## Uniqueness of positive radial solutions of Choquard type equations *

Tao Wang

College of Mathematics and Computing Science, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan, Hunan 411201, P. R. China Email: wt 61003@163.com; Xiaoyu Tian College of Mathematics and Computing Science, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan, Hunan 411201, P. R. China Email: 18725613677@163.com; Hui Guo College of Mathematics and Computing Science,

Hunan University of Science and Technology,

Xiangtan, Hunan 411201, P. R. China

Email: huiguo math@163.com;

## Abstract

In this paper, we consider the following Choquard type equation

$$\begin{cases} - \Delta u + \lambda u = \gamma ( \Phi _ { N } ( | x | ) * | u | ^ { p } ) u \text{ in } \mathbb { R } ^ { N }, \\ \lim _ { | x | \to \infty } u ( x ) = 0, \end{cases}$$

* The first author was partially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (Grant No. 2022JJ30235) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 12001188) ; the third author was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (Grant No. 22B0484) and Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (Grant No. 2024JJ5214).

where N ≥ 2 , λ &gt; 0 , γ &gt; 0 , p ∈ [1 , 2] and Φ N ( | x | ) denotes the fundamental solution of the Laplacian -∆ on R N . This equation does not have a variational frame when p , 2 . Instead of variational methods, we prove the existence and uniqueness of positive radial solutions of the above equation via the shooting method by establishing some new di ff erential inequalities. The proofs are based on an analysis of the corresponding system of second-order di ff erential equations, and our results extend the existing ones in the literature from p = 2 to p ∈ [1 , 2].

Keywords : Nonlocal equations; Radial solutions; Uniqueness; Shooting method.

Mathematics Subject Classification (2020) : 35A02; 35B07; 35J08; 35J47.

## 1 Introduction

In this paper, we are concerned with the standing wave solutions of the following Choquard type system

$$\begin{cases} i \psi _ { t } + \Delta \psi - \gamma V \psi = 0 & \text{ in } \mathbb { R } ^ { N } \times \mathbb { R } _ { + }, & ( 1. 1 ) \end{cases}$$

where i denotes the imaginary unit, γ &gt; 0, N ≥ 2 and p ∈ [1 , 2]. By using the fundamental solution Φ N of the Laplacian on R N , system (1.1) is equivalent to the nonlinear Choquard type equation

$$i \psi _ { t } + \Delta \psi + \gamma ( \Phi _ { N } ( | x | ) * | \psi | ^ { p } ) \psi = 0 \ \text{in} \ \mathbb { R } ^ { N } \times \mathbb { R } _ { + }.$$

In the current work, we seek the existence and uniqueness of radial stationary solutions of the form

$$\psi ( t, x ) = u _ { \lambda } ( | x | ) e ^ { i \lambda t }, \quad u _ { \lambda } ( | x | ) > 0, \quad \lim _ { | x | \to \infty } u _ { \lambda } ( | x | ) = 0,$$

where λ &gt; 0. Then equation (1.2) reduces to

$$- \Delta u + \lambda u = \gamma ( \Phi _ { N } ( | x | ) * | u | ^ { p } ) u, \ x \in \mathbb { R } ^ { N }.$$

Here

$$\Phi _ { N } ( | x | ) * | u | ^ { p } = \begin{cases} & \frac { 1 } { N ( N - 2 ) w _ { N } } \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { N } } \frac { | u ( y ) | ^ { p } } { | x - y | ^ { N - 2 } } d y, & N \geq 3, \\ & \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { N } } \ln \frac { 1 } { | x - y | } | u ( y ) | ^ { p } d y, & N = 2 \end{cases}$$

and wN is the volume of the unit ball in R N .

Equation (1.4) has several physical origins. When N = 3 , p = 2, it was first proposed in 1954 by Pekar in describing the quantum mechanics of polaron at rest. Later, in 1976, Choquard used it to model an electron trapped in its own hole, in a certain approximation to Hartree-Fock theory of

one-component plasma, see [15]. This equation also arises in many interesting situations related to the quantum theory of large systems of nonrelativistic bosonic atoms and molecules [16]. One can also see [22, 24] for more physical details. In mathematical contents, the appearance of the convolution term makes (1.4) much more complicated than the classical Schr¨dinger equation, and so the existence o and qualitative properties of solutions for (1.4) have attracted much attention from researchers. One can refer to [1, 3, 10, 12, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28-31] and references therein for the existence of ground state solutions, multiple solutions and nodal solutions to (1.4) as well as the qualitative properties such as regularity, symmetry, uniqueness and decay. We point out that when p = 2, Wang and Yi [29] established the uniqueness of positive radial solutions to (1.4) by developing Lieb's method in R N with N ≥ 3. The existence and uniqueness of positive radially symmetric solution to (1.4) in R 2 have been obtained in [4], see also [2]. In view of the above works, we address the problem

- · whether the positive radially symmetric solution of (1.4) is unique up to translations when p , 2?

This paper will give a confirmative answer to the case p ∈ [1 , 2].

Let r = | x | and V λ ( r )) = Φ N ( | x | ) ∗ | u p | . Then the type ( u λ ( r ) , V λ ( r )) ∈ C 2 ( R N ) × C 2 ( R N ) with the positive radial solution u λ of (1.4) satisfies the following corresponding system of ordinary di ff erential equations

$$\dots \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \minus \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \lesssim \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \% \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \xessim \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta \times \Delta$$

We can assume that u λ (0) &gt; 0 , V λ (0) is finite and u ′ λ (0) = V ′ λ (0) = 0. By direct calculations, we obtain V ′ λ ( r ) = 1 r N -1 R r 0 u p λ ( s s ) N -1 ds , which implies that V ′ λ ≥ 0. In addition, we have

$$- \frac { \pi ^ { N - 1 } } { r ^ { N - 1 } } \, J _ { 0 } ^ { \ u _ { \lambda } \vee \nu } & \quad \ u, \, \text{when} \, \ m p p s \, \ u a \, r _ { \lambda } \leq \vee \ m \, \text{allow}, \, \text{we have} \\ u ^ { \prime \prime } _ { \lambda } ( 0 ) & = \lim _ { r \to 0 } u ^ { \prime \prime } _ { \lambda } ( r ) \\ & = \lim _ { r \to 0 } \frac { 1 - N } { r } u ^ { \prime } _ { \lambda } ( r ) + \lim _ { r \to 0 } ( \gamma V _ { \lambda } ( r ) + \lambda ) u _ { \lambda } ( r ) \\ & = \lim _ { r \to 0 } \frac { ( 1 - N ) \int _ { 0 } ^ { r } ( \gamma V _ { \lambda } ( s ) + \lambda ) u _ { \lambda } ( s ) s ^ { N - 1 } d s } { r ^ { N } } + ( \gamma V _ { \lambda } ( 0 ) + \lambda ) u _ { \lambda } ( 0 ) \\ & = \lim _ { r \to 0 } \frac { ( 1 - N ) ( ( \gamma V _ { \lambda } ( r ) + \lambda ) u _ { \lambda } ( r ) } { N } + ( \gamma V _ { \lambda } ( 0 ) + \lambda ) u _ { \lambda } ( 0 ) \\ & = \frac { ( \gamma V _ { \lambda } ( 0 ) + \lambda ) u _ { \lambda } ( 0 ) } { N }. \\ \text{combined with the fact that } \lim _ { \stackrel { | x | } { \dots } } u _ { \lambda } ( | x | ) = 0, \, \text{implies that } \lambda + \gamma V _ { \lambda } ( 0 ) < 0. \, \text{By taking } \, u ( r ) = A \, u$$

This combined with the fact that lim | x |→∞ u λ ( | x | ) = 0, implies that λ + γ V λ (0) &lt; 0. By taking u r ( ) = Au λ ( r σ ), V r ( ) = B V [ λ ( r ) -V λ (0)] with

σ

$$\sigma ^ { 2 } = - \lambda - \gamma V _ { \lambda } ( 0 ), \ \ B = \frac { \gamma } { \sigma ^ { 2 } }, \ \ A = ( \frac { B } { \sigma ^ { 2 } } ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { p } },$$

σ

σ

we have

Then we obtain

$$u _ { \lambda } ^ { \prime } = \frac { \sigma } { A } u ^ { \prime } ( \sigma r ), u _ { \lambda } ^ { \prime \prime } = \frac { \sigma ^ { 2 } } { A } u ^ { \prime \prime } ( \sigma r ), V _ { \lambda } ^ { \prime } = \frac { \sigma } { B } V ^ { \prime } ( \sigma r ), V _ { \lambda } ^ { \prime \prime } = \frac { \sigma ^ { 2 } } { B } V ^ { \prime \prime } ( \sigma r ).$$

Inserting these variables into (1.5), we obtain the following canonical form

$$\begin{cases} u ^ { \prime \prime } + \frac { N - 1 } { r } u ^ { \prime } = ( V - 1 ) u, \\ V ^ { \prime \prime } + \frac { N - 1 } { r } V ^ { \prime } = u ^ { p }, 1 \leq p \leq 2, \end{cases}$$

subject to the initial conditions

$$u ( 0 ) = u _ { 0 } \in \mathbb { R } _ { + }, u ^ { \prime } ( 0 ) = 0, V ( 0 ) = 0, V ^ { \prime } ( 0 ) = 0.$$

By applying similar spirits as in [8] with necessary modifications, we shall investigate system (1.6) under initial-value conditions (1.7) by using shooting method. This method plays a key role in the proof of the uniqueness results, which is started from the the work of Co ff man [5] back to 1972 to study the following semilinear elliptic di ff erential equation

$$\Delta u - u + u ^ { 3 } = 0, x \in \mathbb { R } ^ { N }.$$

Decades later, it was further developed after contributions of many authors in the entire space, among whom we mention Kwong [14], Co ff man [5, 6], Peletier and Serrin [23], Mc Leod [19], Tang [27], Felmer [11] et al. There have also been many extensions and refinements of this method and we cannot quote them all, but we would like to mention the works by Clemons and Jones [7], Erbe and Tang [9], Kabeya and Tanaka [13].

Our main result is as follows.

Theorem 1.1. For any N ≥ 2 , equation (1.4) with γ &gt; 0 and λ &gt; 0 admits a unique radially symmetric solution such that u ( | x | ) &gt; 0 and

$$\lim _ { | x | \to \infty } u ( | x | ) = 0.$$

In order to prove Theorem 1.1, we need to verify the uniqueness of positive solutions of (1.6) with initial-values (1.7). For the initial condition u 0 : = u (0) &gt; 0 of the solution ( u V , ) to (1.6), we introduce the following three subsets in R + : = (0 , ∞ ).

$$u _ { \lambda } ( r ) = \frac { 1 } { A } u ( \sigma r ), \quad V _ { \lambda } ( r ) = \frac { 1 } { B } V ( \sigma r ) + V _ { \lambda } ( 0 ).$$

## Definition 1.1.

$$\mathcal { N } = \{ u _ { 0 } \in \mathbb { R } _ { + } \ \colon \, \exists r _ { 0 } > 0 \, s u c h \, t h a t \, u ( r _ { 0 } ) < 0 \, a n d \, u ^ { \prime } ( r ) < 0 \, o n \, ( 0, r _ { 0 } ] ),$$

$$\mathcal { G } = \{ u _ { 0 } \in \mathbb { R } _ { + } \ \colon u \geq 0, \lim _ { r \to \infty } u ( r ) = 0 \},$$

$$\mathcal { P } = \{ u _ { 0 } \in \mathbb { R } _ { + } \, \colon \, \exists r _ { 1 } > 0 \, s u c h \, t h a t \, u ^ { \prime } ( r _ { 1 } ) > 0 \, a n d \, u ( r ) > 0 \, o n \, ( 0, r _ { 1 } ] \}.$$

The main di ffi culties in the proof of (1.6) with initial-values (1.7) is to obtain the nonemptiness of N P , and G and the decay of u , which shall be overcame by constructing new auxiliary functions and establishing subtle di ff erential inequalities.

The outline of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, firstly, we prove the nonemptyness of the subsets N P , and G , and then presents their properties. Finally, we obtain the existence of positive radially symmetric solutions to (1.4). In Section 3, we give the decay estimates and then establish the uniqueness of the positive radial solutions by analyzing the Wronskian of solutions of (1.6).

## 2 Existence of positive radial solutions

In this section, we are devoted to the proof of the existence of positive radial solutions by discussing some general properties of solutions of (1.6) with initial values (1.7).

First we give some preliminaries. In view of (1.6) and (1.7), we have

$$\text{one primeminates. in view on } ( 1. 0 ) \, \text{and} \, ( 1. 7 ), \, \text{we have} \\ \begin{cases} u ^ { \prime } ( r ) = \frac { 1 } { r ^ { N - 1 } } \int _ { 0 } ^ { r } ( V ( s ) - 1 ) u ( s ) s ^ { N - 1 } d s, \\ V ^ { \prime } ( r ) = \frac { 1 } { r ^ { N - 1 } } \int _ { 0 } ^ { r } u ^ { p } ( s ) s ^ { N - 1 } d s. \end{cases} \\ \text{the relationship of } N \, \mathcal { P } \, \text{ and } \mathcal { G }$$

Next, we illustrate the relationship of N P , and G .

Lemma 2.1. G and P are disjoint.

Proof. We claim that for any u 0 ∈ P , the corresponding solution u satisfies

$$\lim _ { r \to \infty } u ( r ) > 0.$$

In fact, observe that u (0) = u 0 &gt; 0 , u ′ (0) = 0 and

$$\text{at} \, u ( 0 ) = u _ { 0 } > 0, u ^ { \prime } ( 0 ) = 0 \text{ and} \\ u ^ { \prime \prime } ( 0 ) = & \lim _ { r \to 0 } u ^ { \prime \prime } ( r ) \\ = & \lim _ { r \to 0 } \frac { 1 - N } { r } u ^ { \prime } ( r ) + \lim _ { r \to 0 } ( V ( r ) - 1 ) u ( r ) \\ = & \lim _ { r \to 0 } \frac { ( 1 - N ) \int _ { 0 } ^ { r } ( V ( s ) - 1 ) u ( s ) s ^ { N - 1 } d s } { r ^ { N } } - u _ { 0 } \\ = & \lim _ { r \to 0 } \frac { ( 1 - N ) ( V ( r ) - 1 ) u ( r ) } { N } - u _ { 0 } \\ = & - \frac { u _ { 0 } } { N } < 0.$$

Then all solutions start strictly decreasing from 0. If u 0 ∈ P , then u must have a local minimum point r min ∈ (0 , r 1 ) such that

$$u ( r _ { \min } ) > 0, u ^ { \prime } ( r _ { \min } ) = 0 \text{ and } u ^ { \prime \prime } ( r _ { \min } ) \geq 0.$$

Inserting it into (1.6), we get V r ( min ) ≥ 1. Furthermore, since V is a strictly increasing function due to (2.1), we deduce that V r ( ) &gt; V r ( min ) ≥ 1. By integrating (1.6) over [ r min , r ], we deduce

$$u ^ { \prime } ( r ) = \frac { 1 } { r ^ { N - 1 } } \int _ { r _ { m i n } } ^ { r } ( V ( s ) - 1 ) u ( s ) s ^ { N - 1 } d s > 0 \text{ on } ( r _ { \min }, \infty )$$

and u r ( ) &gt; u r ( min ) &gt; 0 for any r &gt; r min . So the claim (2.2) holds.

Thus G and P are disjoint due to the fact that lim r →∞ u r ( ) = 0 for any u 0 ∈ G . So the proof is completed. □

Remark 2.1. According to the definition of N G P , , and Lemma 2.1, we see N ∩ P = ø , N ∩ G = ø and G∩P = ø , that is, N P G , , are mutually disjoint sets.

Lemma 2.2. N ∪ G ∪ P = R + .

Proof. We define

$$\mathcal { N } _ { 1 } = \{ u _ { 0 } \in \mathbb { R } _ { + } \, \colon \, \exists r _ { 0 } > 0 \, \text{such that} \, u ( r _ { 0 } ) < 0 \, \text{and} \, u ^ { \prime } ( r ) \leq 0 \, \text{on} \, ( 0, r _ { 0 } ] \},$$

$$\mathcal { P } _ { 1 } = \{ u _ { 0 } \in \mathbb { R } _ { + } \, \colon \exists r _ { 1 } > 0 \text{ such that } u ^ { \prime } ( r _ { 1 } ) > 0 \text{ and } u ( r ) \geq 0 \text{ on } ( 0, r _ { 1 } ] \}.$$

It is easy to know that N ∪G∪P 1 1 = R + from the definition of N P 1 , 1 , G . We claim

$$\mathcal { N } \cup \mathcal { G } \cup \mathcal { P } = \mathcal { N } _ { 1 } \cup \mathcal { G } \cup \mathcal { P } _ { 1 } = \mathbb { R } _ { + }.$$

In order to prove (2.5), we first claim N 1 = N . We just have to prove that N \N 1 = ø. Otherwise, for any u 0 ∈ N \N 1 , there exists r 01 ∈ (0 , r 0 ) such that u ′ ( r 01 ) = 0 and u ′ ( r ) &lt; 0 on (0 , r 01 ). If u r ( 01 ) &gt; 0, then we have u ′′ ( r 01 ) ≥ 0 because

$$u ^ { \prime \prime } ( r _ { 0 1 } ) = u _ { - } ^ { \prime \prime } ( r _ { 0 1 } ) = \lim _ { r \to r _ { 0 1 } ^ { - } } \frac { u ^ { \prime } ( r ) - u ^ { \prime } ( r _ { 0 1 } ) } { r - r _ { 0 1 } } \geq 0.$$

Inserting it into (1.6), we get V r ( 01 ) ≥ 1. Furthermore, V r ( ) &gt; V r ( 01 ) ≥ 1 on ( r 01 , ∞ ). Finally, by integrating (1.6) over [ r 01 , r ], we obtain

$$u ^ { \prime } ( r ) = \frac { 1 } { r ^ { N - 1 } } \int _ { r _ { 0 1 } } ^ { r } ( V ( s ) - 1 ) u ( s ) s ^ { N - 1 } d s > 0 \text{ on} ( r _ { 0 1 }, \infty ),$$

which contradicts with u r ( 0 ) &lt; 0. If u r ( 01 ) = 0, we suppose that V r ( 01 ) = V 01 and V ′ ( r 01 ) = ¯ V 01 . Then (0 , V 01 + ¯ V 01 2 -N r N -1 01 r 2 -N -V 01 2 -N r 01 ) is the unique solution of

$$\begin{cases} u ^ { \prime \prime } + \frac { N - 1 } { r } u ^ { \prime } = ( V - 1 ) u, \\ V ^ { \prime \prime } + \frac { N - 1 } { r } V ^ { \prime } = u ^ { p }, \\ u ( r _ { 0 1 } ) = u ^ { \prime } ( r _ { 0 1 } ) = 0, V ( r _ { 0 1 } ) = V _ { 0 1 }, V ^ { \prime } ( r _ { 0 1 } ) = \bar { V } _ { 0 1 }, \end{cases}$$

which contradicts with u r ( 0 ) &lt; 0 according to (2.3). Then N \N 1 = ø. That is to say N 1 = N .

Next we claim P 1 = P . We just have to prove that P \P 1 = ø. Otherwise, for any u 1 ∈ P \P 1 , there exists r 02 ∈ (0 , r 1 ) such that u r ( 02 ) = 0, which is the minimum point and thereby u ′ ( r 02 ) = 0. By using similar arguments as in (2.6), it follows that there is only the zero solution due to u r ( 02 ) = u ′ ( r 02 ) = 0, which leads to a contradiction with u ′ ( r 1 ) &gt; 0 because r 1 &gt; r 02 . The claim holds.

From the above statement, we obtain

$$\mathcal { N } \cup \mathcal { G } \cup \mathcal { P } = \mathcal { N } _ { 1 } \cup \mathcal { G } \cup \mathcal { P } _ { 1 } = \mathbb { R } _ { + }.$$

$$\text{Therefore, the proof is completed.}$$

Lemma 2.3. N P , are open sets.

Proof. Let u 0 ∈ N . The corresponding solution u takes a negative value at some point r = r 0 . By the continuity theorem of solution on initial conditions, there exists δ such that B δ ( u 0 ) ⊂ N for each u 0 ∈ N . So N is an open set. Let u 0 ∈ P . Then u ′ ( r 0 ) &gt; 0 for some point r = r 0 . It follows from the continuity theorem of solution on initial conditions again that there exists ε such that B ε ( u 0 ) ⊂ P for each u 0 ∈ P . So we obtain P is an open set. □

In the following, we are ready to prove the nonemptiness of the three subsets N G P , , , which is a novel point in this work.

Lemma 2.4. The set G is non-empty and there is a solution ( u V , ) of system (1.6) subject to the initial conditions (1.7) such that u r ( ) &gt; 0 , u ′ ( r ) &lt; 0 on (0 , ∞ ) and lim r →∞ u r ( ) = 0 .

Proof. According to Lemmas 2.2 and 2.3, we can deduce that G is nonempty. Furthermore, we claim

$$u ( r ) > 0 \text{ on } ( 0, \infty ).$$

In fact, suppose on the contrary that there exists ¯ r &gt; 0 such that u r ( ) &gt; 0 in (0 , ¯) and r u r (¯) = 0, which is the minimum point in R + and thereby u ′ (¯) r = 0. Then we suppose that V r (¯) = ¯ V and V ′ (¯) r = ¯ V ′ . Then

$$( 0, \bar { V } + \frac { \bar { V } ^ { \prime } } { 2 - N } \bar { r } ^ { N - 1 } r ^ { 2 - N } - \frac { \bar { V } } { 2 - N } \bar { r } ) \text{ is the unique solution of}$$

$$\begin{cases} u ^ { \prime \prime } + \frac { N - 1 } { r } u ^ { \prime } = ( V - 1 ) u, \\ V ^ { \prime \prime } + \frac { N - 1 } { r } V ^ { \prime } = u ^ { p }, \\ u ( \bar { r } ) = u ^ { \prime } ( \bar { r } ) = 0, V ( \bar { r } ) = \bar { V }, V ^ { \prime } ( \bar { r } ) = \bar { V } ^ { \prime }. \end{cases}$$

By the existence and uniqueness of the solution, it follows that there is only the zero solution duo to u r (¯) = u ′ (¯) r = 0, which is a contradiction with u 0 , 0. So the claim is proved.

Next we claim

$$u ^ { \prime } ( r ) < 0 \text{ on } ( 0, \infty ).$$

′ ′′

Suppose that there exist the first critical point r 1 such that u ( r 1 ) = 0. It is easy to know that u ( r 1 ) ≥ 0. This together with (1.6), yields that V r ( 1 ) ≥ 1 . Furthermore, V r ( ) &gt; V r ( 1 ) ≥ 1 for r &gt; r 1 . Then by integrating (1.6) over [ r 1 , r ], we get

$$u ^ { \prime } ( r ) = \frac { 1 } { N - 1 } \int _ { r _ { 1 } } ^ { r } ( V ( s ) - 1 ) u ( s ) s ^ { N - 1 } d s > 0 \text{ on } ( r _ { 1 }, \infty ).$$

We obtain a contradiction with u ( ∞ ) = 0. So the claim is proved.

$$\text{ Thus if } u _ { 0 } \in \mathcal { G }, \, \text{ then } u ( r ) > 0, u ^ { \prime } ( r ) < 0 \, \text{ on } ( 0, \infty ) \, \text{ and } \lim _ { r \rightarrow \infty } u ( r ) = 0. & & \Box$$

Lemma 2.5. The sets N is nonempty. In particular, (0 , 1 4 ) ⊂ N .

Proof. We prove it by contradiction. For any u 0 ∈ (0 , 1 4 ) and suppose u 0 &lt; N , then u 0 ∈ G ∪ P . Then we claim u &gt; 0 on (0 , ∞ ) . In fact, if u 0 ∈ G , then we have u &gt; 0 by using Lemma 2.4. If u 0 ∈ P , there exists r min such that u r ( min ) &gt; 0 , u ′ ( r min ) = 0 and u ′′ ( r min ) ≥ 0. Inserting it into (1.6), we get V r ( min ) ≥ 1. Furthermore, V r ( ) &gt; V r ( min ) ≥ 1. Then by integrating (1.6) over [ r min , r ], we obtain

$$u ^ { \prime } ( r ) = \frac { 1 } { N - 1 } \int _ { r _ { \min } } ^ { r } ( V ( s ) - 1 ) u ( s ) s ^ { N - 1 } d s > 0 \text{ on } ( r _ { \min }, \infty ).$$

Thus u r ( ) &gt; u r ( min ) &gt; 0. So the claim is proved.

Now we consider the function

$$\phi = 2 u + V - \frac { 1 } { 2 }.$$

Since p ∈ [1 , 2], ϕ satisfies the di ff erential inequality equation

$$\phi ^ { \prime \prime } + \frac { N - 1 } { r } \phi ^ { \prime } = 2 ( V - 1 ) u + u ^ { p } = 2 \phi u - 4 u ^ { 2 } - u + u ^ { p } < 2 \phi u.$$

Obviously, ϕ (0) = 2 u 0 -1 2 = 2( u 0 -1 4 ) &lt; 0 , ϕ ′ (0) = 0 and

$$\text{bviously,} \, \phi ( 0 ) & = 2 u _ { 0 } - \frac { 1 } { 2 } = 2 ( u _ { 0 } - \frac { 1 } { 4 } ) < 0, \phi ^ { \prime } ( 0 ) = 0 \text{ and} \\ \phi ^ { \prime \prime } ( 0 ) & = 2 u ^ { \prime \prime } ( 0 ) + V ^ { \prime \prime } ( 0 ) \\ & = 2 \lim _ { r \rightarrow 0 } u ^ { \prime \prime } ( r ) + \lim _ { r \rightarrow 0 } V ^ { \prime \prime } ( r ) \\ & = 2 \lim _ { r \rightarrow 0 } \frac { 1 - N } { r } u ^ { \prime } ( r ) + 2 \lim _ { r \rightarrow 0 } ( V ( r ) - 1 ) u ( r ) + \lim _ { r \rightarrow 0 } \frac { 1 - N } { r } V ^ { \prime } ( r ) + \lim _ { r \rightarrow 0 } u ^ { \prime } ( r ) \\ & = 2 \lim _ { r \rightarrow 0 } \frac { ( 1 - N ) \int _ { 0 } ^ { \prime } ( V ( s ) - 1 ) u ( s ) s ^ { N - 1 } d s } { r ^ { N } } - 2 u _ { 0 } + \lim _ { r \rightarrow 0 } \frac { ( 1 - N ) \int _ { 0 } ^ { \prime } u ^ { \prime } ( p ( s ) s ^ { N - 1 } d s } { r ^ { N } } + u _ { 0 } ^ { \prime } \\ & = 2 \lim _ { r \rightarrow 0 } \frac { ( 1 - N ) ( V ( r ) - 1 ) u ( r ) } { N } - 2 u _ { 0 } + \lim _ { r \rightarrow 0 } \frac { ( 1 - N ) u ^ { \prime } ( r ) } { N } + u _ { 0 } ^ { \prime } \\ & = - 2 \frac { u _ { 0 } } { N } + \frac { u _ { 0 } ^ { \prime } } { N } \\ & = \frac { u _ { 0 } } { N } ( u _ { 0 } ^ { p - 1 } - 2 ) < 0. \\ \text{Then all solutions start strictly decreasing from $0$}.$$

$$N$$

Then all solutions start strictly decreasing from 0.

We claim that ϕ is decreasing on (0 , ∞ ). Indeed, if it's not true, there must be a local minimum point r ∗ &gt; 0 such that

$$\phi ( r _ { * } ) < \phi ( 0 ) < 0, \phi ^ { \prime } ( r _ { * } ) = 0, \phi ^ { \prime \prime } ( r _ { * } ) \geq 0.$$

Inserting ϕ ( r ∗ ) &lt; 0 and ϕ ′ ( r ∗ ) = 0 into (2.8), we get

$$\phi ^ { \prime \prime } ( r _ { * } ) < 2 \phi ( r _ { * } ) u ( r _ { * } ) < 0,$$

which leads to a contradiction with (2.9). So the claim is proved.

By the claim, we deduce from (2.7) that 2 u r ( ) + V r ( ) ≤ 2 u 0 on (0 , ∞ ). Obviously,

$$V ( r )$$

$$V ( r ) \leq 2 u _ { 0 } < 1 \text{ on } ( 0, \infty ).$$

Hence V r ( ) is bounded. Since V is always strictly increasing, lim r →∞ V r ( ) = : V ∞ exists and V ∞ ≤ 2 u 0 &lt; 1.

We consider the function

$$z = - \frac { u ^ { \prime } } { u }.$$

It satisfies the di ff erential equation

$$z ^ { \prime } = z ^ { 2 } - \frac { N - 1 } { r } z + 1 - V.$$

If u 0 ∈ G , it follows that z exists for all r &gt; 0 and z r ( ) &gt; 0 for all r &gt; 0. Choose ˜ such that r N -1 r ≤ N -1 ˜ r ≤ √ 2(1 -V ∞ ) for all r ≥ ˜. r Then we have

$$\infty \Pi \, \text{and} \, r \leq r \,. \, \text{ then we have} \\ z ^ { \prime } & \geq \frac { 1 } { 2 } z ^ { 2 } + ( \frac { 1 } { 2 } z ^ { 2 } - \sqrt { 2 ( 1 - V _ { \infty } ) } z + 1 - V _ { \infty } ) \\ = & \frac { 1 } { 2 } z ^ { 2 } + \frac { 1 } { 2 } ( z - \sqrt { 2 ( 1 - V _ { \infty } ) } ) ^ { 2 } \\ \geq & \frac { 1 } { 2 } z ^ { 2 }. \\ & \quad \wedge$$

on (˜ r , ∞ ). Thus we have

Furthermore, we have

Integrating (2.12) over(˜ r , r ), we obtain

$$\int _ { \tilde { r } } ^ { r } ( \frac { 1 } { z } + \frac { r } { 2 } ) ^ { \prime } \leq 0.$$

So we see

$$\frac { 1 } { z ( r ) } \leq \frac { 1 } { z ( \tilde { r } ) } + \frac { 1 } { 2 } ( \tilde { r } - r ) \text{ on } ( \tilde { r }, \infty ).$$

This shows that z r ( ) is negative at some r large enough, which contradicts with z r ( ) &gt; 0. Thus u 0 &lt; G . If u 0 ∈ P , from the above statement we have V r ( ) &gt; 1 on ( r min , ∞ ), which contradicts with (2.10). Thus u 0 &lt; P . The above arguments yield a contradiction with Lemma 2.2.

$$\text{Hence}, u _ { 0 } \in \mathcal { N }. \ In \text{ particular}, ( 0, \frac { 1 } { 4 } ) \subset \mathcal { N }. & & \Box$$

1 4

Lemma 2.6. For u 0 large enough, u 0 ∈ P .

Proof. Suppose on the contrary that P is empty for u 0 large enough. Let

$$R _ { 0 } = \sup \{ \bar { r } > 0, u ( r ) > 0, u ^ { \prime } ( r ) < 0 \text{ for any } r \in ( 0, \bar { r } ] \}.$$

We consider the function

$$\phi _ { 2 } ( r ) = u + \lambda _ { 0 } V - \lambda _ { 0 }, \lambda _ { 0 } = u _ { 0 } ^ { \frac { 2 - p } { 2 - p } }, r \in [ 0, R _ { 0 } ).$$

It satisfies the di ff erential inequality equation

$$\phi _ { 2 } ^ { \prime \prime } + \frac { N - 1 } { r } \phi _ { 2 } ^ { \prime } = ( V - 1 ) u + \lambda _ { 0 } u ^ { p } = \frac { 1 } { \lambda _ { 0 } } \phi _ { 2 } u + \lambda _ { 0 } u ^ { p } - \frac { 1 } { \lambda _ { 0 } } u ^ { 2 } + u > \frac { 1 } { \lambda _ { 0 } } \phi _ { 2 } u$$

for p ∈ [1 , 2]. When u 0 is large enough, we have

$$\phi _ { 2 } ( 0 ) = u _ { 0 } - \lambda _ { 0 } > 0, \phi _ { 2 } ^ { \prime } ( 0 ) = 0, \phi _ { 2 } ^ { \prime \prime } ( 0 ) = u ^ { \prime \prime } ( 0 ) + \lambda _ { 0 } V ^ { \prime \prime } ( 0 ) = - \frac { u _ { 0 } } { N } + \frac { \lambda _ { 0 } u _ { 0 } ^ { p } } { N } > 0.$$

We claim ϕ 2 is strictly increasing. Otherwise there must exist a maximum point r ′ such that

$$\phi _ { 2 } ( r ^ { \prime } ) > 0, \phi _ { 2 } ^ { \prime } ( r ^ { \prime } ) = 0, \phi _ { 2 } ^ { \prime \prime } ( r ^ { \prime } ) \leq 0.$$

However, according to (2.15), we obtain

$$\phi _ { 2 } ^ { \prime \prime } ( r ^ { \prime } ) > \frac { 1 } { \lambda _ { 0 } } \phi _ { 2 } ( r ^ { \prime } ) u ( r ^ { \prime } ) > 0.$$

$$\frac { z ^ { \prime } } { z ^ { 2 } } \geq \frac { 1 } { 2 } \text{ on } ( \tilde { r }, \infty ).$$

$$( \frac { 1 } { z } + \frac { r } { 2 } ) ^ { \prime } \leq 0 \text{ on } ( \tilde { r }, \infty ).$$

This leads to a contradiction. The claim holds and ϕ 2 is strictly increasing. Thus ϕ 2 ( r ) &gt; ϕ 2 (0) = u 0 -λ 0 . Furthermore,

$$u ( r ) > u _ { 0 } - \lambda _ { 0 } V ( r ) \text{ on } ( 0, R _ { 0 } ).$$

On the other hand, we conclude from equation (2.1) for V ′ that

$$\frac { u ^ { p } r } { N } \leq V ^ { \prime } \leq \frac { u _ { 0 } ^ { p } r } { N } \text{ on } ( 0, R _ { 0 } ).$$

Integrating these inequalities and using again the fact that u is decreasing, we have the following estimates for V :

$$\frac { u ^ { p } r ^ { 2 } } { 2 N } \leq V \leq \frac { u _ { 0 } ^ { p } r ^ { 2 } } { 2 N } \text{ on } ( 0, R _ { 0 } ).$$

This together with (2.14) and (2.16) gives

$$u ( r ) > u _ { 0 } - \lambda _ { 0 } \frac { u _ { 0 } ^ { p } r ^ { 2 } } { 2 N } = u _ { 0 } - \frac { u _ { 0 } ^ { 1 + \frac { p } { 2 } } r ^ { 2 } } { 2 N } \text{ on } ( 0, R _ { 0 } ).$$

Let

$$g ( r ) = u _ { 0 } - \frac { u _ { 0 } ^ { 1 + \frac { p } { 2 } } r ^ { 2 } } { 2 N }.$$

It's clear that g r ( ) is strictly decreasing. There exists r 0 &gt; 0 such that g r ( 0 ) = 0. Furthermore, we have

$$r _ { 0 } = \sqrt { 2 N / u _ { 0 } ^ { \frac { p } { 2 } } }.$$

Let r ∗ = min { r 0 , R 0 } . Then according to (2.18), we have

$$u ( r ) > u _ { 0 } - \frac { u _ { 0 } ^ { 1 + \frac { p } { 2 } } r ^ { 2 } } { 2 N } = u _ { 0 } ( 1 - \frac { r ^ { 2 } } { r _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } } ) > 0 \text{ on } ( 0, r * ).$$

If r 0 ≤ R 0 , let r 1 = 1 2 r 0 &lt; r 0 . Then

$$r _ { 1 } = \frac { 1 } { r _ { 1 } ^ { N - 1 } } r _ { 0 } < r _ { 0 }. \text{ Then} \quad \\ u ^ { \prime } ( r _ { 1 } ) = & \frac { 1 } { r _ { 1 } ^ { N - 1 } } \int _ { 0 } ^ { r _ { 1 } } ( V ( r ) - 1 ) u ( r ) r ^ { N - 1 } d r \\ \geq & \frac { 1 } { r _ { 1 } ^ { N - 1 } } \int _ { 0 } ^ { r _ { 1 } } \frac { u ^ { p + 1 } ( r ) r ^ { N + 1 } } { 2 N } d r - \frac { 1 } { r _ { 1 } ^ { N - 1 } } \int _ { 0 } ^ { r _ { 1 } } u ( r ) r ^ { N - 1 } d r \\ \geq & \frac { u ^ { p + 1 } _ { 0 } } { 2 N r _ { 1 } ^ { N - 1 } } \int _ { 0 } ^ { r _ { 1 } } ( 1 - \frac { r ^ { 2 } } { r _ { 0 } } ) ^ { p + 1 } r ^ { N + 1 } d r - \frac { u _ { 0 } r _ { 1 } } { N } \\ \geq & \frac { u _ { 0 } r _ { 1 } } { 2 N r _ { 1 } ^ { N - 1 } } \int _ { 0 } ^ { r _ { 1 } ^ { 0 } } ( 1 - s ^ { 2 } ) ^ { p + 1 } s ^ { N + 1 } d s - \frac { u _ { 0 } r _ { 1 } } { N } \\ = & \frac { u _ { 0 } r _ { 1 } } { 2 N } [ \frac { u ^ { p } _ { 0 } r ^ { N } _ { 0 } } { 2 r _ { 1 } ^ { N } } \frac { 2 N } { u ^ { p } _ { 0 } } \int _ { 0 } ^ { r _ { 1 } ^ { 0 } } ( 1 - s ^ { 2 } ) ^ { p + 1 } s ^ { N + 1 } d s - 1 ] \\ = & \frac { u _ { 0 } r _ { 1 } } { N } [ N u ^ { p } _ { 0 } ( \frac { r _ { 0 } } { r _ { 1 } } ) ^ { N } \int _ { 0 } ^ { r _ { 0 } ^ { 0 } } ( 1 - s ^ { 2 } ) ^ { p + 1 } s ^ { N + 1 } d s - 1 ] \\ = & \frac { u _ { 0 } r _ { 0 } } { 2 N } [ 2 ^ { N } N u ^ { p } _ { 0 } \int _ { 0 } ^ { p } ( 1 - s ^ { 2 } ) ^ { p + 1 } s ^ { N + 1 } d s - 1 ]. \\ \text{$tau} u ^ { \prime } ( r _ { 1 } ) > 0 \text{ for $u_{0}$ sufficiently large, which contradicts with the definit} \quad \\ \quad \,. 1 + \frac { g _ { 0 } } { g _ { 0 } } \text{$u_{2}$}$$

We conclude that u ′ ( r 1 ) &gt; 0 for u 0 su ffi ciently large, which contradicts with the definition of R 0 . Thus r 0 &gt; R 0 . Let

$$\delta = g ( R _ { 0 } ) = u _ { 0 } - \frac { u _ { 0 } ^ { 1 + \frac { p } { 2 } } R _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } } { 2 N }. \\ \wedge \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot$$

Then we have δ = g R ( 0 ) &gt; g r ( 0 ) = 0 since g is decreasing. For any r ∈ (0 , R 0 ) &amp; (0 , r 0 ), we have

$$u ( r ) > u _ { 0 } - \frac { u _ { 0 } ^ { 1 + \frac { p } { 2 } } r ^ { 2 } } { 2 N } \geq \delta > 0 \text{ on } ( 0, r _ { 0 } )$$

according to (2.18). Furthermore, we get u R ( 0 ) ≥ δ &gt; 0. According to the definition of R 0 , then we conclude

$$u ^ { \prime } ( R _ { 0 } ) = 0.$$

Inserting it to (2.1), we see V R ( 0 ) &gt; 1. Furthermore, according to (1.6), we get u ′′ ( R 0 ) &gt; 0. So R 0 must be the local minimum point. Due to the continuity of u ′ and u , there exist ε &gt; 0 such that u ′ ( R 0 + ε ) &gt; 0 and u R ( 0 + ε ) &gt; 0. So we have u ′ ( R 0 + ε ) &gt; 0 and u r ( ) &gt; 0 on (0 , R 0 + ε ), which contradicts the assumption that P is empty.

Thus u 0 ∈ P for u 0 large enough. The proof is finished.

□

## 3 Uniqueness of positive radial solutions

In this section, we prove that G has exactly one element. Firstly, we illustrate the following lemma which shows that any two solutions of (1.6) with the initial values (1.7) cannot intersect as long as they

are positive by analysing the features of their Wronskian.

Lemma 3.1. Let u 0 ∈ G ∪ P . Suppose that u 2 (0) &gt; u 1 (0) &gt; 0 and u 2 ( r ) , u 1 ( r ) exist on [0 , ∞ ) such that u 1 ( r ) ≥ 0 on [0 , ∞ ) . Then u 2 ( r ) &gt; u 1 ( r ) for any r ∈ [0 , ∞ ) .

Proof. Let ω ( r ) be the Wronskian of u 1 , u 2 defined by

$$\omega ( r ) = u _ { 2 } ^ { \prime } ( r ) u _ { 1 } ( r ) - u _ { 1 } ^ { \prime } ( r ) u _ { 2 } ( r ).$$

Then ω satisfies the di ff erential equation

$$\omega ^ { \prime } + \frac { N - 1 } { r } \omega = ( V _ { 2 } - V _ { 1 } ) u _ { 1 } u _ { 2 }.$$

We claim u 2 ( r ) &gt; u 1 ( r ) in [0 , ∞ ). In fact, suppose on the contrary that there exists ¯ r ∈ (0 , ∞ ) such that

$$u _ { 2 } ( \bar { r } ) = u _ { 1 } ( \bar { r } ) \text{ and } u _ { 2 } ( r ) > u _ { 1 } ( r ) \text{ in } [ 0, \bar { r } ).$$

Note that

$$( V _ { 2 } ( r ) - V _ { 1 } ( r ) ) ^ { \prime } = \frac { 1 } { r ^ { N - 1 } } \int _ { 0 } ^ { r } ( u _ { 2 } ^ { p } ( s ) - u _ { 1 } ^ { p } ( s ) ) s ^ { N - 1 } d s > 0 \text{ on } ( 0, \bar { r } ].$$

Since V 2 (0) -V 1 (0) = 0, we deduce that

$$V _ { 2 } ( r ) > V _ { 1 } ( r ) \text{ on } r \in ( 0, \bar { r } ].$$

From the di ff erential equation (3.2) that we have

$$( \omega r ^ { N - 1 } ) ^ { \prime } = r ^ { N - 1 } ( V _ { 2 } - V _ { 1 } ) u _ { 1 } u _ { 2 } > 0 \text{ on } ( 0, \bar { r } ].$$

We conclude that ω r N -1 is increasing on (0 , ¯). This combined with the fact r ω (0) = 0,

$$\omega ( \bar { r } ) > 0.$$

On the other hand, set

$$F ( r ) = u _ { 2 } ( r ) - u _ { 1 } ( r ).$$

Then F r ( ) &gt; 0 on [0 , ¯) and r F r (¯) = 0 due to (3.3). So

$$u _ { 2 } ^ { \prime } ( \bar { r } ) - u _ { 1 } ^ { \prime } ( \bar { r } ) = F ^ { \prime } ( \bar { r } ) = \lim _ { r \rightarrow \bar { r } } \frac { F ( r ) - F ( \bar { r } ) } { r - \bar { r } } \leq 0.$$

It is easy to know that

$$\omega ( \bar { r } ) = u _ { 1 } ( \bar { r } ) ( u _ { 2 } ^ { \prime } ( \bar { r } ) - u _ { 1 } ^ { \prime } ( \bar { r } ) ) \leq 0,$$

which leads to a contradiction with (3.4). Thus the claim is proved.

Remark 3.1. If u 0 ∈ N . Suppose that u 2 (0) &gt; u 1 (0) &gt; 0 and u 2 ( r ) , u 1 ( r ) exist on [0 , R ] such that u 1 ( r ) ≥ 0 on [0 , R . It is then easy to prove u ] 2 ( r ) &gt; u 1 ( r ) for any r ∈ [0 , R by imitating the proof of the ] Lemma 3.1.

In the sequel, we need to study the decay estimate of the solutions in G at infinity. Since V is always strictly increasing, we deduce that V ∞ : = lim r →∞ V r ( ) exists (including the case V ∞ = + ∞ ) and V r ( ) &lt; V ∞ for all r &gt; 0. Then we have the following conclusion.

## Proposition 3.1. Let u 0 ∈ G . Then V ∞ ≥ 1 .

Proof. First of all, let V ∞ &lt; ∞ . We consider the function z : = -u ′ u which is well defined for all r ≥ 0 and z satisfies the di ff erential equation

$$z ^ { \prime } = - \frac { u ^ { \prime \prime } u - ( u ^ { \prime } ) ^ { 2 } } { u ^ { 2 } } = z ^ { 2 } - \frac { N - 1 } { r } z + 1 - V.$$

Now, choose ˜ such that r N -1 r ≤ N -1 ˜ r ≤ 1 2 √ V ∞ for all r ≥ ˜. r Consider the direction field in the ( r z , ) plane for the preceding di ff erential equation. There holds that

$$\text{ial equation. There holds that} \\ z ^ { \prime } \geq & \frac { 1 } { 2 } z ^ { 2 } + ( \frac { 1 } { 2 } z ^ { 2 } - \frac { 1 } { 2 } \sqrt { V _ { \infty } } z + 1 - V _ { \infty } ) \\ \geq & \frac { 1 } { 2 } z ^ { 2 } + ( \frac { 1 } { 2 } z ^ { 2 } - \frac { 1 } { 2 } \sqrt { V _ { \infty } } z - V _ { \infty } ) + 1 \\ \geq & \frac { 1 } { 2 } z ^ { 2 } + ( \frac { 1 } { 2 } z - \sqrt { V _ { \infty } } ) ( z + \sqrt { V _ { \infty } } ) + 1 \\ \geq & \frac { 1 } { 2 } z ^ { 2 } + 1 \\ \geq & \frac { 1 } { 2 } z ^ { 2 } \\ & \quad \text{--}$$

when

$$r \geq \tilde { r }, z \geq 2 \sqrt { V _ { \infty } }.$$

By applying similar arguments as in the proof of Lemma 2.5, we see that the function z satisfies

$$\frac { 1 } { z ( r ) } \leq \frac { 1 } { z ( \tilde { r } ) } + \frac { 1 } { 2 } ( \tilde { r } - r ) \text{ on } ( \tilde { r }, \infty ).$$

Let

$$h ( r ) = \frac { 1 } { z ( \tilde { r } ) } + \frac { 1 } { 2 } ( \tilde { r } - r ) \text{ on } ( \tilde { r }, \infty ).$$

Suppose that there exists r 1 &gt; ˜ such that r h r ( 1 ) = 0. Then we have h r ( ) &lt; 0 for any r &gt; r 1 , which yields a contradiction with the definition fo z r ( ). Hence z r ( ) remains bounded.

$$\text{Since } z ( r ) = - \frac { u ^ { \prime } ( r ) } { u ( r ) }, \, \text{we have } u ^ { \prime } ( r ) = - z ( r ) u ( r ), \, \text{and so}$$

$$\lim _ { r \to \infty } u ^ { \prime } ( r ) = - \lim _ { r \to \infty } z ( r ) u ( r ) = 0.$$

Therefore, we conclude from l'Hˆ ospital's ruler that

$$\text{from} \, l ^ { \prime } H \text{spital} ^ { s } & \text{r} \rightarrow \infty \\ & \text{lim} z ^ { 2 } _ { \text{r} \rightarrow \infty } = \lim _ { r \rightarrow \infty } \frac { u ^ { \prime } ^ { 2 } } { u ^ { 2 } } \\ & = \lim _ { r \rightarrow \infty } \frac { u ^ { \prime \prime } } { u ^ { \prime } } \\ & = \lim _ { r \rightarrow \infty } \frac { ( V - 1 ) u - \frac { N - 1 } { r } u ^ { \prime } } { u } \\ & = \lim _ { r \rightarrow \infty } \frac { N - 1 } { r } z + V - 1 ) \\ & = V _ { \infty } - 1. \\ \text{hat} \, V _ { \infty } \geq 1. \, \text{The proof is completed.}$$

Thus it is easy to know that V ∞ ≥ 1. The proof is completed.

□

Corollary 3.1. If 1 &lt; V ∞ ≤ ∞ , then for any k ∈ (0 , √ V ∞ -1) ,

$$\lim _ { r \to \infty } \sup u ( r ) e ^ { k r } < \infty.$$

Proof. If 1 &lt; V ∞ &lt; ∞ , we have lim r →∞ z 2 = V ∞ -1 by applying (3.6). Therefore, for any k ∈ (0 , √ V ∞ -1) and r su ffi ciently large, we obtain -u ′ u ≥ k . Integrating it over (0 , r ), we can obtain lim sup r →∞ u r e ( ) kr ≤ u 0 &lt; ∞ .

If V ∞ is infinite, then z is also unbounded. So there still exist K &gt; 0 such that -u ′ u ≥ K and then lim sup r →∞ u r e ( ) Kr ≤ u 0 &lt; ∞ . Thus the proof is completed. □

## Theorem 3.1. The set G has exactly one element.

Proof. We prove it by contradiction. Suppose on the contrary that u 1 (0) , u 2 (0) ∈ G . Without loss of generality, we assume u 2 (0) &gt; u 1 (0). According to Lemma 3.1, we have u 2 ( r ) &gt; u 1 ( r ) &gt; 0 for all r ≥ 0. Since V 2 (0) -V 1 (0) = 0, by (1.6), we have

$$( V _ { 2 } ( r ) - V _ { 1 } ( r ) ) ^ { \prime } = \frac { 1 } { r ^ { N - 1 } } \int _ { 0 } ^ { r } ( u _ { 2 } ^ { p } ( s ) - u _ { 1 } ^ { p } ( s ) ) s ^ { N - 1 } d s > 0.$$

and then

$$V _ { 2 } ( r ) > V _ { 1 } ( r ) \text{ in } ( 0, \infty ).$$

Furthermore, according to (3.2) for their Wronskian ω ( r ), we get ω (0) = 0 and

$$( \omega r ^ { N - 1 } ) ^ { \prime } = ( V _ { 2 } - V _ { 1 } ) u _ { 1 } u _ { 2 } r ^ { N - 1 } > 0,$$

which implies that ω ( r r ) N -1 &gt; 0 and then ω ( r r ) N -1 is a positive and strictly increasing function in (0 , ∞ ).

On the other hand, we claim that

$$\lim _ { r \to \infty } \omega ( r ) r ^ { N - 1 } = 0.$$

Indeed, since u 2 (0) &gt; u 1 (0) &gt; 0, we have u 2 ( r ) &gt; u 1 ( r ) on (0 , ∞ ) according to Lemma 3.1. This together with (3.7) and Proposition 3.1, implies that

$$V _ { 2 } ( \infty ) > V _ { 1 } ( \infty ) \geq 1.$$

By Corollary3.1, we know for any k ∈ (0 , √ V 2 ( ∞ -) 1),

$$\lim _ { r \to \infty } \sup u _ { 2 } ( r ) r ^ { N - 1 } < \lim _ { r \to \infty } \sup u _ { 2 } ( r ) e ^ { k r } < \infty.$$

According to (2.1), we have V 2 ( r ) ≤ u p 2 (0) r 2 2 N for any r ∈ (0 , ∞ ). Then

$$u _ { 2 } ^ { \prime } r ^ { N - 1 } = \int _ { 0 } ^ { r } ( V _ { 2 } ( s ) - 1 ) u _ { 2 } ( s ) s ^ { N - 1 } d s \leq \int _ { 0 } ^ { r } \frac { u _ { 2 } ^ { p } ( 0 ) } { 2 N } u _ { 2 } ( s ) s ^ { N + 1 } d s.$$

This together with the exponential decay of u 2 , yields that u r ′ 2 N -1 and u r 2 N -1 is uniformly bounded.

Notice that lim r →∞ u r ( ) = lim r →∞ u ′ ( r ) = 0 and

$$| \omega ( r ) r ^ { N - 1 } | \leq | u _ { 1 } | | u _ { 2 } ^ { \prime } r ^ { N - 1 } | + | u _ { 1 } ^ { \prime } | | u _ { 2 } r ^ { N - 1 } | \leq c _ { 1 } | u _ { 1 } | + c _ { 2 } | u _ { 1 } ^ { \prime } |,$$

where c 1 , c 2 are positive constants. The claim holds. Therefore, the proof is finished.

□

## References

- [1] Cassani D, Tarsi C. Schr¨ odinger-Newton equations in dimension two via a Pohozaev-Trudinger log-weighted inequality. Calc. Var. Partial Di ff er. Equ. 60 , 1-31 (2021).
- [2] Choquard P, Stubbe J, Vu ff ray M. Stationary solutions of the Schr¨dinger-Newton model-an ODE o approach. Di ff er. Integral Equ. 27 , 665-679 (2008).
- [3] Cingolani S, Clapp M, Secchi S. Multiple solutions to a magnetic nonlinear Choquard equation. Z. angew. Math. Phys. 63 , 233-248 (2012).
- [4] Cingolani S, Weth T. On the planar Schr¨dinger-Poisson system. o Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Anal. Non Lineaire. 33 , 169-197 (2016).
- [5] Co ff man C V. Uniqueness of the ground state solution for -∆ u -u + u 3 = 0 and a variational characterization of other solutions. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 46 , 81-95 (1972).

- [6] Co ff man C V. Uniqueness of the positive radial solution on an annulus of the dirichlet problem for ∆ u -u + u 3 = 0. J. Di ff er. Equ. 128 , 379-386 (1996).
- [7] Clemons C B, Jones C. A geometric proof of the Kwong-McLeod uniqueness result. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 24 , 436-443 (1993).
- [8] Choquard P, Stubbe J, Vu ff ray M. Stationary solutions of the Schr¨dinger-Newton model-an ODE o approach. Di ff er. Integral Equ. 21 , 665-679 (2008).
- [9] Erbe L, Tang M X. Uniqueness of positive radial solutions of ∆ u + K x ( | | ) γ ( u ) = 0. Di ff er. Integral Equ. 11 , 663-678 (1998).
- [10] Feliciangeli D, Seiringer R. Uniqueness and nondegeneracy of minimizers of the Pekar functional on a ball. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 52 , 605-622 (2020).
- [11] Felmer P, Mart´ ınez S, Tanaka K. Uniqueness of radially symmetric positive solutions for -∆ + u u = u p in an annulus. J. Di ff er. Equ. 245 , 1198-1209 (2008).
- [12] Guo H, Wang T, Yi T S. Uniqueness symmetry and convergence of positive ground state solutions of the Choquard type equation on a ball. J. Di ff er. Equ. 368 , 229-246 (2023).
- [13] Kabeya Y, Kazunaga T. Uniqueness of positive radial solutions of semilinear elliptic equations in R N and s´ er´'s non-degeneracy condition. e Comm. Partial Di ff er. Equ. 24 , 563-598 (1999).
- [14] Kwong M K. Uniqueness of positive solutions of ∆ u -u + u p = 0 in R N . Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 105 , 243-266 (1989).
- [15] Lieb E H. Existence and uniqueness of the minimizing solution of Choquard's nonlinear equation. Stud. Appl. Math. 57 , 93-105 (1977).
- [16] Lieb E H, Simon B. The Hartree-Fock theory for coulomb systems. Comm. Math. Phys. 53 , 185194 (1977).
- [17] Liu Z, Radulescu V, Zhang J. A planar Schr¨ odinger-Newton system with Trudienger-Moser critical growth. Calc. Var. Partial Di ff er. Equ. 62 , 122 (2023).
- [18] Liu Z, Radulescu V, Tang C, Zhang J. Another look at planar Schr¨ odinger-Newton systems. J. Di ff er. Equ. 328 , 65-104 (2022).
- [19] McLeod K. Uniqueness of positive radial solutions of ∆ u + f ( u ) = 0 in R n . II, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 399 , 495-505 (1993).

- [20] Ma L, Zhao L. Classification of positive solitary solutions of the nonlinear Choquard equation. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 195 , 455-467 (2010).
- [21] Moroz V, Van Schaftingen J. Groundstates of nonlinear Choquard equations: existence, qualitative properties and decay asymptotics. J. Funct. Anal. 265 , 153-184 (2013).
- [22] Penrose R. On gravity's role in quantum state reduction. Gen. Relativity Grav. 28 , 581-600 (1996).
- [23] Peletier L A, Serrin J. Uniqueness of positive solutions of semilinear equations in R n . Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 81 , 181-197 (1983).
- [24] Palais R. The principle of symmetric criticality. Comm. Math. Phys. 69 , 19-30 (1979).
- [25] Ruiz D, Van Schaftingen J. Odd symmetry of least energy nodal solutions for the Choquard equation. J. Di ff er. Equ. 264 , 1231-1262 (2018).
- [26] Stubbe J. Bound states of two-dimensional Schr¨ odinger-Newton equations. arxiv preprint arxiv: 0807.4059 (2008).
- [27] Tang M X. Uniqueness of positive radial solutions for ∆ u -u + u p = 0 on an annulus. J. Di ff er. Equ. 189 , 148-160 (2003).
- [28] Wang W, Li Q, Li Y. The sign-changing solutions and ground states for planar Schr¨ odingerNewton system with an exponential critical growth. J. Math. Phys. 61 , 101513 (2020).
- [29] Wang T, Yi T S. Uniqueness of positive solutions of the Choquard type equations. Appl. Anal. 96 , 409-417 (2017).
- [30] Wang T, Yi T S. Symmetry of separable functions and its applications to Choquard type equations. Calc. Var. Partial Di ff er. Equ. 59 , 1-23 (2020).
- [31] Xiang C L. Uniqueness and nondegeneracy of ground states for Choquard equations in three dimensions. Calc. Var. Partial Di ff er. Equ. 55 , 134 (2016).
Tao Wang Xiaoyu Tian Hui Guo
Uniqueness of positive radial solutions of Choquard type equations
In this paper, we consider the following Choquard type equation
\begin{equation} \left\{\begin{aligned} &-\Delta u+\lambda
u=\gamma(\Phi_N(|x|)\ast|u|^p)u \ \ \mbox{in $\mathbb{R}^N$}, \\
&\lim\limits_{|x|\to\infty}u(x)=0,\\ \end{aligned}\right. \end{equation}
  where $N\geq2,\lambda>0,\gamma>0, p\in[1,2]$ and $\Phi_N(|x|)$ denotes the
fundamental solution of the Laplacian $-\Delta$ on $\mathbb{R}^N$. This
equation does not have a variational frame when $p\neq 2.$ Instead of
variational methods, we prove the existence and uniqueness of positive radial
solutions of the above equation via the shooting method by establishing some
new differential inequalities. The proofs are based on an analysis of the
corresponding system of second-order differential equations, and our results
extend the existing ones in the literature from $p=2$ to $p\in[1,2]$.