A Detailed Study of Kirchhoff-type Critical Elliptic Equations and p-Sub-Laplacian Operators within the Heisenberg Group \mathcal{H}_{n} Framework

Proof is similar to the derivation cited in [25, Theorem 22.2]. A priori from the statement of [25, Theorem 22.1], it follows that, for j=0,1,2,... and k=0,1,2,.....;

and,

Thus,

Important to observe that, the above identity also holds for e_{j,0,\tau}, where, j=0,1,2,..... due to the fact that,

We first intend to show that, no eigenvalue of \mathcal{L}_{0} lies in the interval \left[0,\infty \right). We know for a fact that, 0 is not an eigenvalue of \mathcal{L}_{0} ( Proof mentioned in [22]). Suppose, \lambda be a positive number such that, \exists a function u\in L^{2}(\mathcal{H}_{3}) satisfying,

Consequently,

Although, the above relation implies that, u^{\tau}=0, \forall \tau\in \mathbb{R}\setminus \{0\} and,

This helps us conclude that, u=0, a contradiction. Moreover, \mathcal{L}_{0} being self-adjoint, it implies,

Thus, it only suffices to establish that, (\mathcal{L}_{0}-\lambda I) is not surjective \forall \lambda\in \left[0,\infty\right). Assuming (\mathcal{L}_{0}-\lambda I) to be surjective for some \lambda_{0}\in \left[0,\infty\right), we can infer that, \lambda_{0}\in \rho(\mathcal{L}_{0}). Hence, \exists an open interval I_{\lambda_{0}}\subset \rho(\mathcal{L}_{0}) containing \lambda_{0}. Define f on \mathcal{H} as,

Where, h\in L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{2}). Therefore, for every \lambda \in I_{\lambda_{0}}, \exists a function u_{\lambda}\in L^{2}(\mathcal{H}_{3}), such that,

Computing the Inverse Transform with respect to t helps us conclude,

As a consequence, (L_{\tau}-\lambda I) is surjective \forall\tau\in S_{\lambda} for which the lebesgue measure,

Consider, \tau\in \bigcap\limits_{r\in I_{\lambda_{0}}\cap \mathbb{Q}}S_{r} , \mathbb{Q} being the set of all rationals. Hence, (L_{\tau}-\lambda I) is surjective, and subsequently injective for every \lambda\in I_{\lambda_{0}}\cap \mathbb{Q}. Thus, L_{\tau}-\lambda I is bijective, \forall \lambda\in I_{\lambda_{0}}. ( Use the fact that, the Resolvent Set of L_{\tau} is open ) Furthermore, we can also observe that, (L_{\tau}-\lambda I) is injective iff,

A contradiction to the fact that, if we assume \tau\in \bigcap\limits_{r\in I_{\lambda_{0}}}S_{r} to be sufficiently small, such that, (2k+1)|\tau|\in I_{\lambda_{0}} for some k=0,1,2,\cdots. Hence, the proof is done.

It only requires us to verify that,

Assume, \lambda\in \left[0,\infty\right), although, \lambda\notin \Sigma_{DS}(\mathcal{L}_{0}). Thus, Range(\mathcal{L}_{0}-\lambda I) is closed in L^{2}(\mathcal{H}_{3}). This in turn helps us conclude that, \mathcal{L}_{0}-\lambda I is bijective, i.e., \lambda\in \mathcal{L}_{0}, a contradiction. Hence the proof is complete.

Choose v_{0}\in HW^{1,p}_{V}(\mathcal{H}_{n}) such that,

Therefore, \sup\limits_{t\geq 0}\mathcal{J}_{\lambda}(tv_{0})=\mathcal{J}_{\lambda}(t_{\lambda}v_{0}) for some t_{\lambda}>0. Thus, t_{\lambda} satisfies,

It suffices to prove that, \{t_{\lambda}\}_{\lambda>0} is bounded. Since, t_{\lambda}\geq 1 \forall \lambda>0. Thus, by property (2) of (?) and (Proof), we deuce that,

It follows from (Proof) that, \{t_{\lambda}\}_{\lambda>0} is bounded, since, p\tau<p^{*}. Next, we shall prove that, t_{\lambda}\longrightarrow 0 as, \lambda\longrightarrow \infty. By contradiction, suppose, \exists t_{0}>0 and a sequence \{\lambda_{n}\}_{n} with \lambda_{n}\longrightarrow \infty as n\rightarrow \infty, and consequently, t_{\lambda_{n}}\longrightarrow t_{0} as n\rightarrow \infty. A simple application of the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem yields,

as n\rightarrow \infty. Thus, we can conclude that,

A contradiction to the fact that, (Proof) holds true. Thus, t_{\lambda}\longrightarrow 0 as, \lambda\rightarrow \infty. Another deduction which can indeed be made from (Proof) is,

and,

A priori, using the deduction, t_{\lambda}\longrightarrow 0 as, \lambda\rightarrow \infty and the definition of \mathcal{J}_{\lambda}, we obtain,

Hence, \exists \lambda_{1}>0 satisfying for every \lambda\geq \lambda_{1},

Choosing e=t_{1}v_{0}, for large enough t_{1}, it can be verified that,

Therefore, we conclude,

for \lambda large enough, which completes the proof.