\rho _0>`$ such that $`C_{}sup_{w3\rho _0}f_0^{\prime \prime }(\omega +w)f_0^{\prime \prime }(\omega )<1/2`$ and $`\epsilon _0>0`$ such that

$`2\epsilon _0<\left(\underset{zZ,w3\rho _0}{sup}G^{\prime \prime }(z+w)\right)^1C_{}^1\text{ and }3\epsilon _0<\left(\underset{zZ,w\rho _0}{sup}G^{}(z+w)\right)^1C_{}^1\rho _0.`$
With these choices, for any $`z_{\mu ,s}Z`$ and $`|\epsilon |<\epsilon _0`$ the map $`F_{\mu ,s,\epsilon }`$ maps $`B_{\rho _0}(0)`$ into itself and is a contraction there such that $`F_{\mu ,s,\epsilon }(w_1,\alpha _1,\beta _1)F_{\mu ,s,\epsilon }(w_2,\alpha _2,\beta _2)\lambda w_1w_2`$, where the constant $`\lambda (0,1)`$ does not depend on $`\mu ,s,\epsilon `$. Therefore $`F_{\mu ,s,\epsilon }`$ has a unique fixed point $`(w(\mu ,s,\epsilon ),\alpha _1(\mu ,s,\epsilon ),\alpha _2(\mu ,s,\epsilon ))`$ in $`B_{\rho _0}(0)`$. From (4.4) we also infer that $`F_{\mu ,s,\epsilon }`$ maps $`B_\rho (0)`$ into $`B_\rho (0)`$, whenever $`\rho \rho _0`$ and

$$\rho >2|\epsilon |\left(\underset{w\rho }{sup}G^{}(z_{\mu ,s}+w)\right)C_{}.$$

Consequently for the uniqueness of the fixed point we have

$`(w(\mu ,s,\epsilon ),\alpha _1(\mu ,s,\epsilon ),\alpha _2(\mu ,s,\epsilon ))3|\epsilon |\left(\underset{w\rho _0}{sup}G^{}(z_{\mu ,s}+w)\right)C_{},`$
which gives (4.13). $`\mathrm{}`$

We are now interested in the behavior of the function

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon (\mu ,s)=f_\epsilon \left(z_{\mu ,s}+w(\mu ,s,\epsilon )\right)$$

the critical points of which on $`^+\times `$ give rise to critical points of $`f_\epsilon `$ on $`S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$, as remarked in Subsection 4.1. In particular we will prove the following proposition.

###### Proposition 4.5.

Assume that $`k`$ is cylindrically symmetric and continuous on $`\overline{^n}`$. Then for any $`\overline{s}`$ there holds

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \text{(i)}& lim_{(\mu ,s)(0,\overline{s})}\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon (\mu ,s)\hfill & =f_0(\omega )\left(1+\epsilon k(0,\overline{s})\right)^{\frac{Q2}{2}}\hfill \\ \hfill \text{(ii)}& lim_{(\mu ,s)\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon (\mu ,s)\hfill & =f_0(\omega )\left(1+\epsilon k(\mathrm{})\right)^{\frac{Q2}{2}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Remark 4.6.

Thanks to the above proposition we can extend $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon `$ to the axis $`\{\mu =0\}`$ by setting

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon (0,s):=f_0(\omega )\left(1+\epsilon k(0,s)\right)^{\frac{Q2}{2}}$$

and to infinity by setting

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon (\mathrm{}):=f_0(\omega )\left(1+\epsilon k(\mathrm{})\right)^{\frac{Q2}{2}}$$

thus obtaining a continuous function on the compactified half-plane $`\{(\mu ,s):\mu 0\}\{\mathrm{}\}`$.

For $`\mu >0,s`$, let us consider the functional $`f_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}=f_\epsilon 𝒰_{\mu ,s}`$ i. e.

$$f_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}(u)=\frac{1}{2}_^n|_^nu|^2𝑑z𝑑t\frac{1}{Q^{}}_^n\left(1+\epsilon k(\mu z,\mu ^2t+s)\right)u_+^Q^{}𝑑z𝑑t.$$

There results $`\left(f_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}\right)^{}=\left(𝒰_{\mu ,s}\right)^1f_\epsilon ^{}𝒰_{\mu ,s}`$ and $`\left(f_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}\right)^{\prime \prime }(u)=\left(𝒰_{\mu ,s}\right)^1f_\epsilon ^{\prime \prime }(u)𝒰_{\mu ,s}`$, for any $`uS_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$. Let us consider the map $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{\mu ,s}:S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)\times \times \times S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)\times \times `$, $`(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\epsilon )((f_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s})^{}(\omega +w)\alpha _1\dot{\xi }_0\alpha _2\dot{\zeta }_0,(w,\dot{\xi }_0),(w,\dot{\zeta }_0))`$ where $`\dot{\xi }_0`$ (resp. $`\dot{\zeta }_0`$) is normalized tangent vector $`\frac{}{\mu }z_{\mu ,s}\text{}_{\mu =1,s=0}`$ (resp. $`\frac{}{s}z_{\mu ,s\text{}_{\mu =1,s=0}}`$). We have that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{H}^{\mu ,s}}{(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)}}(0,0,0,0)={\displaystyle \frac{H}{(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)}}(\mu ,s,0,0,0,0)\text{}_{\begin{array}{c}\mu =1\\ s=0\end{array}}`$
hence $`\frac{\stackrel{~}{H}^{\mu ,s}}{(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)}(0,0,0,0)`$ is invertible and $`\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{H}^{\mu ,s}}{(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)}(0,0,0,0)\right)^1C_{}.`$ The map

$$F_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2):=\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{H}^{\mu ,s}}{(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)}(0,0,0,0)\right)^1\stackrel{~}{H}^{\mu ,s}(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\epsilon )+(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)$$

satisfies

$`F_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)C_{}f_\epsilon ^{}(z_{\mu ,s}+𝒰_{\mu ,s}(w))f_0^{\prime \prime }(z_{\mu ,s})𝒰_{\mu ,s}(w)`$
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}(w_1,\alpha _1,\beta _1)F_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}(w_2,\alpha _2,\beta _2)}{C_{}w_1w_2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_\epsilon ^{}(z_{\mu ,s}+𝒰_{\mu ,s}(w_1))f_\epsilon ^{}(z_{\mu ,s}+𝒰_{\mu ,s}(w_2)))f_0^{\prime \prime }(z_{\mu ,s})(𝒰_{\mu ,s}(w_1w_2))}{𝒰_{\mu ,s}(w_1)𝒰_{\mu ,s}(w_2)}}`$
which imply, in view of (4.4) and (4.4), that $`F_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}`$ is a contraction in the same ball where $`F_{\mu ,s,\epsilon }`$ is a contraction (see the proof of Lemma 4.4). Hence $`F_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}`$ has a fixed point $`(w_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s},\alpha _{1,\epsilon }^{\mu ,s},\alpha _{2,\epsilon }^{\mu ,s})`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{\mu ,s}(w_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s},\alpha _{1,\epsilon }^{\mu ,s},\alpha _{2,\epsilon }^{\mu ,s},\epsilon )=0`$. ¿From the uniqueness of the fixed point of $`F_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}`$ and from the fact that $`(f_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s})^{}(\omega +(𝒰_{\mu ,s})^1w(\mu ,s,\epsilon ))T_\omega Z`$ and $`(𝒰_{\mu ,s})^1w(\mu ,s,\epsilon )\left(T_\omega Z\right)^{}`$, it follows that $`w_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}=(𝒰_{\mu ,s})^1\left(w(\mu ,s,\epsilon )\right)`$, where $`w(\mu ,s,\epsilon )`$ is given in Lemma 4.4. Assume now that $`k`$ is continuous on $`\overline{^n}`$ and fix $`s`$. Let us consider the functional

$$f_\epsilon ^{0,s}=\frac{1}{2}_^n|_^nu|^2\frac{1}{Q^{}}(1+\epsilon k(0,s))_^nu_+^Q^{}.$$

For $`w_\epsilon ^{0,s}=(t_\epsilon (s)1)\omega `$ where $`t_\epsilon (s)=(1+\epsilon k(0,s))^{\frac{Q2}{4}}`$ we have $`(f_\epsilon ^{0,s})^{}(\omega +w_\epsilon ^{0,s})=0`$ and $`(f_\epsilon ^{0,s})(\omega +w_\epsilon ^{0,s})=(1+\epsilon k(0,s))^{\frac{Q2}{2}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{Q^{}}\right)_^n\omega ^Q^{}`$ and hence $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{0,s}(w_\epsilon ^{0,s},0,0,\epsilon )=0`$ where

$$\stackrel{~}{H}^{0,s}(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\epsilon )=((f_\epsilon ^{0,s})^{}(\omega +w)\alpha _1\dot{\xi }_0\alpha _2\dot{\zeta }_0,(w,\dot{\xi }_0),(w,\dot{\zeta }_0)).$$

We have that $`\frac{\stackrel{~}{H}^{0,s}}{(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)}(0,0,0,0)=\frac{H}{(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)}(\mu ,s,0,0,0,0)\text{}_{\begin{array}{c}\mu =1\\ s=0\end{array}}`$ and hence $`(w_\epsilon ^{0,s},0,0)`$ is a fixed point of the map

$$F_\epsilon ^{0,s}(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)=\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{H}^{0,s}}{(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)}(0,0,0,0)\right)^1\stackrel{~}{H}^{0,s}(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\epsilon )+(w,\alpha _1,\alpha _2).$$

It is easy to check that $`F_\epsilon ^{0,s}`$ is a contraction in some ball of radius $`O(|\epsilon |)`$. Hence $`w_\epsilon ^{0,s}`$ is the unique fixed point of $`F_\epsilon ^{0,s}`$ in such a ball.
Let us also set $`w_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{}}=(t_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{}}1)\omega `$, $`t_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{}}=(1+\epsilon k(\mathrm{}))^{\frac{Q2}{4}}`$.

###### Lemma 4.7.

For any $`\overline{s}`$ there holds

$`w_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}`$ $`w_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}},\text{as}(\mu ,s)(0,\overline{s}),`$ (4.16)
$`w_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}`$ $`w_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{}},\text{as}(\mu ,s)(0,\mathrm{}).`$ (4.17)
Proof. We have that

$`F_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}(w_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}},0,0)F_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}}(w_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}},0,0)C_{}\stackrel{~}{H}^{\mu ,s}(w_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}},0,0,\epsilon )\stackrel{~}{H}^{0,\overline{s}}(w_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}},0,0,\epsilon )`$
$`C_{}(f_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s})^{}(\omega +w_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}})(f_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}})^{}(\omega +w_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}})=C_{}(f_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s})^{}(t_\epsilon (\overline{s})\omega )(f_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}})^{}(t_\epsilon (\overline{s})\omega ).`$
Since by (2.2) and the Hölder inequality

$`\left|((f_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s})^{}(t_\epsilon (\overline{s})\omega )(f_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}})^{}(t_\epsilon (\overline{s})\omega ),v)\right|=\left|{\displaystyle _^n}\epsilon \left[k(\mu z,\mu ^2t+s)k(0,\overline{s})\right](t_\epsilon (\overline{s})\omega )^{Q^{}1}v\right|`$
$`S^{1/2}v\left[{\displaystyle _^n}\epsilon ^{\frac{Q^{}}{Q^{}1}}|k(\mu z,\mu ^2t+s)k(0,\overline{s})|^{\frac{Q^{}}{Q^{}1}}t_\epsilon (\overline{s})^Q^{}\omega ^Q^{}\right]^{\frac{Q^{}1}{Q^{}}}`$
we have that, by the Dominated Convergence Theorem,

$$(f_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s})^{}(t_\epsilon (\overline{s})\omega )(f_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}})^{}(t_\epsilon (\overline{s})\omega )c\left[_^n|k(\mu z,\mu ^2t+s)k(0,\overline{s})|^{\frac{Q^{}}{Q^{}1}}\omega ^Q^{}\right]^{\frac{Q^{}1}{Q^{}}}\underset{(\mu ,s)(0,\overline{s})}{}0.$$

Therefore

$$F_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}(w_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}},0,0)F_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}}(w_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}},0,0),\text{as}(\mu ,s)(0,\overline{s}).$$
(4.18)
Since $`F_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}`$ is a contraction with a contraction factor $`0<\lambda <1`$ independent of $`\mu ,s`$, and $`\epsilon `$ we have that

$`w_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}w_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}}(w_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s},\alpha _{1,\epsilon }^{\mu ,s},\alpha _{2,\epsilon }^{\mu ,s})(w_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}},0,0)=F_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}(w_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s},\alpha _{1,\epsilon }^{\mu ,s},\alpha _{2,\epsilon }^{\mu ,s})F_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}}(w_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}},0,0)`$
$`F_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}(w_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s},\alpha _{1,\epsilon }^{\mu ,s},\alpha _{2,\epsilon }^{\mu ,s})F_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}(w_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}},0,0)+F_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}(w_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}},0,0)F_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}}(w_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}},0,0)`$
$`\lambda w_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}w_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}}+F_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}(w_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}},0,0)F_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}}(w_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}},0,0)`$
and hence from (4.18) we obtain (4.16). The proof of (4.17) is analogous. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Proposition 4.5.  By definition of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon `$ and $`f_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}`$, we have that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon (\mu ,s)=f_\epsilon \left(z_{\mu ,s}+w(\mu ,s,\epsilon )\right)=f_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}(\omega +w_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}).$$
(4.19)
Moreover

$`f_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}(\omega +w_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s})`$ $`=f_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}(\omega +w_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s})f_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}}(\omega +w_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s})+f_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}}(\omega +w_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s})`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{Q^{}}}{\displaystyle _^n}\left(k(0,\overline{s})k(\mu z,\mu ^2t+s)\right)(\omega +w_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s})_+^Q^{}𝑑z𝑑t+f_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}}(\omega +w_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s})`$
hence by (4.16) and the Dominated Convergence Theorem

$$f_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s}(\omega +w_\epsilon ^{\mu ,s})\underset{(\mu ,s)(0,\overline{s})}{}f_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}}(\omega +w_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}}).$$
(4.20)
On the other hand we have that

$`f_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}}(\omega +w_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}})=f_\epsilon ^{0,\overline{s}}(t_\epsilon (\overline{s})\omega )=f_0(\omega )\left(1+\epsilon k(0,\overline{s})\right)^{\frac{Q2}{2}}.`$ (4.21)
¿From (4.19), (4.20), and (4.21), (i) follows. In an analogous way, using (4.17), it is easy to prove (ii). $`\mathrm{}`$

Thanks to Proposition 4.5 it is now quite easy to give some conditions on $`k`$ in order to have critical points of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon `$. In particular the knowledge of $`k`$ on the axis $`\{(0,s):s\}`$ and at $`\mathrm{}`$ gives exact informations about the behavior of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon `$ on the axis $`\{(0,s):s\}`$ and at $`\mathrm{}`$.

Proof of Theorem 2.8.  As remarked in Subsection 4.1, it is enough to prove that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon (\mu ,s):^+\times `$ has a critical point. In view Proposition 4.5, $`k(0,t)=k(\mathrm{})`$ $`t`$ implies that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon (0,t)=\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon (\mathrm{})`$ $`t`$. Hence, either $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon `$ is constant (and we have infinitely many critical points) or it has a global maximum or minimum point $`(\overline{\mu },\overline{s})`$$`\overline{\mu }>0`$. In any case, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\epsilon `$ has a critical point which provides a solution to $`(𝒫_\epsilon )`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## Appendix

In the first part of this appendix, we prove some technical lemmas about the properties of cylindrically symmetric functions of the Folland-Stein Sobolev space $`S_0^1(^n)`$.

###### Remark A.1.

If $`u(z,t)=\stackrel{~}{u}(|z|,t)`$ , $`v(z,t)=\stackrel{~}{v}(|z|,t)`$ are in $`S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{u},\stackrel{~}{v}H_{\text{loc}}^1(\{(r,t)^2|r>0\})`$. Moreover the following formula holds a.e.

$$_^nu,_^nv(z,t)=(_r\stackrel{~}{u}_r\stackrel{~}{v}+4r^2_t\stackrel{~}{u}_t\stackrel{~}{v})(|z|,t).$$
(A.1)
Proof. It is straightforward to verify that formula (A.1) holds for smooth functions. In order to extend it to general $`u,vS_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$, we choose two sequences of cylindrically symmetric functions $`\varphi _k,\psi _kC_0^{\mathrm{}}(^n)`$, converging in $`S_0^1`$ to $`u,v`$, respectively. By a cylindrical change of coordinates, it is then easy to see that $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_k`$ are Cauchy sequences in $`H^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ for every $`\mathrm{\Omega }]0,\mathrm{}[\times `$. Since moreover $`\varphi _ku`$, $`\psi _kv`$, pointwise a.e. (up to subsequences), the limits of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_k`$ in $`H^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are necessarily $`\stackrel{~}{u},\stackrel{~}{v}`$. As a consequence, formula (A.1) (which we know to hold for $`\varphi _k,\psi _k`$) extends to $`u,v`$ by means of the a.e. pointwise convergences $`_^n\varphi _k_^nu`$, $`_^n\psi _k_^nv`$, $`(_r\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k,_t\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k)(_r\stackrel{~}{u},_t\stackrel{~}{u})`$, $`(_r\stackrel{~}{\psi }_k,_t\stackrel{~}{\psi }_k)(_r\stackrel{~}{v},_t\stackrel{~}{v})`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma A.2.

Let $`K(z,t)=\stackrel{~}{K}(|z|,t)`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ bounded and locally Hölder continuous in $`]0,\mathrm{}[\times `$, and let $`uS_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$ be a (nonnegative) weak solution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_^nu=Ku^{Q^{}1}`$ in the $`S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$-sense (i.e. with respect to $`S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$-test functions). Then $`u`$ is a weak solution of the same equation in the $`S_0^1(^n)`$-sense. An analogous result also holds for weak solutions of the equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_^nu=(Q^{}1)U_{\mu ,s}^{Q^{}2}u`$.

Proof. Let us prove the statement related to the equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_^nu=Ku^{Q^{}1}`$ (the same proof works also for the other equation). Recalling Remark A.1, for every test function $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }C_0^{\mathrm{}}(]0,\mathrm{}[\times )`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill c_n_{]0,\mathrm{}[\times }\stackrel{~}{K}\stackrel{~}{u}^{Q^{}1}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }r^{2n1}𝑑r𝑑t& =_^nKu^{Q^{}1}\varphi =_^n_^nu,_^n\varphi \hfill \\ & =c_n_{]0,\mathrm{}[\times }(_r\stackrel{~}{u}_r\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+4r^2_t\stackrel{~}{u}_t\stackrel{~}{\varphi })r^{2n1}𝑑r𝑑t\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`u(z,t)=\stackrel{~}{u}(|z|,t)`$. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ is a weak solution of the elliptic equation

$$_r(r^{2n1}_r\stackrel{~}{u})_t(4r^{2n+1}_t\stackrel{~}{u})=r^{2n1}\stackrel{~}{K}\stackrel{~}{u}^{Q^{}1}$$

in $`]0,\mathrm{}[\times `$. Now, using a classical bootstrap elliptic argument, one can easily see that $`\stackrel{~}{u}C^2(]0,\mathrm{}[\times )`$. As a consequence $`uC^2(\{(z,t)^n|z0\})`$ is a classical solution of the equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_^nu=Ku^{Q^{}1}`$ in $`\{z0\}`$ and we can argue as follows. Let us fix a test function $`\varphi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^n)`$ with support contained in $`^{2n}\times [T,T]`$ and let us set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon =\{(z,t)^n:|z|<\epsilon ,|t|<T\}`$, $`\delta _\epsilon =\{(z,t)^n:|z|=\epsilon ,|t|T\}`$. Let us also choose a vanishing sequence of positive numbers $`\epsilon _k`$ such that

$$_{\delta _{\epsilon _k}}|_^nu|^2𝑑H_{2n}=o(\frac{1}{\epsilon _k}),\text{as }k\mathrm{}$$

(such a sequence does exist since $`|_^nu|L^2(^n)`$). Then, setting

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}I_n& 0& 2y\\ 0& I_n& 2x\\ 2y& 2x& 4|z|^2\end{array}\right),$$

we have by the Divergence Theorem

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left|_{^n\mathrm{\Omega }_{\epsilon _k}}(_^nu,_^n\varphi Ku^{Q^{}1}\varphi )\right|=\left|_{^n\mathrm{\Omega }_{\epsilon _k}}\mathrm{div}(\varphi Au)\right|\hfill \\ & =\left|_{\delta _{\epsilon _k}}\varphi Au,(z)𝑑H_{2n}\right|=\left|_{\delta _{\epsilon _k}}\varphi _^nu,_^n(z)𝑑H_{2n}\right|\hfill \\ & c_{\delta _{\epsilon _k}}|_^nu|𝑑H_{2n}c\left(_{\delta _{\epsilon _k}}|_^nu|^2𝑑H_{2n}\right)^{1/2}\epsilon _k^{(2n1)/2}=o(\epsilon _k^{n1}),\text{as }k\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`\left|_{^n\mathrm{\Omega }_{\epsilon _k}}(_^nu,_^n\varphi Ku^{Q^{}1}\varphi )\right|\left|_^n(_^nu,_^n\varphi Ku^{Q^{}1}\varphi )\right|`$, this proves that $`_^n_^nu,_^n\varphi =_^nKu^{Q^{}1}\varphi `$ holds for every $`\varphi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^n)`$ and thus for every $`\varphi S_0^1(^n)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma A.3.

Let $`u_m`$ be a sequence weakly converging in $`S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$ to some function $`uS_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$. Then (up to subsequences) $`u_mu`$ in $`L^q(C)`$ for any set $`C`$ of the type $`\{z:0<c_1|z|c_2\}\times [c_3,c_3]`$ (and hence on any compact set away from the axis $`\{z=0\}`$) and for any $`1q<+\mathrm{}`$.

Proof. Let $`C=\{z:c_1|z|c_2\}\times [c_3,c_3]`$. ¿From Remark A.1 we have that for any function $`wS_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$

$$|_^nw|^2=|_rw|^2+4r^2|_tw|^2.$$
(A.2)
Let now $`u_m`$ be a sequence weakly converging to $`u`$ in $`S_{\mathrm{cyl}}^1(^n)`$ (and so in $`S_0^1(^n)`$ and in $`L^Q^{}(^n)`$). Thanks to (A.2) we can write

$`\mathrm{const}`$ $`{\displaystyle _C}|_^nu_m|^2=\gamma _n{\displaystyle _{\begin{array}{c}c_1rc_2\\ |t|c_3\end{array}}}\left(|_ru_m|^2+4r^2|_tu_m|^2\right)r^{2n1}𝑑r𝑑t`$
$`\gamma _n\mathrm{min}\{1,4c_1^2\}c_1^{2n1}{\displaystyle _{[c_1,c_2]\times [c_3,c_3]}}\left(|_ru_m|^2+|_tu_m|^2\right)𝑑r𝑑t`$
and analogously for the $`L^2`$ norm. Hence $`u_m(r,t)`$ is bounded in $`H^1\left([c_1,c_2]\times [c_3,c_3]\right)`$ which is compactly embedded in $`L^q\left([c_1,c_2]\times [c_3,c_3]\right)`$ for any $`1q<+\mathrm{}`$. Therefore, up to a subsequence, $`u_m(r,t)u(r,t)`$ in $`L^q\left([c_1,c_2]\times [c_3,c_3]\right)`$. Consequently, we get that

$`{\displaystyle _C}|u_mu|^q`$ $`=\gamma _n{\displaystyle _{\begin{array}{c}c_1rc_2\\ |t|c_3\end{array}}}|u_m(r,t)u(r,t)|^qr^{2n1}𝑑r𝑑t`$
$`\gamma _nc_2^{2n1}{\displaystyle _{[c_1,c_2]\times [c_3,c_3]}}|u_m(r,t)u(r,t)|^q𝑑r𝑑t0.`$
Lemma A.3 is thereby established. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let us now state the P. L. Lions concentration-compactness principle in $`^n`$. Since the proof does not present further difficulties with respect to the euclidean case (see  and ), we omit it. Let $`\overline{}^n=^n\{\mathrm{}\}`$ be the compactification of $`^n`$. Let us denote by $`(\overline{}^n)`$ the Banach space of finite signed regular Borel measures on $`\overline{}^n`$, endowed with the total variation norm. In view of the Riesz representation theorem, the space $`(\overline{}^n)`$ can be identified with the dual of the Banach space $`C(\overline{}^n)`$. We say that a sequence of measures $`\mu _m`$ weakly converges to $`\mu `$ in $`(\overline{}^n)`$ if for any $`fC(\overline{}^n)`$ (i.e. continuous on $`^n`$ with finite limit at $`\mathrm{}`$)

$$_^nf𝑑\mu _m_^nf𝑑\mu .$$

In this case we will use the notation $`\mu _m\stackrel{}{}\mu `$.

###### Theorem A.4.

(Concentration-compactness) Let $`\{u_m\}`$ be a sequence weakly converging to $`u`$ in $`S_0^1(^n)`$. Then, up to subsequences,

$`(i)`$ $`|_^nu_m|^2`$ weakly converges in $`(\overline{}^n)`$ to a nonnegative measure $`\mu `$,
$`(ii)`$ $`|u_m|^Q^{}`$ weakly converges in $`(\overline{}^n)`$ to a nonnegative measure $`\nu `$.
Moreover there exist an at most countable index set $`J`$, a sequence $`(z_j,t_j)^n`$, $`\nu ^j,\nu ^{\mathrm{}}(0,\mathrm{})`$ such that

$`\nu =|u|^Q^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{jJ}{}}\nu ^j\delta _{(z^j,t^j)}+\nu ^{\mathrm{}}\delta _{\mathrm{}}`$
$`\mu |_^nu|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{jJ}{}}S(\nu ^j)^{\frac{2}{Q^{}}}\delta _{(z^j,t^j)}+S(\nu ^{\mathrm{}})^{\frac{2}{Q^{}}}\delta _{\mathrm{}}.`$


format: text

text:
# Ideals with maximal local cohomology modules

## Introduction and Notations

This paper finds its motivation in the pursuit of ideals whose local cohomology modules have maximal Hilbert functions. In ,  we proved that the lexicographic (resp. squarefree lexicographic) ideal of a family of graded (resp. squarefree) ideals with assigned Hilbert function provides sharp upper bounds for the local cohomology modules of any of the ideals of the family. Moreover these bounds are determined explicitely in terms of the Hilbert function, which is the specified starting data. In the present paper a characterization of the class of ideals with the desired property is accomplished.
In order to be more precise we set some notation to be used henceforth.
Let $`RK[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]`$ denote the polynomial ring in $`n`$ variables over a field $`K`$ of characteristic $`0`$ with its standard grading, $`𝔪(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)`$ the maximal homogeneous ideal of $`R`$, $`IR`$ a homogeneous ideal and $`I^{lex}`$ its lexicographic ideal.

The canonical module of $`R`$ will be denoted by $`\omega _RR(n)`$. If $`M`$ stands for a graded $`R`$-module, then $`\mathrm{Hilb}(M,t)`$ will denote its Hilbert series in terms of $`t`$. The local cohomology modules $`H_𝔪^i(M)`$ of $`M`$ will be considered with support on the maximal graded ideal $`𝔪`$ and with their natural grading. We write $`h^i(M)_j`$ for the dimension as a $`K`$-vector space of $`H_𝔪^i(M)_j`$. The dual of the local cohomology modules according to the Local Duality Theorem will be denoted with $`E^i(M)\mathrm{Ext}_R^i(M,\omega _R)`$. We write $`I^{sat}I:𝔪^{\mathrm{}}`$ for the saturation of an ideal $`I`$ with respect to $`𝔪`$.

A well known theorem of Bigatti-Hulett-Pardue states that in the family of graded ideals with a given Hilbert function the lexicographic ideal has the greatest Betti numbers. The class of ideals with all of the Betti numbers equal to those (i.e. with the same resolution as that) of the lexicographic ideal are characterized in . These ideals are the so-called Gotzmann ideals. We recall that an ideal is called Gotzmann iff in each degree it has the same numbers of generators as its associated lexicographic ideal. Note that the definition can be re-read as follows: Gotzmann ideals have the same $`0^{th}`$ graded Betti numbers as those of the associated lexicographic ideal. The result of  shows then that the maximality of all the other graded Betti numbers is forced by that of the $`0^{th}`$ ones.
It is worth to point out that a similiar behaviour underlies our situation as well, where Gotzmann ideals will play again some important role. We state now the main result of this paper.

###### Theorem 0.1.

For any graded module $`I`$, the following are equivalent conditions:

* $`(I^{sat})^{lex}=(I^{lex})^{sat}`$;
* $`h^i(R/I)_j=h^i(R/I^{lex})_j`$, for all $`i,j`$.

The author would like to express his gratitude to Aldo Conca for many fruitful discussions about the contents of this paper.

## 1. Graded ideals

Let us start by observing that there is an obvious inclusion in the equality $`(i)`$ of Theorem 0.1. In fact one has that, for any ideal $`I`$,

(1.1)
$$(I^{sat})^{lex}(I^{lex})^{sat}.$$

One can prove this fact by an iterated use of $`(I:𝔪)^{lex}I^{lex}:𝔪`$, which is easy. Observe that (1.1) provides an information about the Hilbert function of the $`0^{th}`$ local cohomology modules. Since $`H_𝔪^0(R/I)I^{sat}/I`$, $`h^0(R/I)_j=dim_KI_j^{sat}dim_KI_j=dim_K(I^{sat})_j^{lex}dim_KI_j^{lex}`$, and by virtue of the above inclusion, this is less than or equal to $`dim_K(I^{lex})_j^{sat}dim_KI_j^{lex}=h^0(R/I^{lex})_j`$. One sees immediately that equality holds iff $`(I^{sat})^{lex}=(I^{lex})^{sat}`$.
In other words one could state Condition (i) as follows:

$$(i^{}):h^0(R/I)_j=h^0(R/I^{lex})_j,\text{ for all }j.$$

This also shows that $`(ii)(i)`$. Thus, the theorem states that, as it happens in the context of Betti numbers, the equality of the $`0^{th}`$ local cohomology forces the equality of any other. One can wonder if this sort of rigidity behaviour is to be expected more generally, i.e. is it true that if $`h^i(R/I)_k=h^i(R/I^{lex})_k`$ for some $`i`$ and all $`k`$, then $`h^j(R/I)_k=h^j(R/I^{lex})_k`$ for all $`ji`$ and all $`k`$? At this moment we have no evidence for answering the last question.

Let us denote by $`\mathrm{Gin}(I)`$ the generic initial ideal of $`I`$ with respect to the reverse lexicographical order induced by the assignment $`X_1>X_2>\mathrm{}>X_n`$. In  we studied the problem of characterizing those ideals such that $`h^i(R/I)_j=h^i(R/\mathrm{Gin}(I))_j`$. For the reader’s sake we recall the main theorem here:

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`M`$ be a finitely generated graded $`R`$-module with graded free presentation $`M=F/U`$. The following conditions are equivalent.

* $`F/U`$ is sequentially CM;
* for all $`i0`$ and all $`j`$ one has $`h^i(F/U)_j=h^i(F/\mathrm{Gin}(U))_j`$.

In general it holds that $`h^i(R/I)_jh^i(R/\mathrm{Gin}(I))_jh^i(R/I^{lex})_j`$ (see ). Thus, the class of ideals we are searching for must have the property that $`R/I`$ is sequentially CM. Therefore one may state a third condition, wondering if this is equivalent to those of Theorem 0.1:

$$(iii):R/I\text{ is sequentially CM and }\mathrm{Gin}(I)=I^{lex}.$$

By virtue of the above theorem one sees that $`(iii)(ii)`$. In fact, if $`R/I`$ is sequentially CM, for all $`i,j`$ one has $`h^i(R/I)_j=h^i(R/\mathrm{Gin}(I))_j`$, where the latter is equal to $`h^i(R/I^{lex})_j`$, since $`\mathrm{Gin}(I)=I^{lex}`$.
On the other hand, one sees that in general $`(iii)`$ needs not to be implied by $`(i)`$. First let us prove an easy lemma.

###### Lemma 1.2.

Let $`I`$ be a homogeneous ideal and $`\mathrm{Gin}(I)`$ its generic initial ideal. If $`(I^{sat})^{lex}=(I^{lex})^{sat}`$ then $`(\mathrm{Gin}(I)^{sat})^{lex}=(\mathrm{Gin}(I)^{lex})^{sat}`$.

###### Proof.

As observed at the beginning of this section, one inclusion is trivially true: $`(\mathrm{Gin}(I)^{sat})^{lex}(\mathrm{Gin}(I)^{lex})^{sat}`$. Thus, it is enough to show that the two ideals have the same Hilbert function. Since $`I`$ and $`\mathrm{Gin}(I)`$ have the same Hilbert function and therefore same lexicographic ideal, one has $`(\mathrm{Gin}(I)^{lex})^{sat}=(I^{lex})^{sat}=(I^{sat})^{lex}`$, by hypothesis. Recall now that $`\mathrm{Gin}(I^{sat})=\mathrm{Gin}(I)^{sat}`$. Therefore, $`H(I^{sat},t)=H(\mathrm{Gin}(I^{sat}),t)=H(\mathrm{Gin}(I)^{sat},t)`$, and as a consequence $`H(I^{sat},t)=H((\mathrm{Gin}(I)^{sat})^{lex},t)`$. Finally, we deduce that

$$\begin{array}{cc}H((\mathrm{Gin}(I)^{lex})^{sat},t)\hfill & =H((I^{sat})^{lex},t)=H(I^{sat},t)\hfill \\ & =H((\mathrm{Gin}(I)^{sat})^{lex},t),\hfill \end{array}$$

which yields the desired conclusion. ∎

By virtue of the above lemma, we need now an example of a strongly stable ideal, which is not lexicographic, but satisfies $`(i)`$. This is provided in what follows.

###### Example 1.3.

Let $`I=(x^2,xy,y^2,xz^2,yz^2)`$ be an ideal of $`K[x,y,z]`$.
It is easy to verify that $`I`$ is strongly stable. The result of the computation of the lex-ideal is $`I^{lex}=(x^2,xy,xz,y^3,y^2z,yz^2)`$. Thus, $`II^{lex}`$ and $`(I^{sat})^{lex}=(I^{lex})^{sat}=(x,y)`$.

Next, some lemmata which illustrate our hypothesis and characterize it. We shall prove that an ideal with the exchange property is sequentially CM.

###### Lemma 1.4.

Let $`I`$ be a homogeneous ideal. Then

$$I=I^{sat}\text{ and }(I^{sat})^{lex}=(I^{lex})^{sat}I^{lex}=(I^{lex})^{sat}.$$

###### Proof.

$``$”: It is immediately seen.
$``$”: Since $`I^{lex}=(I^{lex})^{sat}`$, one has that $`H_𝔪^0(R/I^{lex})=0`$ and, by virtue of , Theorem 5.4, also $`H_𝔪^0(R/I)=0`$, i.e. $`I=I^{sat}`$. Now, as already observed elsewhere, it suffices to show that $`H((I^{sat})^{lex},t)=H((I^{lex})^{sat},t)`$. For this purpose we notice that $`H((I^{sat})^{lex},t)`$ is equal to $`H(I^{sat},t)=H(I,t)=H(I^{lex},t)=H((I^{lex})^{sat}),t)`$, and we are done. ∎

###### Lemma 1.5.

Let $`I`$ be a homogeneous ideal. If $`I=I^{sat}`$ is Gotzmann then $`(I^{sat})^{lex}=(I^{lex})^{sat}`$.

###### Proof.

By hypothesis $`0ptR/I>1`$ and since $`I`$ is a Gotzmann ideal, it has the same resolution as $`I^{lex}`$. Therefore, also $`R/I^{lex}`$ has positive depth. This implies that $`I^{lex}=(I^{lex})^{sat}`$ and the thesis follows immediately. ∎

The stronger counterpart of the above lemma is the following: Let $`I`$ be a homogeneous ideal such that $`(I^{sat})^{lex}=(I^{lex})^{sat}`$. Then $`I^{sat}`$ is Gotzmann. One can see that this last statement is equivalent to that of the following lemma.

###### Lemma 1.6.

Any ideal $`I`$ such that $`I^{lex}`$ is saturated is a Gotzmann ideal.

Before we start to prove the latter fact, it is worth to underline that if the lexicographic ideal is saturated, the Hilbert function has a very rigid behaviour. In fact, saying that any ideal associated with that lexicographic ideal is Gotzmann implies that any of these ideals has the same resolution as the lex-ideal.
A saturated lexicographic ideal has indeed a very special structure and its generators can be described explicitely in terms of the Hilbert polynomial of $`R/I`$ by means of a vector $`v`$ of integers in a way that we are going to recall for the reader’s sake.
Let $`P_{R/I}(X)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{X+a_1}{a_1}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{X+a_21}{a_2}\right)+\mathrm{}+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{X+a_l(l1)}{a_l}\right)`$, with $`a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_l0`$ be a representation of the Hilbert polynomial, also referred to as its Gotzmann representation. Let now $`v_i|\{j:na_j1=i\}|`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$ and observe that $`v_i`$ represents the exponent of the variable $`X_i`$ in the last monomial of highest degree of the minimal set of generators of $`I^{lex}`$. Let us also set $`h`$ to be the maximum index of a non-zero $`v_i`$. Then, the minimal set of generators of $`(I^{lex})^{sat}`$ is the set

$$\{X_1^{v_1+1},X_1^{v_1}X_2^{v_2+1},\mathrm{},X_1^{v_1}\mathrm{}X_{h1}^{v_{h1}+1},X_1^{v_1}\mathrm{}X_{h1}^{v_{h1}}X_h^{v_h}\},$$

where, according to our settings, $`v_i0`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},h1`$ and $`v_h>0`$. We also recall that the vanishing of the local cohomology modules $`H_𝔪^i(R/I^{lex})`$ is determined by the vanishing of the $`(ni)^{th}`$ entry of the vector $`v=(v_1,\mathrm{},v_h)`$ (cf. , Proposition 6.6).

We may now continue our proof using an induction argument on $`h`$. If $`h=1`$, then $`I^{lex}`$ is simply the principal ideal $`(X_1^a)`$, for some $`a_{>0}`$, and there is nothing to prove. Suppose now the thesis proven for any ideal such that the length of the vector $`v`$ is $`h1`$. There are two possible cases. If $`v_1=0`$, then the ideal $`I^{lex}`$ contains the linear form $`X_1`$, and consequently $`I`$ contains a linear form, let us say $`l`$. Thus $`I^{lex}=(X_1,J)`$ and $`I=(l,I^{})`$, for some ideals $`J=J^{}R`$, where $`J^{}`$ is the saturated lexicographic ideal in $`R^{}K[X_2,\mathrm{},X_n]`$ represented by the vector $`(v_2,\mathrm{},v_h)`$, and $`I^{}R`$. Clearly $`X_1`$ is $`R/J`$-regular, and we also may assume that $`l`$ is $`R/I^{}`$-regular. From this fact one deduces that $`J^{}`$ is the lexicographic ideal associated with $`I^{}R^{}`$, and one can use the inductive hypothesis to reach the conclusion.
Otherwise, if $`v_1>0`$, we observe that $`\mathrm{grade}_{I^{lex}}(R)=1`$ since $`E^1(R/I^{lex})`$ $`0`$, and that $`I^{lex}=X_1^{v_1}J`$, where $`J`$ is a saturated lexicographic ideal represented by the vector $`(0,v_2,\mathrm{},v_h)`$ in $`K[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]`$. Moreover $`v_1`$ equals the multiplicity $`e`$ of $`R/I^{lex}`$, which is the same as that of $`R/I`$. We also have that $`\mathrm{grade}_I(R)=1`$, since the dimension of $`R/I`$ is the same as that of $`R/I^{lex}`$, therefore $`I`$ can be written as a product of a polynomial $`f`$ times an ideal $`I^{}`$. Observe that $`\mathrm{deg}f`$ equals the multiplicity of $`R/I`$, which is $`v_1`$. For showing this simple fact, let us look at the short exact sequence $`0fR/IR/IR/fR0`$. It is easy to see that the multiplicity of $`R/fR`$ is $`\mathrm{deg}f`$, since the $`h`$-vector of $`R/fR`$ is $`_{i=1}^{\mathrm{deg}f}t^i`$, while its dimension is $`n1`$. On the other hand the Hilbert function of the left-hand side module is up to a shift that of the module $`R/J`$, whose dimension is less than $`n1`$ and therefore cannot contribute to the multiplicity of $`R/I`$.
Since $`t^{\mathrm{deg}f}\mathrm{Hilb}(I^{},t)=\mathrm{Hilb}(I,t)=\mathrm{Hilb}(I^{lex},t)=t^{v_1}\mathrm{Hilb}(J,t)`$, we deduce that $`J`$ is the lexicographic ideal associated with $`I^{}`$, and the proof of the lemma is complete by the use of the previous case.

###### Proposition 1.7.

Let $`I`$ be an ideal such that $`(I^{sat})^{lex}=(I^{lex})^{sat}`$. Then $`R/I^{sat}`$ is sequentially CM.

It is now convenient to recall the definition of sequentially Cohen-Macaulay modules. A finitely generated graded $`R`$-module $`M`$ is said to be sequentially Cohen-Macaulay if there exists a finite filtration $`0=M_0M_1M_2\mathrm{}M_r=M`$ of $`M`$ by graded submodules of $`M`$ such that each quotient $`M_i/M_{i1}`$ is CM, and $`dim(M_1/M_0)<dim(M_2/M_1)<\mathrm{}dim(M_r/M_{r1}).`$
Sequentially CM modules have an interesting characterization in terms of their homology, as illustrated by a theorem of Peskine (cf. , Theorem 1.4). Peskine’s result asserts that a module $`M`$ is sequentially CM iff for all $`0idimM`$ the modules $`E^{ni}(M)`$ are either $`0`$ or CM of dimension $`i`$. For a more complete overview of the properties of sequentially CM modules we refer to , and we proceed by proving Proposition 1.7.

###### Proof.

Let us assume that $`I^{lex}`$ is saturated and let us prove that $`R/I`$ is sequentially CM. We shall use the same notation as above. In particular the vector that determines $`I^{lex}`$ will be denoted by $`v`$, and $`v_i`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},h`$, will denote its entries.
The idea is the same as that of the proof of the above lemma, by induction on the index $`h`$. If $`h=1`$, then $`I`$ and $`I^{lex}`$ are principal, therefore they are Cohen-Macaulay, and Cohen-Macaulay modules are sequentially CM.
If $`h>1`$ we may assume without loss of generality that $`v_1`$ is $`0`$ and therefore that $`I`$ and $`I^{lex}`$ contain the linear form $`X_1`$. The following is an application of the graded version of the Rees’ Lemma. Let $`I=(X_1,I^{})`$ and $`I^{lex}=(X_1,J)`$, where $`J=J^{}R`$ and $`J^{}`$ is the (saturated) lexicographic ideal associated with $`I^{}(R/(X_1))`$ determined by the vector $`(v_2,\mathrm{},v_h)`$ in $`K[X_2,\mathrm{},X_n]`$. Thus we have graded isomorphisms for all $`i1`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Ext}_R^i(R/I,R)\hfill & \mathrm{Ext}_R^i(R/(X_1,I^{}),R)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{Ext}_{R/(X_1)}^{i1}((R/(X_1))/(I^{}(R/(X_1))),R/(X_1))(1),\hfill \end{array}$$

which, by induction, is either $`0`$ or Cohen-Macaulay of dimension $`(n1)(i1)=ni`$. By virtue of the aforementioned homological characterization of sequentially CM modules this is equivalent to the thesis. ∎

As an immediate consequence of the above observations, we deduce the property we were interested in.

###### Proposition 1.8.

Let $`I`$ be an ideal such that $`(I^{sat})^{lex}=(I^{lex})^{sat}`$. Then $`R/I`$ is sequentially CM.

###### Proof.

By virtue of the above proposition it is enough to notice that an $`R`$-module $`M`$ is sequentially CM iff $`M/H_𝔪^0(M)`$ is sequentially CM. In our case $`M=R/I`$ and $`M/H_𝔪^0(M)(R/I)/(I^{sat}/I)R/I^{sat}`$. ∎

Observe that if $`I`$ is a proper cyclic ideal, its lexicographic ideal is $`(X_1^d)`$ for some positive integer $`d`$, which is saturated. Moreover, $`R/I`$ is CM of dimension $`n1`$, and its only non-vanishing $`\mathrm{Ext}`$-group is the first one. This is isomorphic to a shifted copy of $`R/I`$ itself, and therefore cyclic. Applying this observation to the inductive argument of the proof of Proposition 1.7, one deduces the following.

###### Proposition 1.9.

Let $`I`$ be an ideal such that $`(I^{sat})^{lex}=(I^{lex})^{sat}`$, then all of its $`\mathrm{Ext}`$-groups except possibly the $`n^{th}`$-one are cyclic.

We now prove the main result for strongly stable ideals. Recall that a monomial ideal $`I`$ is said to be strongly stable if, for every $`uI`$, one has $`X_iu/X_jI`$ for all $`X_j|u`$ and $`i<j`$. For a strongly stable ideal one has that $`I^{sat}=I:(X_n)^{\mathrm{}}`$. In particular, one knows that $`R/I`$ has positive depth iff $`X_n`$ does not appear in any of the monomials which minimally generate $`I`$. Suppose now that $`I`$ is strongly stable and that $`X_n`$ is $`R/I^{lex}`$-regular. Then, if we denote by $`\overline{}`$ the equivalence classes in the quotient of the polynomial ring by the last variable, one has $`\overline{I^{lex}}=\overline{I}^{lex}`$. Let us give a quick explanation for this fact. Since $`I^{lex}`$ is strongly stable as well and $`X_n`$ is $`R/I^{lex}`$-regular, none of the monomial of the minimal set of generators of $`I^{lex}`$ contain the last variable, thus $`\overline{I^{lex}}`$ is a lexicographic ideal in the variables $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_{n1}`$. Since $`0ptR/I^{lex}0ptR/I`$, and $`I`$ is a strongly stable ideal, for the reason explained above $`X_n`$ is also $`R/I`$-regular. Therefore we can control the behaviour of the Hilbert function when passing to the quotient by the last variable, and the conclusion follows easily.

The following is a technical lemma about local cohomology and we refer to  or  for more details about the Local Duality Theorem and the properties of the canonical module.

###### Lemma 1.10.

Let $`IR`$ an ideal of $`R`$ and let $`SR[X]`$, with maximal graded ideal $`𝔫`$. The following graded isomorphism of $`R`$-modules holds.

$$H_𝔫^i(S/IS)\mathrm{Hom}_R(S,H_𝔪^{i1}(R/I))(1).$$

###### Proof.

The relation $`\omega _S=(\omega _R_RS)(1)`$ between the canonical modules of $`S`$ and $`R`$ is well known. By the Local Duality Theorem, one has that $`H_𝔫^i(S/IS)`$ is the dual of $`\mathrm{Ext}_S^{n+1i}(S/IS,\omega _S)`$, which is defined to be $`\mathrm{Hom}_K(\mathrm{Ext}_S^{n+1i}(S/IS,\omega _S),K)`$. After writing $`S=S_RR`$ and substituting $`\omega _S`$ by means of the formula written above, one obtains that the latter is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{Hom}_K(\mathrm{Ext}_{S_RR}^{n+1i}(R/I_RS,(\omega _R_RS)(1)),K)\mathrm{Hom}_K(\mathrm{Ext}_{S_RR}^{n+1i}(R/I_RS,\omega _R_RS),K)(1)`$ and, since $`S`$ is $`R`$-flat, this is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{Hom}_K(S_R\mathrm{Ext}_R^{n+1i}(R/I,\omega _R),K)(1)`$. Using a well-known formula in homological algebra and applying the Local Duality Theorem again, one finally deduces

$$\begin{array}{cc}H_𝔫^i(S/IS)\hfill & \mathrm{Hom}_R(S,\mathrm{Hom}_K(\mathrm{Ext}_R^{n+1i}(R/I,\omega _R),K))(1)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{Hom}_R(S,H_𝔪^{i1}(R/I))(1),\hfill \end{array}$$

as required. ∎

###### Lemma 1.11.

Let $`S=R[X]`$ a polynomial ring in one indeterminate over $`R`$ with graded maximal ideal $`𝔫`$. Let $`I`$ be an ideal of $`R`$. Then, for all $`i,j`$,

$$dim_KH_𝔫^i(S/IS)_j=\underset{hj}{}dim_KH_𝔪^{i1}(R/I)_{h+1}.$$

###### Proof.

The proof is based on the above lemma and on some considerations about the $`S`$-module structure of $`\mathrm{Hom}_R(S,N)`$, where $`N`$ is an arbitrary $`R`$-module. Let us consider the $`R`$-linear application $`:S\times \mathrm{Hom}_R(S,N)\mathrm{Hom}_R(S,N)`$ defined by $`(s,\phi )(t)s\phi (t)\phi (st)`$. This map endows $`\mathrm{Hom}_R(S,N)`$ with an $`S`$-module structure.

Let now $`N`$ and $`S`$ be graded. One defines a graded structure of $`S`$-module on $`\mathrm{Hom}_R(S,N)`$ as follows. We set

$$\mathrm{Hom}_R(S,N)_i\{\phi \mathrm{Hom}_R(S,N)|\phi (S_j)N_{i+j},\text{for all }j\}$$

to be the $`i^{th}`$ graded component of $`\mathrm{Hom}_R(S,N)`$.
Observe that, if $`\phi \mathrm{Hom}_R(S,N)_i\mathrm{Hom}_R(S,N)_j`$ and $`ij`$, then $`\phi (S_k)N_{i+k}N_{j+k}=(0)`$, i.e. $`\phi =0`$. If $`\phi \mathrm{Hom}_R(S,N)_i`$, $`s`$ is an element of $`S_j`$ and $`tS_k`$ then $`s\phi (t)=\phi (st)N_{i+(k+j)}`$, i.e. $`s\phi \mathrm{Hom}_R(S,N)_{i+j}`$. Finally, one can verify that $`\mathrm{Hom}_R(S,N)_i\mathrm{Hom}_R(S,N)_i`$.

Let now $`S`$ be as in the hypothesis and consider the homogeneous isomorphism of graded $`S`$-modules $`\alpha `$

$$\mathrm{Hom}_R(S,N)\stackrel{\alpha }{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{j0}Nx^j$$

that maps an element $`\phi `$ of $`\mathrm{Hom}_R(S,N)`$ into $`(\mathrm{},\phi (x^j)x^j,\mathrm{})`$.
Thus, $`\mathrm{Hom}_R(S,N)_i(\mathrm{\Pi }_{j0}Nx^j)_i_{hi}N_h`$, and if $`N`$ is artinian one can deduce that the dimension as a $`K`$-vector space of $`\mathrm{Hom}_S(R,N)`$ is just the sum of the dimensions of the graded components $`N_h`$ of $`N`$ with $`hi`$. Now the conclusion follows from Lemma 1.10. ∎

###### Proposition 1.12.

Let $`I`$ be a strongly stable ideal such that $`(I^{sat})^{lex}=(I^{lex})^{sat}`$. Then

$$h^i(R/I)_j=h^i(R/I^{lex})_j,\text{ for all }i,j.$$

###### Proof.

As we noticed already several times, the hypothesis is equivalent to saying that $`h^0(R/I)_j=h^0(R/I^{lex})_j`$ for all $`j`$. We may then assume that $`I`$ is saturated, i.e. that $`0ptR/I`$ is positive. By induction on $`n`$ we also suppose the thesis to be true for any strongly stable ideal on a polynomial ring with less than $`n`$ variables. Bearing in mind the remarks before Lemma 1.11, the conclusion is a straightforward application of the latter. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 0.1, $`(i)(ii)`$.

By Proposition 1.8, we know that $`R/I`$ is sequentially CM. If $`\mathrm{Gin}(I)=I^{lex}`$, we achieve the conclusion immediately for what we said before Lemma 1.2. Otherwise, by virtue of Lemma 1.2 we may assume without loss of generality that $`I`$ is strongly stable, by substituting it with its generic initial, since $`h^i(R/I)_j=h^i(R/\mathrm{Gin}(I)_j`$. The thesis is thus an application of Proposition 1.12. ∎