A note on the $L^{p}$-Sobolev inequality

Abstract.

The usual Sobolev inequality in $\mathbb{R}^{N}$, asserts that $\|\nabla u\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}\geq\mathcal{S}\|u\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}$ for $1<p<N$ and $p^{*}=\frac{pN}{N-p}$, with $\mathcal{S}$ being the sharp constant. This note is concerned, instead, with function restricted to bounded domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{N}$. Based on the recent work of Figalli and Zhang [Duke Math. J., 2022], a remainder term with weak norm is established

$$\frac{\|\nabla u\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}}{\|u\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\Omega)}}-\mathcal{S}\geq\mathcal{C}\left(\frac{\|u\|_{L^{\bar{p}}_{w}(\Omega)}}{\|u\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\Omega)}}\right)^{\max\{2,p\}},\quad\forall u\in C^{\infty}_{0}(\Omega)\setminus\{0\},$$

for some $\mathcal{C}=\mathcal{C}(N,p,\Omega)>0$, where $\bar{p}=p^{*}(p-1)/p$ and $\|\cdot\|_{L^{\bar{p}}_{w}(\Omega)}$ denotes the weak $L^{\bar{p}}$-norm. Furthermore, the weak norm can not be replaced by the strong norm. This result answers the long-standing open problem raised by Bianchi and Egnell [J. Funct. Anal., 1991].

1. Introduction

Given $N\geq 2$ and $p\in(1,N)$, denote the homogeneous Sobolev space $\mathcal{D}^{1,p}_{0}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$ be the closure of $C^{\infty}_{c}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$ with respect to the norm $\|\nabla u\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}=\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u|^{p}\mathrm{d}x\right)^{1/p}$. The Sobolev inequality states as

(1.1) $$\|\nabla u\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}\geq\mathcal{S}\|u\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathbb{R}^{N})},\quad\forall u\in\mathcal{D}^{1,p}_{0}(\mathbb{R}^{N}),$$

with $\mathcal{S}=\mathcal{S}(N,p)>0$ being the sharp constant, where $p^{*}:=\frac{pN}{N-p}$. It is well known that Aubin [1] and Talenti [22] found the optimal constant and the extremals for inequality (1.1). Indeed, equality is achieved precisely by the functions $cU_{\lambda,z}(x)=c\lambda^{\frac{N-p}{p}}U(\lambda(x-z))$ for some $c\in\mathbb{R}$, $\lambda>0$ and $z\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$, where

$$U(x)=(1+|x|^{\frac{p}{p-1}})^{-\frac{N-p}{p}}.$$

Define the set of extremal functions as $\mathcal{M}:=\{cU_{\lambda,z}:c\in\mathbb{R},\lambda>0,z\in\mathbb{R}^{N}\}$.

For each bounded domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{N}$, let us define

$$\mathcal{S}(\Omega):=\inf_{u\in\mathcal{D}^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega)\setminus\{0\}}\frac{\|\nabla u\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}}{\|u\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\Omega)}}.$$

It is well known that $\mathcal{S}(\Omega)=\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{N})=\mathcal{S}$, and $\mathcal{S}(\Omega)$ is never achieved then it is natural to consider the remainder terms. For $p=2$, Brézis and Nirenberg [5] proved that if $s<\frac{N}{N-2}$ then there is $A=A(\Omega,N,s)>0$ such that

(1.2) $$\|\nabla u\|^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega)}-\mathcal{S}^{2}\|u\|^{2}_{L^{2^{*}}(\Omega)}\geq A\|u\|^{2}_{L^{s}(\Omega)},\quad\forall u\in\mathcal{D}^{1,2}_{0}(\Omega).$$

Furthermore, the result is sharp in the sense that is not true if $s=\frac{N}{N-2}$. However, the following refinement is proved by Brézis and Lieb [4] that

(1.3) $$\|\nabla u\|^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega)}-\mathcal{S}^{2}\|u\|^{2}_{L^{2^{*}}(\Omega)}\geq A^{\prime}\|u\|^{2}_{L^{\frac{N}{N-2}}_{w}(\Omega)},\quad\forall u\in\mathcal{D}^{1,2}_{0}(\Omega),$$

where $\|\cdot\|_{L^{s}_{w}(\Omega)}$ denotes the weak $L^{s}$-norm defined by

(1.4) $$\|\cdot\|_{L^{s}_{w}(\Omega)}:=\sup\limits_{D\subset\Omega,\mu(D)>0}\mu(D)^{-\frac{s-1}{s}}\int_{D}|\cdot|\mathrm{d}x,$$

here $\mu(D)$ denotes the Lebesgue measure of $D$. Note that this weak $L^{s}$-norm is equivalent to the classical weak $L^{s}$-norm for $s>1$, i.e., $u\in L^{s}_{w}(\Omega)$ if and only if $\sup_{t>0}t\mu\{x\in\Omega:|u(x)|>t\}^{1/s}<\infty$, furthermore, for any $0<t<s$ and $s>1$ with $u\in L^{s}_{w}(\Omega)$, we have $\|u\|_{L^{t}(\Omega)}\leq C_{t,s}\|u\|_{L^{s}_{w}(\Omega)}$ which implies the result of (1.3) is stronger than (1.2), see [17, p.255] and also [6, Chapter 5] for details. Brézis and Lieb [4] asked a famous question whether a remainder term – proportional to the quadratic distance of the function $u$ to be the optimizers manifold $\mathcal{M}$ – can be added to the right hand side of (1.1). This question was answered affirmatively by Bianchi and Egnell [3] by using spectral estimate combined with Lions’ concentration and compactness theorem (see [18]), which reads that there is $c_{\mathrm{BE}}>0$ such that

(1.5) $$\|\nabla u\|^{2}_{L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}-\mathcal{S}^{2}\|u\|^{2}_{L^{2^{*}}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}\geq c_{\mathrm{BE}}\inf_{v\in\mathcal{M}}\|\nabla u-\nabla v\|^{2}_{L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{N})},\quad\forall u\in\mathcal{D}^{1,2}_{0}(\mathbb{R}^{N}),$$

which can be seem as a quantitative form of Lion’s theorem. Besides, based on the result (1.5), Bianchi and Egnell [3] gave a simpler proof of (1.3). After that, these results were extended later to the higher order case, see [7, 14, 15, 16, 21] with the weak norm remainder terms of (1.3) type, and [2, 7, 19] of (1.5) type.

While for the general $p\in(1,N)$, it needs much delicate analysis to deal with the stability of inequality (1.1). Egnell et al. [10] obtained a result of (1.2) type that

(1.6) $$\|\nabla u\|^{p}_{L^{p}(\Omega)}-\mathcal{S}^{p}\|u\|^{p}_{L^{p^{*}}(\Omega)}\geq A\|u\|^{p}_{L^{s}(\Omega)},\quad\forall u\in\mathcal{D}^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega),$$

where $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{N}$ is a bounded domain and $s<p^{*}(p-1)/p$, furthermore, the inequality fails if $s=p^{*}(p-1)/p$, we also refer to [13] for an overall review about this problem. For this reason, the number $p^{*}(p-1)/p$ is usually called the critical remainder exponent. When the domain is chosen to be the whole space $\mathbb{R}^{N}$, Cianchi et al. [8] first proved a stability version of Lebesgue-type for every $1<p<N$, Figalli and Neumayer [11] proved the gradient stability for the Sobolev inequality when $p\geq 2$, Neumayer [20] extended the result in [11] to all $1<p<N$. Recently, Figalli and Zhang [12] obtained the sharp stability of Sobolev inequality (1.1) for all $1<p<N$ that

(1.7) $$\frac{\|\nabla u\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}}{\|u\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}}-\mathcal{S}\geq c_{\mathrm{FZ}}\inf_{v\in\mathcal{M}}\left(\frac{\|\nabla u-\nabla v\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}}{\|\nabla u\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}}\right)^{\max\{2,p\}},\quad\forall u\in\mathcal{D}^{1,p}_{0}(\mathbb{R}^{N})\setminus\{0\},$$

for some $c_{\mathrm{FZ}}>0$, furthermore, the exponent $\max\{2,p\}$ is sharp.

As mentioned above, it is natural to consider the weak norm remainder term of $L^{p}$-Sobolev inequality of (1.3) type which is an open problem given by Bianchi and Egnell [3]. Based on the work of Cianchi et al. [8], Xie [23] gave a partial result, however it seems not optimal. In present paper, based on the sharp stability result (1.7), we will give an answer to this problem.

Theorem 1.1.

Assume $N\geq 2$, $\frac{2N}{N+1}<p<N$ and let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{N}$ be a bounded domain. Then there is $\mathcal{C}=\mathcal{C}(\Omega,N,p)>0$ such that

(1.8) $$\frac{\|\nabla u\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}}{\|u\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\Omega)}}-\mathcal{S}\geq\mathcal{C}\left(\frac{\|u\|_{L^{\bar{p}}_{w}(\Omega)}}{\|u\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\Omega)}}\right)^{\max\{p,2\}},\quad\forall u\in\mathcal{D}^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega)\setminus\{0\},$$

where $\bar{p}=p^{*}(p-1)/p$, and $\|\cdot\|_{L^{\bar{p}}_{w}(\Omega)}$ denotes the weak $L^{\bar{p}}$-norm as in (1.4). Moreover, the weak norm on the right-hand side cannot be replaced by the strong norm.

Remark 1.2.

Note that the assumption $\frac{2N}{N+1}<p<N$ implies $\bar{p}=p^{*}(p-1)/p>1$. The only one reason for supposing $\frac{2N}{N+1}<p<N$ is that, in this case we have $U\in L^{\bar{p}}_{w}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$ (this can be easily verified) which is crucial for comparing $\|u\|_{L^{\bar{p}}_{w}(\Omega)}$ with $\inf\limits_{v\in\mathcal{M}}\left\|\nabla u-\nabla v\right\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}$ (see (2)). However, $\|U\|_{L^{\bar{p}}_{w}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}=+\infty$ if $1<p\leq\frac{2N}{N+1}$.

As stated previous, for any $0<t<s$ and $s>1$ with $u\in L^{s}_{w}(\Omega)$, then $\|u\|_{L^{t}(\Omega)}\leq C_{t,s}\|u\|_{L^{s}_{w}(\Omega)}$. Thus, as a direct corollary of Theorem 1.1, we can give another form of (1.6) as the following:

Corollary 1.3.

Assume $N\geq 2$, $\frac{2N}{N+1}<p<N$ and let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{N}$ be a bounded domain. Then for any $t\in(0,p^{*}(p-1)/p)$, there is $\mathcal{C}^{\prime}=\mathcal{C}^{\prime}(\Omega,N,p,t)>0$ such that

(1.9) $$\frac{\|\nabla u\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}}{\|u\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\Omega)}}-\mathcal{S}\geq\mathcal{C}^{\prime}\left(\frac{\|u\|_{L^{t}(\Omega)}}{\|u\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\Omega)}}\right)^{\max\{p,2\}},\quad\forall u\in\mathcal{D}^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega)\setminus\{0\}.$$

2. Proof of main result

Proof of Theorem 1.1.

Step 1. Proof of remainder term. In order to prove (1.8), by homogeneity we can always assume that $\|u\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\Omega)}=1$. Since

$$\|u\|_{L^{\bar{p}}_{w}(\Omega)}\leq\|u\|_{L^{\bar{p}}(\Omega)}\leq\|u\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\Omega)}\mu(\Omega)^{1/p}=\mu(\Omega)^{1/p}$$

by using Hölder’s inequality, it is suffices to prove the result (1.8) under $\|\nabla u\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}-\mathcal{S}\ll 1$. Observe that, if $\|\nabla u\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}-\mathcal{S}\ll 1$ then $\|\nabla u\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}-\mathcal{S}\geq c(\|\nabla u\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}^{p}-\mathcal{S}^{p})$ for some constant $c>0$, thus it is suffices to prove

(2.1) $$\|\nabla u\|^{p}_{L^{p}(\Omega)}-\mathcal{S}^{p}\geq\mathcal{C}\|u\|_{L^{\bar{p}}_{w}(\Omega)}^{\max\{p,2\}},$$

for all $u\in\mathcal{D}^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega)$ satisfying $\|u\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\Omega)}=1$ and $\|\nabla u\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}-\mathcal{S}\ll 1$. Furthermore, we notice that $|\nabla u|\geq|\nabla|u||$ thus it is suffices to consider $|u|$ instead of $u$. By the rearrangement inequality we have

$$\|\nabla u^{*}\|_{L^{p}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}\leq\|\nabla u\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)},\quad\|u^{*}\|_{L^{p^{*}}(B_{R})}=\|u\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\Omega)},\quad\|u^{*}\|_{L^{\bar{p}}_{w}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}=\|u\|_{L^{\bar{p}}_{w}(\Omega)}.$$

Here, $u^{*}$ denotes the symmetric decreasing rearrangement of nonnegative function $u$ extended to zero outside $\Omega$ and $\mu(\Omega)=\mu(\mathrm{B}_{R})$ for some $R>0$ where $\mathrm{B}_{R}:=\mathrm{B}_{R}(0)$, see [4, 10]. Therefore it is suffices to consider the case in which $\Omega$ is a ball of radius $R$ at origin and $u$ is nonnegative symmetric decreasing, i.e.,

(2.2) $$\|\nabla u\|^{p}_{L^{p}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}-\mathcal{S}^{p}\geq\mathcal{C}\|u\|_{L^{\bar{p}}_{w}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}^{\max\{p,2\}},$$

for all $u\in\mathfrak{R}_{0}^{1,p}(\mathrm{B}_{R})$ satisfying $\|u\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}=1$ and $\|\nabla u\|_{L^{p}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}-\mathcal{S}\ll 1$. Here $\mathfrak{R}_{0}^{1,p}(\mathrm{B}_{R})$ consists of all nonnegative and radial functions in $\mathcal{D}^{1,p}_{0}(\mathrm{B}_{R})$ with support in the closed ball $\overline{\mathrm{B}_{R}}$. Assume that (2.2) is not true, then there exists a sequence $\{u_{n}\}\subset\mathfrak{R}_{0}^{1,p}(\mathrm{B}_{R})$ satisfying $\|u_{n}\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}=1$ and $\|\nabla u_{n}\|_{L^{p}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}-\mathcal{S}\ll 1$ such that

(2.3) $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\|\nabla u_{n}\|^{p}_{L^{p}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}-\mathcal{S}^{p}}{\|u_{n}\|_{L^{\bar{p}}_{w}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}^{\max\{p,2\}}}\to 0.$$

Here, we will make use of (1.7) to derive a contradiction. Since

$$\|u_{n}\|_{L^{\bar{p}}_{w}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}\leq\|u_{n}\|_{L^{\bar{p}}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}\leq\|u_{n}\|_{L^{p^{\ast}}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}\mu(\mathrm{B}_{R})^{1/p}=\mu(\mathrm{B}_{R})^{1/p},$$

we must have

(2.4) $$\|\nabla u_{n}\|^{p}_{L^{p}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}-\mathcal{S}^{p}\to 0,\quad\mbox{and also}\quad\|\nabla u_{n}\|^{p}_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}-\mathcal{S}^{p}\to 0.$$

Furthermore, combining with (2.4) and the Lions’ concentration-compactness principle [18], we know that there exist two sequences $\{c_{n}\}\subset\mathbb{R}$ and $\{\lambda_{n}\}\subset\mathbb{R}^{+}$ satisfying $c_{n}\to 1$ (up to a multiplicative constant, in fact, it is $\mathcal{S}^{-\frac{p}{p^{*}-p}}$) and $\lambda_{n}\to+\infty$ as $n\to\infty$ such that

(2.5) $$\inf_{v\in\mathcal{M}}\|\nabla u_{n}-\nabla v\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}=\left\|\nabla(u_{n}-c_{n}U_{\lambda_{n},0})\right\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}\to 0.$$

Since the support of $u_{n}$ is contained in $\overline{\mathrm{B}_{R}}$, then for $n$ sufficiently large we obtain

$$\left\|\nabla(u_{n}-c_{n}U_{\lambda_{n},0})\right\|^{p}_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})} \geq|c_{n}|^{p}\int_{|x|\geq R}|\nabla U_{\lambda_{n},0}|^{p}\mathrm{d}x$$

$$=\omega_{N-1}\left(\frac{N-p}{p-1}\right)^{p}|c_{n}|^{p}\int^{+\infty}_{R\lambda_{n}}\frac{t^{N-1+\frac{p}{p-1}}}{(1+t^{\frac{p}{p-1}})^{N}}\mathrm{d}t$$

(2.6) $$\geq c_{R}|c_{n}|^{p}\lambda_{n}^{-\frac{N-p}{p-1}},$$

for some positive constant $c_{R}=c(N,p,R)\ll 1$ as $n$ large enough, where $\omega_{N-1}$ is the volume of $\mathbb{S}^{N-1}$, then

(2.7) $$\inf_{v\in\mathcal{M}}\|\nabla u_{n}-\nabla v\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}\geq c_{R}|c_{n}|\lambda_{n}^{-\frac{N-p}{p(p-1)}}.$$

Therefore, combining with Remark 1.2, we have

$$\|u_{n}\|_{L^{\bar{p}}_{w}(\mathrm{B}_{R})} \leq\|c_{n}U_{\lambda_{n},0}\|_{L^{\bar{p}}_{w}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}+\|u_{n}-c_{n}U_{\lambda_{n},0}\|_{L^{\bar{p}}_{w}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}$$

$$\leq|c_{n}|\lambda_{n}^{-\frac{N-p}{p(p-1)}}\|U\|_{L^{\bar{p}}_{w}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}+\mu(\mathrm{B}_{R})^{\frac{1}{\bar{p}}}\mathcal{S}^{-1}\left\|\nabla(u_{n}-c_{n}U_{\lambda_{n},0})\right\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}$$

(2.8) $$\leq C_{R}\inf_{v\in\mathcal{M}}\|\nabla u_{n}-\nabla v\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})},$$

for some $C_{R}\gg 1$ as $n$ large enough. Note that Figalli and Zhang in [12] indeed proved a strong form of (1.7) that

(2.9) $$\|\nabla u\|^{p}_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}-\mathcal{S}^{p}\geq c_{\mathrm{FZ}}\inf_{v\in\mathcal{M}}\left\|\nabla u-\nabla v\right\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}^{\max\{p,2\}},$$

for all $\{u\}\subset\mathcal{D}^{1,p}_{0}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$ satisfying $\|u\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}=1$ and $\|\nabla u\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}-\mathcal{S}\ll 1$. Thus combining (2.3) and (2), (2.9) yields a contradiction then (2.2) follows.

Step 2. Proof of that strong norm does not hold. Then, let us consider that (1.8) does not hold for the strong norm, i.e., there exists a sequence $\{u_{n}\}\subset\mathcal{D}_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega)\setminus\{0\}$ such that

(2.10) $$\left(\frac{\|\nabla u_{n}\|_{L^{p}(\Omega)}}{\|u_{n}\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\Omega)}}-\mathcal{S}\right)\left(\frac{\|u_{n}\|_{L^{\bar{p}}(\Omega)}}{\|u_{n}\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\Omega)}}\right)^{-\max\{p,2\}}\to 0,\quad\mbox{as}\quad n\to\infty.$$

Here we only need to consider $\Omega=\mathrm{B}_{R}$. Indeed, for general bounded domain $\Omega$ we have $\mathrm{B}_{R}(x_{0})\subset\Omega\subset\mathrm{B}_{R^{\prime}}(x_{0})$ for some $R^{\prime}\geq R>0$ and $x_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$, then we can consider $\{u_{n}\}\subset\mathcal{D}_{0}^{1,p}(\mathrm{B}_{R}(x_{0}))$ with $u_{n}(x)\equiv 0$ if $x\in\mathbb{R}^{N}\backslash\mathrm{B}_{R}(x_{0})$.

At first, let us consider the case $p\geq 2$. Inspired by Brézis and Nirenberg [5] (see [10] directly), let us consider the following test function

(2.11) $$u_{\varepsilon}(x)=\phi(x)\left(\varepsilon+|x|^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\right)^{-\frac{N-p}{p}}\quad\mbox{as}\quad\varepsilon\to 0^{+},$$

where $\phi\in C^{\infty}_{0}(\mathrm{B}_{R})$ is a fixed positive radial function such that $\phi(x)\equiv 1$ for $x$ near the origin. For $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small, we have

$$\int_{\mathrm{B}_{R}}|\nabla u_{\varepsilon}|^{p}\mathrm{d}x =\int_{\mathrm{B}_{R}}\Bigg{|}\frac{\nabla\phi}{\left(\varepsilon+|x|^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\right)^{\frac{N-p}{p}}}-\frac{N-p}{p-1}\frac{\phi|x|^{\frac{p}{p-1}-2}x}{\left(\varepsilon+|x|^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\right)^{\frac{N}{p}}}\Bigg{|}^{p}\mathrm{d}x$$

$$=\left(\frac{N-p}{p-1}\right)^{p}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\frac{|x|^{\frac{p}{p-1}}}{\left(\varepsilon+|x|^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\right)^{N}}\mathrm{d}x+O(1)=K_{1}\varepsilon^{-\frac{N-p}{p}}+O(1),$$

where $K_{1}=\|\nabla U\|^{p}_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}$. Moreover,

$$\int_{\mathrm{B}_{R}}|u_{\varepsilon}|^{p^{*}}\mathrm{d}x =\int_{\mathrm{B}_{R}}\frac{1}{\left(\varepsilon+|x|^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\right)^{N}}\mathrm{d}x+\int_{\mathrm{B}_{R}}\frac{[|\phi(x)|^{p^{*}}-1]}{\left(\varepsilon+|x|^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\right)^{N}}\mathrm{d}x$$

$$=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\frac{1}{\left(\varepsilon+|x|^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\right)^{N}}\mathrm{d}x+o\left(\varepsilon^{-\frac{N}{p}}\right)=K_{2}\varepsilon^{-\frac{N}{p}}(1+o(1)),$$

where $K_{2}=\|U\|^{p^{*}}_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}$, then

$$\begin{split}\|u_{\varepsilon}\|^{p}_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}=K_{2}^{\frac{p}{p^{*}}}\varepsilon^{-\frac{N-p}{p}}(1+o(1))=K_{1}\mathcal{S}^{-p}\varepsilon^{-\frac{N-p}{p}}(1+o(1)).\end{split}$$

Therefore, we obtain

$$\frac{\|\nabla u_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^{p}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}}{\|u_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}}-\mathcal{S}=O\left(\varepsilon^{\frac{N-p}{p}}\right).$$

Furthermore,

$$\begin{split}\int_{\mathrm{B}_{R}}|u_{\varepsilon}|^{\bar{p}}\mathrm{d}x=\int_{\mathrm{B}_{R}}\frac{|\phi(x)|^{\bar{p}}}{\left(\varepsilon+|x|^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\right)^{\frac{N(p-1)}{p}}}\mathrm{d}x\geq c|\log\varepsilon|,\end{split}$$

for some $c>0$. To sum up, we obtain

$$\left(\frac{\|\nabla u_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^{p}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}}{\|u_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}}-\mathcal{S}\right)\left(\frac{\|u_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^{\bar{p}}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}}{\|u_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}}\right)^{-p}=O\left(|\log\varepsilon|^{-\frac{p}{\bar{p}}}\right).$$

Taking $u_{n}(x):=u_{\varepsilon_{n}}(x)$ given as in (2.11) satisfying $\varepsilon_{n}\to 0^{+}$ as $n\to\infty$, then we get (2.10) for $p\geq 2$.

However, when $p<2$, it seems difficult to deduce (2.10) directly by using the test function $u_{\varepsilon}(x)$ as in (2.11). Here, we will follow the arguments as those in [9] by using the new test function

$$u_{n}(x):=\phi(x)U_{\lambda_{n},0}(x)$$

satisfying $\lambda_{n}\to+\infty$ as $n\to\infty$, where $\phi\in C^{\infty}_{0}(\mathrm{B}_{R})$ also is a fixed positive radial function such that $\phi(x)\equiv 1$ for $x$ near the origin. It is easy to verify that

$$\|\nabla u_{n}\|^{p}_{L^{p}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}=\|\nabla U\|^{p}_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}+O(\lambda_{n}^{-p})\quad\mbox{and}\quad\|u_{n}\|^{p^{*}}_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}=\|U\|^{p^{*}}_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}+O(\lambda_{n}^{-\frac{N}{p-1}}),$$

then

$$\|\nabla u_{n}\|_{L^{p}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}-\mathcal{S}\|u_{n}\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}\to 0,\quad\mbox{as}\quad n\to\infty,$$

thus (2.5) also holds. Particularly, for $n$ sufficiently large,

(2.12) $$\inf_{v\in\mathcal{M}}\|\nabla u_{n}-\nabla v\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}=\left\|\nabla(u_{n}-U_{\lambda_{n},0})\right\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}.$$

Note that (2) also implies

(2.13) $$\inf_{v\in\mathcal{M}}\|\nabla u_{n}-\nabla v\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}\leq C_{R}\lambda_{n}^{-\frac{N-p}{p(p-1)}},$$

for some constant $C_{R}>0$ as $n$ large enough, then,

$$\|u_{n}\|_{L^{\bar{p}}(\mathrm{B}_{R})} \geq\|U_{\lambda_{n},0}\|_{L^{\bar{p}}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}-\|u_{n}-U_{\lambda_{n},0}\|_{L^{\bar{p}}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}$$

$$\geq C_{R}^{\prime}\lambda_{n}^{-\frac{N-p}{p(p-1)}}\log(R\lambda_{n})-C_{R}^{\prime\prime}\left\|\nabla(u_{n}-U_{\lambda_{n},0})\right\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}$$

(2.14) $$\geq C_{R}^{\prime}[\log(R\lambda_{n})-C_{R}^{\prime\prime\prime}]\inf_{v\in\mathcal{M}}\|\nabla u_{n}-\nabla v\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}.$$

Now, let us turn to recall the work of Figalli and Zhang [12]. Let

$$d_{n}:=\inf_{v\in\mathcal{M}}\|\nabla u_{n}-\nabla v\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}=\left\|\nabla(u_{n}-U_{\lambda_{n},0})\right\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}\to 0,$$

and $u_{n}=U_{\lambda_{n},0}+d_{n}w_{n}$, then $\|\nabla w_{n}\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}=1$ and

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla U_{\lambda_{n},0}|^{p-2}\nabla U_{\lambda_{n},0}\cdot\nabla w_{n}\mathrm{d}x=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}U_{\lambda_{n},0}^{p^{*}-1}w_{n}\mathrm{d}x=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}U_{\lambda_{n},0}^{p^{*}-2}\frac{\partial U_{\lambda_{n},0}}{\partial\lambda_{n}}w_{n}\mathrm{d}x=0.$$

Note that the assumption $p>\frac{2N}{N+1}$ implies $p^{*}>2$, then from [12, Lemma 2.2] which implies that for $p^{*}>2$, there is $c_{0}>0$ depending on $p^{*}$ such that

$$\begin{split}|a+b|^{p^{*}}\geq|a|^{p^{*}}+{p^{*}}|b|^{{p^{*}}-2}ab+c_{0}|b|^{p^{*}},\quad\forall a,b\in\mathbb{R},\end{split}$$

thus,

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|U_{\lambda_{n},0}+d_{n}w_{n}|^{p^{*}}\mathrm{d}x \geq\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}U_{\lambda_{n},0}^{p^{*}}\mathrm{d}x+p^{*}d_{n}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}U_{\lambda_{n},0}^{p^{*}-1}w_{n}\mathrm{d}x+c_{0}d_{n}^{p^{*}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|w_{n}|^{p^{*}}\mathrm{d}x$$

(2.15) $$=\|U\|^{p^{*}}_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}+c_{0}d_{n}^{p^{*}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|w_{n}|^{p^{*}}\mathrm{d}x.$$

Furthermore, we notice that

$$\nabla U_{\lambda_{n},0}(x)=U_{\lambda_{n},0}^{\prime}\lambda_{n}\frac{x}{|x|},\quad\mbox{and}\quad\nabla(d_{n}w_{n})=\nabla\left((\phi(x)-1)U_{\lambda_{n},0}\right)=(\phi U_{\lambda_{n},0}^{\prime}\lambda_{n}+\phi^{\prime}U_{\lambda_{n},0})\frac{x}{|x|},$$

then let $a=U_{\lambda_{n},0}^{\prime}\lambda_{n}$, $b=\phi U_{\lambda_{n},0}^{\prime}\lambda_{n}+\phi^{\prime}U_{\lambda_{n},0}$. Since $p<2$, for all $|x|\neq 0$, by [12, Lemma 2.1] we obtain that given any $\kappa>0$ there is $C_{1}>0$ depending on $p$ and $\kappa$ such that

$$|\nabla U_{\lambda_{n},0}+\nabla(d_{n}w_{n})|^{p} =|a+b|^{p}$$

$$\leq|a|^{p}+p|a|^{p-2}a\cdot b+\left(\frac{p(p-1)}{2}+\kappa\right)\frac{(|a|+C_{1}|b|)^{p}}{|a|^{2}+|b|^{2}}|b|^{2}$$

$$=|\nabla U_{\lambda_{n},0}|^{p}+p|\nabla U_{\lambda_{n},0}|^{p-2}\nabla U_{\lambda_{n},0}\cdot\nabla(d_{n}w_{n})$$

$$\quad+\left(\frac{p(p-1)}{2}+\kappa\right)\frac{(|\nabla U_{\lambda_{n},0}|+C_{1}|d_{n}\nabla w_{n}|)^{p}}{|\nabla U_{\lambda_{n},0}|^{2}+|d_{n}\nabla w_{n}|^{2}}|d_{n}\nabla w_{n}|^{2},$$

therefore,

(2.16) $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla U_{\lambda_{n},0}+d_{n}\nabla w_{n}|^{p}\mathrm{d}x \leq\|\nabla U\|^{p}_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}+C_{2}d_{n}^{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\frac{(|\nabla U_{\lambda_{n},0}|+C_{1}|d_{n}\nabla w_{n}|)^{p}}{|\nabla U_{\lambda_{n},0}|^{2}+|d_{n}\nabla w_{n}|^{2}}|\nabla w_{n}|^{2}\mathrm{d}x.$$

Note that also $U_{\lambda_{n},0}(x)\sim|\nabla U_{\lambda_{n},0}(x)|$ for $1\leq|x|\leq 2$ (up to multiplications), then

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\frac{(|\nabla U_{\lambda_{n},0}|+C_{1}|d_{n}\nabla w_{n}|)^{p}}{|\nabla U_{\lambda_{n},0}|^{2}+|d_{n}\nabla w_{n}|^{2}}|\nabla w_{n}|^{2}\mathrm{d}x\leq Cd_{n}^{-1}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}\setminus\mathrm{B}_{r_{0}}}|\nabla U_{\lambda_{n},0}|^{p}\mathrm{d}x\leq C,$$

for some $r_{0}>0$ such that $\phi(x)\equiv 1$ in $\mathrm{B}_{r_{0}}$, due to $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}\setminus\mathrm{B}_{r_{0}}}|\nabla U_{\lambda_{n},0}|^{p}\mathrm{d}x\sim d_{n}$ from (2.7) and (2.13). Thus, as $n$ sufficiently large, for $p<2$ we deduce from (2) and (2.16) that

(2.17) $$\frac{\|\nabla u_{n}\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}}{\|u_{n}\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}}-\mathcal{S}\leq\mathcal{B}\inf_{v\in\mathcal{M}}\left(\frac{\|\nabla u_{n}-\nabla v\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}}{\|\nabla u_{n}\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}}\right)^{2},$$

for some constant $\mathcal{B}>0$. Therefore, combining with (2) and (2.17),

$$\left(\frac{\|\nabla u_{n}\|_{L^{p}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}}{\|u_{n}\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}}-\mathcal{S}\right)\left(\frac{\|u_{n}\|_{L^{\bar{p}}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}}{\|u_{n}\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}}\right)^{-2}$$

$$\leq C\left(\frac{\|\nabla u_{n}\|_{L^{p}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}}{\|u_{n}\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}}-\mathcal{S}\right)\left(\frac{[\log(R\lambda_{n})-C_{R}^{\prime\prime\prime}]\inf_{v\in\mathcal{M}}\|\nabla u_{n}-\nabla v\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}}{\|u_{n}\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathrm{B}_{R})}}\right)^{-2}$$

$$\leq\frac{C}{[\log(R\lambda_{n})-C_{R}^{\prime\prime\prime}]^{2}}\left(\frac{\|\nabla u_{n}\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}}{\|u_{n}\|_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}}-\mathcal{S}\right)\left(\inf_{v\in\mathcal{M}}\left(\frac{\|\nabla u_{n}-\nabla v\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}}{\|\nabla u_{n}\|_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}}\right)\right)^{-2}$$

(2.18) $$\leq\frac{\mathcal{B}C}{[\log(R\lambda_{n})-C_{R}^{\prime\prime\prime}]^{2}}\to 0,$$

as $n\to\infty$, then we get (2.10) for $p<2$.

Now, the proof of Theorem 1.1 is completed. ∎

Remark 2.1.

Note that when $2\leq p<N$, we can know from the proof of (1.7) given by Figalli and Zhang in [12], in fact, it holds that

$$\|\nabla u\|^{p}_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}-\mathcal{S}^{p}\|u\|^{p}_{L^{p^{*}}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}\geq c^{\prime}_{\mathrm{FZ}}\inf_{v\in\mathcal{M}}\|\nabla u-\nabla v\|^{p}_{L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})},\quad\forall u\in\mathcal{D}^{1,p}_{0}(\mathbb{R}^{N}).$$

Then by using the same arguments as in the proof of Theorem 1.1, we can also obtain that when $2\leq p<N$,

(2.19) $$\|\nabla u\|^{p}_{L^{p}(\Omega)}-\mathcal{S}^{p}\|u\|^{p}_{L^{p^{*}}(\Omega)}\geq\mathcal{C}\|u\|^{p}_{L^{p^{*}(p-1)/p}_{w}(\Omega)},\quad\forall u\in\mathcal{D}^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega),$$

furthermore, the result is sharp in the sense that the weak norm in (2.19) can not be replaced by the strong norm, by taking the test function $u_{\varepsilon}(x)$ given as in (2.11) (see also [10]). In this case, we give a complete answer to the conjecture given by Bianchi and Egnell [3].

Acknowledgements

The research has been supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 12371121).