Theory and Modern Applications

# The ${C}^{0}$ solutions of the Feigenbaum-like functional equation

## Abstract

By using the Schauderâ€™s fixed point theorem, and constructing the special functional space and the construction operator, the existence, uniqueness, quasi-convexity (or quasi-concavity), symmetry and stability of the ${C}^{0}$ solutions of the Feigenbaum-like functional equations are discussed.

MSC:39B22, 39B12, 39A10.

## 1 Introduction

As early as 1978, Feigenbaum found the period-doubling bifurcation phenomenon by researching the iteration of a single-peak function class [1]. To reveal the mechanism of the Feigenbaum phenomenon, many years ago, the Feigenbaum functional equation had been researched extensively. McCarthy [2] obtained the general continuous exact bijective solutions. Epstein [3] gave a new proof of the existence of analytic, unimodal solutions by taking advantage of the normality properties of Herglotz functions and the Schauder-Tikhonov theorem. Eokmann and Wittwer [4] studied the Feigenbaum fixed point by using the computer. Thompson [5] investigated an essentially singular solution by expressing Feigenbaumâ€™s equation as a singular Schroder functional equation whose solution was obtained using a scaling ansatz, and so on. Thus, some solutions in specific cases were found.

Specifically, in 1985, to give a feasible method, the second kind of the Feigenbaum functional equation,

$\left\{\begin{array}{c}f\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}f\left(f\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)\right),\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}0<\mathrm{Î»}<1,\hfill \\ f\left(0\right)=1,\hfill \\ 0â‰¤f\left(x\right)â‰¤1,\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}xâˆˆ\left[0,1\right]\hfill \end{array}$

a kind of the equivalent equation, was given by Yang and Zhang [6]. The continuous valley-unimodal solutions were shown by using the constructive method. Recently, there have been a lots of results about the polynomial-like iterative equation. In 1987, by using Schauderâ€™s fixed point theorem to an operator defined by a linear combination of iterates of the unknown mapping f, a result on the existence of continuous solutions of the polynomial-like iterative equation was given in [7]. Furthermore, the results were given for its differentiable solutions [8]. Then the convex solutions and concave solutions [9, 10], the analytic solutions [11â€“13], the symmetric solutions [14], the higher-dimensional solutions [15], and the results on the unit circle [16] were obtained. In order to understand the dynamics of a second order delay differential equation with a piecewise constant argument, the derived planar mappings and their invariant curves were studied [17]. Based on the iterative root theory for monotone functions, an algorithm for computing polygonal iterative roots of increasing polygonal functions was given [18]. Else, a problem about the Hyers-Ulam stability was raised first by Ulam in 1940 and solved for Cauchy equation by Hyers [19]. Later, many papers on the Hyers-Ulam stability have been published, especially, for the polynomial-like iterative equation [20â€“22].

In this paper, by using Schauderâ€™s fixed point theorem, and constructing the special functional space and the construction operator, we consider the properties of the solutions of the Feigenbaum-like functional equation, which is a non-extended iterative equation,

$\left\{\begin{array}{c}f\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}{f}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)+\frac{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}g\left(x\right),\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}0<\mathrm{Î»}<1,\hfill \\ aâ‰¤f\left(x\right)â‰¤b,\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}xâˆˆI,\hfill \end{array}$
(1.1)

where $g\left(x\right)$ is a given disturbance function, $f\left(x\right)$ is an unknown function, and ${f}^{2}\left(x\right)=f\left(f\left(x\right)\right)$, $I=\left[a,b\right]$. It is clear that $aâ‰¤0â‰¤b$, since $\mathrm{Î»}xâˆˆI$ for all $xâˆˆI$. We give not only the existence of continuous solutions of (1.1) but also their uniqueness, stability (the continuous dependence and the Hyers-Ulam stability), quasi-convexity (or quasi-concavity), symmetry by applying fixed point theorems. Finally, we give an example to verify those conditions given in theorems.

## 2 Preliminary

In this section, we give several important definitions, lemmas and notions.

Let . Obviously, ${C}^{0}\left(I,\mathbf{R}\right)$ is a Banach space with the norm ${âˆ¥â‹\dots âˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}$, where the norm ${âˆ¥fâˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}={max}_{xâˆˆI}|f\left(x\right)|$ for $fâˆˆ{C}^{0}\left(I,\mathbf{R}\right)$.

Let . Then ${C}^{0}\left(I\right)$ is a complete metric space.

Let $X\left(I;M\right)=\left\{fâˆˆ{C}^{0}\left(I\right):|f\left(x\right)âˆ’f\left(y\right)|â‰¤M|yâˆ’x|,\mathrm{âˆ€}x,yâˆˆI\right\}$, where M is a positive constant.

Let $X\left(I;m,M\right)=\left\{fâˆˆX\left(I;M\right):|f\left(x\right)âˆ’f\left(y\right)|â‰¥m|{x}_{2}âˆ’{x}_{1}|,\mathrm{âˆ€}xâˆˆI,0, where m is a positive constant.

Let $f\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right):={f}^{\left(\mathrm{Î»}\right)}\left(x\right)$, ${f}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right):=f\left(f\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)\right):={f}^{2\left(\mathrm{Î»}\right)}\left(x\right)$, ${f}^{k}\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right):={f}^{k\left(\mathrm{Î»}\right)}\left(x\right)$.

Definition 2.1 $f:Iâ†’R$ is a quasi-convex (or quasi-concave) function [23] if for $\mathrm{âˆ€}x,yâˆˆI$ and $\mathrm{Î»}âˆˆ\left[0,1\right]$, we have

$f\left(\mathrm{Î»}x+\left(1âˆ’\mathrm{Î»}\right)y\right)â‰¤max\left\{f\left(x\right),f\left(y\right)\right\}\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}\left(\text{or}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}f\left(\mathrm{Î»}x+\left(1âˆ’\mathrm{Î»}\right)y\right)â‰¥min\left\{f\left(x\right),f\left(y\right)\right\}\right).$

Let ${X}_{\mathrm{Ïƒ}}\left(I;M\right)$ denote the families consisting of all quasi-convex functions or quasi-concave ones in $X\left(I;M\right)$, where $\mathrm{Ïƒ}=\mathit{qcv}$ or $\mathrm{Ïƒ}=\mathit{qcc}$.

The following Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2 are useful, and the methods of their proofs are similar to ones in the paper [24].

Lemma 2.1 $X\left(I;M\right)$, ${X}_{\mathit{qcv}}\left(I;M\right)$, and ${X}_{\mathit{qcc}}\left(I;M\right)$ are compact convex subsets of ${C}^{0}\left(I,R\right)$.

Lemma 2.2 The composition $fâˆ˜g$ is quasi-convex (or quasi-concave) if f is increasing and g is quasi-convex (or quasi-concave). In particular, for an increasing quasi-convex (or quasi-concave) function f, ${f}^{k}$ is also quasi-convex (or quasi-concave).

Lemma 2.3 If $f,hâˆˆX\left(I;M\right)$, then

${âˆ¥{f}^{2\left(\mathrm{Î»}\right)}âˆ’{h}^{2\left(\mathrm{Î»}\right)}âˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}â‰¤\left(M+1\right){âˆ¥fâˆ’hâˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}.$
(2.1)

Proof Note that

$\begin{array}{rl}{âˆ¥{f}^{2\left(\mathrm{Î»}\right)}âˆ’{h}^{2\left(\mathrm{Î»}\right)}âˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}& =\underset{xâˆˆI}{max}|{f}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)âˆ’{h}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)|\\ â‰¤\underset{xâˆˆI}{max}|f\left(f\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)\right)âˆ’f\left(h\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)\right)|+\underset{xâˆˆI}{max}|f\left(h\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)\right)âˆ’h\left(h\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)\right)|\\ â‰¤M{âˆ¥{f}^{\left(\mathrm{Î»}\right)}âˆ’{h}^{\left(\mathrm{Î»}\right)}âˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}+{âˆ¥fâˆ’hâˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}.\end{array}$

Let $y=\mathrm{Î»}x$. Then $yâˆˆ\mathrm{Î»}I$, and

$\begin{array}{rl}{âˆ¥{f}^{\left(\mathrm{Î»}\right)}âˆ’{h}^{\left(\mathrm{Î»}\right)}âˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}& =\underset{yâˆˆ\mathrm{Î»}I}{max}|f\left(y\right)âˆ’h\left(y\right)|\\ â‰¤\underset{yâˆˆI}{max}|f\left(y\right)âˆ’h\left(y\right)|\\ â‰¤{âˆ¥fâˆ’hâˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}.\end{array}$

Then

$\begin{array}{rl}{âˆ¥{f}^{2\left(\mathrm{Î»}\right)}âˆ’{h}^{2\left(\mathrm{Î»}\right)}âˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}& â‰¤M{âˆ¥fâˆ’hâˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}+{âˆ¥fâˆ’hâˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}\\ =\left(M+1\right){âˆ¥fâˆ’hâˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}.\end{array}$

Thus, (2.1) holds.â€ƒâ–¡

Lemma 2.4 Suppose that $\mathrm{Ï†}âˆˆX\left(I;m,M\right)$. If the positive constants m, M and Î» satisfy

$\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}+1>\frac{{M}^{2}}{m},$
(2.2)

then LÏ†, defined by

$L\mathrm{Ï†}\left(x\right)=\left(1+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}\right)xâˆ’\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Ï†}}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Ï†}}^{âˆ’1}\left(x\right)\right),$
(2.3)

is an orientation-preserving homeomorphism from I onto itself, and

${\left(L\mathrm{Ï†}\right)}^{âˆ’1}âˆˆX\left(I;\frac{1}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{2}},\frac{1}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}\right),$
(2.4)

where

${\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}=1+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}+\frac{{M}^{2}}{m},\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{2}=1+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}âˆ’\frac{{M}^{2}}{m}>0.$
(2.5)

Proof Because $\mathrm{Ï†}âˆˆX\left(I;m,M\right)$, by the paper [7], ${\mathrm{Ï†}}^{âˆ’1}âˆˆX\left(I;\frac{1}{M},\frac{1}{m}\right)$. Thus, for any , by (2.3) and (2.5)

$\begin{array}{rl}|L\mathrm{Ï†}\left({x}_{2}\right)âˆ’L\mathrm{Ï†}\left({x}_{1}\right)|& =|\left(1+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}\right)\left({x}_{2}âˆ’{x}_{1}\right)+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}\left({\mathrm{Ï†}}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Ï†}}^{âˆ’1}\left({x}_{2}\right)\right)âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Ï†}}^{âˆ’1}\left({x}_{1}\right)\right)\right)|\\ â‰¥\left(1+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}\right)|{x}_{2}âˆ’{x}_{1}|âˆ’{M}^{2}|{\mathrm{Ï†}}^{âˆ’1}\left({x}_{2}\right)âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}^{âˆ’1}\left({x}_{1}\right)|\\ â‰¥\left(1+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}\right)|{x}_{2}âˆ’{x}_{1}|âˆ’\frac{{M}^{2}}{m}|{x}_{2}âˆ’{x}_{1}|\\ â‰¥{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{2}|{x}_{2}âˆ’{x}_{1}|>0.\end{array}$

On the other hand,

$\begin{array}{rl}|L\mathrm{Ï†}\left({x}_{2}\right)âˆ’L\mathrm{Ï†}\left({x}_{1}\right)|& =|\left(1+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}\right)\left({x}_{2}âˆ’{x}_{1}\right)+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}\left({\mathrm{Ï†}}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Ï†}}^{âˆ’1}\left({x}_{2}\right)\right)âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Ï†}}^{âˆ’1}\left({x}_{1}\right)\right)\right)|\\ â‰¤\left(1+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}\right)|{x}_{2}âˆ’{x}_{1}|+\frac{{M}^{2}}{m}|{x}_{2}âˆ’{x}_{1}|\\ â‰¤{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}|{x}_{2}âˆ’{x}_{1}|.\end{array}$

Therefore, $L\mathrm{Ï†}âˆˆX\left(I;{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1},{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{2}\right)$. This implies that LÏ† is strictly increasing and invertible on I, and ${\left(L\mathrm{Ï†}\right)}^{âˆ’1}âˆˆX\left(I;\frac{1}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{2}},\frac{1}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}\right)$.â€ƒâ–¡

Lemma 2.5 Suppose that $gâˆˆX\left(I;{m}_{1},{M}_{1}\right)$ and ${\mathrm{Ï†}}_{0}âˆˆX\left(I;m,M\right)$. If

$1+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}>max\left\{\frac{{M}^{2}}{m},\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{{M}_{1}}{M}+\frac{{m}_{1}}{m}\right)\right\},$
(2.6)

then

${\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}:={\left(L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}\right)}^{âˆ’1}âˆ˜g$
(2.7)

and

$L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}\left(x\right):=\left(1+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}\right)xâˆ’\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}^{âˆ’1}\left(x\right)\right)$
(2.8)

are well defined, and ${\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆˆX\left(I;m,M\right)$, $k=1,2,â€¦$â€‰.

Proof Let

$L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{0}:=\left(1+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}\right)xâˆ’\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{0}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{0}^{âˆ’1}\left(x\right)\right).$
(2.9)

From Lemma 2.4, $L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{0}$ is well defined and is an orientation-preserving homeomorphism from I onto itself, and ${\left(L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{0}\right)}^{âˆ’1}âˆˆX\left(I;\frac{1}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{2}},\frac{1}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}\right)$. Then ${\mathrm{Ï†}}_{1}\left(x\right):={\left(L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{0}\right)}^{âˆ’1}âˆ˜g\left(x\right)$ is well defined and ${\mathrm{Ï†}}_{1}âˆˆX\left(I;\frac{{m}_{1}}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{2}},\frac{{M}_{1}}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}\right)âŠ‚X\left(I;m,M\right)$ by (2.6) and Lemma 2.4. If

$L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}:=\left(1+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}\right)xâˆ’\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}^{âˆ’1}\left(x\right)\right)$
(2.10)

is well defined and is an orientation-preserving homeomorphism from I onto itself, then ${\left(L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}\right)}^{âˆ’1}âˆˆX\left(I;\frac{1}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{2}},\frac{1}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}\right)$. We similarly see that

${\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k+1}\left(x\right):={\left(L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}\right)}^{âˆ’1}âˆ˜g\left(x\right)$
(2.11)

is well defined, and

${\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k+1}âˆˆX\left(I;\frac{{m}_{k}}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{2}},\frac{{M}_{k}}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}\right)âŠ‚X\left(I;m,M\right).$
(2.12)

This implies that the results in Lemma 2.5 are also true for $k+1$, which completes the proof.â€ƒâ–¡

## 3 Main results

In this section, we give several important theorems on the existence, uniqueness, quasi-convex (quasi-concave), symmetry and stability of equation (1.1).

Theorem 3.1 (Existence)

Given a positive constant ${M}_{1}$ and $g\left(x\right)âˆˆX\left(I;{M}_{1}\right)$. If there exist constants M and Î» such that

$\frac{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}\left({M}^{2}+{M}_{1}\right)â‰¤M,$
(3.1)

then equation (1.1) has a solution f in $X\left(I;M\right)$.

Proof Define $T:X\left(I;M\right)â†’{C}^{0}\left(I\right)$ by

$Tf\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}{f}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)+\frac{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}g\left(x\right),\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{âˆ€}xâˆˆI.$
(3.2)

Because f, $f\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)$ and g are continuous for all $xâˆˆI$, we obtain that Tf is continuous for all $xâˆˆI$, and $Tfâˆˆ{C}^{0}\left(I\right)$. By (3.1), for any x, y in I,

$\begin{array}{rl}|Tf\left(x\right)âˆ’Tf\left(y\right)|& =|\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}{f}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)+\frac{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}g\left(x\right)âˆ’\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}{f}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}y\right)âˆ’\frac{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}g\left(y\right)|\\ â‰¤\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}|{f}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)âˆ’{f}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}y\right)|+\frac{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}|g\left(x\right)âˆ’g\left(y\right)|\\ â‰¤\frac{M}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}|f\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)âˆ’f\left(\mathrm{Î»}y\right)|+\frac{\mathrm{Î»}{M}_{1}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}|xâˆ’y|\\ â‰¤\frac{\mathrm{Î»}{M}^{2}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}|xâˆ’y|+\frac{\mathrm{Î»}{M}_{1}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}|xâˆ’y|\\ =\frac{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}\left({M}^{2}+{M}_{1}\right)|xâˆ’y|\\ â‰¤M|xâˆ’y|.\end{array}$

Thus, ${T}_{f}âˆˆX\left(I,M\right)$. Now we prove the continuity of T under the norm ${âˆ¥â‹\dots âˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}$. For arbitrary ${f}_{1},{f}_{2}âˆˆX\left(I,M\right)$,

$\begin{array}{rl}{âˆ¥T{f}_{1}âˆ’T{f}_{2}âˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}& =\underset{xâˆˆI}{max}|T{f}_{1}\left(x\right)âˆ’T{f}_{2}\left(x\right)|\\ =\underset{xâˆˆI}{max}|\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}{f}_{1}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)âˆ’\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}{f}_{2}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)|\\ =\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}\underset{xâˆˆI}{max}|{f}_{1}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)âˆ’{f}_{2}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)|\\ =\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}âˆ¥{f}_{1}^{2\left(\mathrm{Î»}\right)}âˆ’{f}_{2}^{2\left(\mathrm{Î»}\right)}âˆ¥\\ â‰¤E{âˆ¥{f}_{1}âˆ’{f}_{2}âˆ¥}_{{C}_{0}},\end{array}$

where Lemma 2.3 is used and

$E=\frac{M+1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}.$
(3.3)

Thus, T is continuous under the norm ${âˆ¥â‹\dots âˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}$. Summarizing all the above, we see that T is a continuous mapping from the compact convex subset $X\left(I,M\right)$ of the Banach space ${C}^{0}\left(I,R\right)$ into itself. By Schauderâ€™s fixed point theorem, we assert that there is a mapping $fâˆˆX\left(I,M\right)$ such that

$f\left(x\right)=Tf\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}{f}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)+\frac{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}g\left(x\right),\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{âˆ€}xâˆˆI.$
(3.4)

This completes the proof.â€ƒâ–¡

Theorem 3.2 (Uniqueness)

Suppose that (3.1) is satisfied and

$M<\mathrm{Î»}.$
(3.5)

For any function $gâˆˆX\left(I,{M}_{1}\right)$, equation (1.1) has a unique solution $fâˆˆX\left(I,M\right)$.

Proof The existence of equation (1.1) in $X\left(I;M\right)$ is given by Theorem 3.1. Note that $X\left(I;M\right)$ is a closed subset of ${C}^{0}\left(I\right)$. By (3.3) and (3.5), we see that $T:X\left(I;M\right)â†’X\left(I;M\right)$ is a contraction mapping. Therefore T has a unique fixed point $f\left(x\right)$ in $X\left(I;M\right)$, that is, equation (1.1) has a unique solution $f\left(x\right)$ in $X\left(I;M\right)$.â€ƒâ–¡

Below, we discuss the quasi-convex (or quasi-concave) solutions of equation (1.1).

Definition 3.1 Suppose that Î“ is a Lie group of all linear transformations on R. A mapping $f:Râ†’R$, is said to be Î“-equivariant [25] if $f\left(\mathrm{Î³}x\right)=\mathrm{Î³}f\left(x\right)$, $\mathrm{âˆ€}\mathrm{Î³}âˆˆ\mathrm{Î“}$, $\mathrm{âˆ€}xâˆˆR$.

This implies that ${f}^{i}$ is the Î“-equivariant. Let ${G}_{\mathrm{Î“}}\left(I\right)=\left\{gâˆˆ{C}^{0}\left(I\right)âˆ£g\left(\mathrm{Î³}x\right)=\mathrm{Î³}g\left(x\right),\mathrm{âˆ€}\mathrm{Î³}âˆˆ\mathrm{Î“},\mathrm{âˆ€}xâˆˆI\right\}$ and ${G}_{\mathrm{Î“}}\left(I;M\right)={G}_{\mathrm{Î“}}\left(I\right)âˆ©X\left(I;M\right)$.

Lemma 3.1 ${G}_{\mathrm{Î“}}\left(I\right)$ is a closed convex subset of ${C}^{0}\left(I\right)$, and ${G}_{\mathrm{Î“}}\left(I;M\right)$ is a compact convex subset of ${C}^{0}\left(I\right)$.

The methods of the proofs are similar to the paper [24].

Theorem 3.3 (Quasi-convexity (Quasi-concavity))

If $gâˆˆ{X}_{\mathrm{Ïƒ}}\left(I;{M}_{1}\right)$, (3.1) and (3.5) are satisfied, then (1.1) has a solution $fâˆˆ{X}_{\mathrm{Ïƒ}}\left(I;M\right)$.

Proof Define a mapping $T:{X}_{\mathit{qcv}}\left(I;M\right)â†’{C}^{0}\left(I\right)$ as in (3.2). Note that each $fâˆˆ{X}_{\mathit{qcv}}\left(I;M\right)$ is an increasing function. In fact, if $x in I, there exists ${t}_{0}âˆˆ\left(0,1\right)$ such that $x={t}_{0}a+\left(1âˆ’{t}_{0}\right)y$, and by the quasi-convexity, we get

$f\left(x\right)â‰¤max\left(f\left(a\right),f\left(y\right)\right)=f\left(y\right).$
(3.6)

Thus, for $fâˆˆ{X}_{\mathit{qcv}}\left(I,M\right)$, $x,yâˆˆI$, and $tâˆˆ\left[0,1\right]$, we get

$\begin{array}{rl}Tf\left(tx+\left(1âˆ’t\right)y\right)& =\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}{f}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}\left(tx+\left(1âˆ’t\right)y\right)\right)+\frac{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}g\left(tx+\left(1âˆ’t\right)y\right)\\ â‰¤\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}f\left(max\left\{f\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right),f\left(\mathrm{Î»}y\right)\right\}\right)+\frac{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}max\left\{g\left(x\right),g\left(y\right)\right\}\\ â‰¤\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}max\left\{{f}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right),{f}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}y\right)\right\}+\frac{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}max\left\{g\left(x\right),g\left(y\right)\right\}\\ â‰¤max\left\{Tf\left(x\right),Tf\left(y\right)\right\}.\end{array}$

Thus, T maps ${X}_{\mathit{qcv}}\left(I,M\right)$ into itself. Similarly, we can prove that T is continuous. By Lemma 2.1, ${X}_{\mathit{qcv}}\left(I,M\right)$ is a compact convex subset of the Banach space ${C}^{0}\left(I\right)$. Then Schauderâ€™s fixed point theorem guarantees the existence of a fixed point f of T in ${X}_{\mathit{qcv}}\left(I;M\right)$. In the same way, the proof of the quasi-concave solution of equation (1.1) is similarly obtained.â€ƒâ–¡

Now, we study the symmetric solutions of (1.1).

Theorem 3.4 (Symmetry)

If (3.1) and (3.5) are satisfied, and $gâˆˆ{G}_{\mathrm{Î“}}\left(I;{M}_{1}\right)$, then equation (1.1) has a unique Î“-equivariant solution $fâˆˆ{G}_{\mathrm{Î“}}\left(I;{M}_{2}\right)$.

Proof By Lemma 3.1 and (3.2), we have

$\begin{array}{rl}Tf\left(\mathrm{Î³}x\right)& =\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}{f}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î³}\mathrm{Î»}x\right)+\frac{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}g\left(\mathrm{Î³}x\right)\\ =\mathrm{Î³}\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}{f}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)+\mathrm{Î³}\frac{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}g\left(x\right)\\ =\mathrm{Î³}Tf\left(x\right).\end{array}$

From Theorem 3.1, we can find that T is a contraction mapping in ${G}_{\mathrm{Î“}}\left(I;{M}_{2}\right)$. Since ${G}_{\mathrm{Î“}}\left(I;{M}_{2}\right)$ is a compact convex subset of ${C}^{0}\left(I\right)$, by Banachâ€™s fixed point theorem, we assert that there is a unique fixed point $fâˆˆ{G}_{\mathrm{Î“}}\left(I;{M}_{2}\right)$.â€ƒâ–¡

In the following, we give the conditions to guarantee two kinds of stability: the continuous dependence and the Hyers-Ulam stability [21].

Theorem 3.5 (Continuous dependence)

If (3.1) and (3.5) are satisfied, the solutions of (1.1) in $X\left(I;M\right)$ is continuously dependent on the given function $g\left(x\right)$ in $X\left(I;{M}_{1}\right)$.

Proof For ${g}_{1},{g}_{2}âˆˆX\left(I;{M}_{1}\right)$, Theorem 3.1 implies that there are functions ${f}_{1},{f}_{2}âˆˆX\left(I;{M}_{1}\right)$ such that

${f}_{1}\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}{f}_{1}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)+\frac{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}{g}_{1}\left(x\right),$
(3.7)
${f}_{2}\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}{f}_{2}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)+\frac{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}{g}_{2}\left(x\right).$
(3.8)

Thus, by Lemma 2.3

$\begin{array}{rl}{âˆ¥{f}_{1}âˆ’{f}_{2}âˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}& =\underset{xâˆˆI}{max}|{f}_{1}\left(x\right)âˆ’{f}_{2}\left(x\right)|\\ â‰¤\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}\underset{xâˆˆI}{max}|{f}_{1}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)âˆ’{f}_{2}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)|+\frac{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}\underset{xâˆˆI}{max}|{g}_{1}\left(x\right)âˆ’{g}_{2}\left(x\right)|\\ =\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}{âˆ¥{f}_{1}^{2\left(\mathrm{Î»}\right)}âˆ’{f}_{2}^{2\left(\mathrm{Î»}\right)}âˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}+\frac{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}{âˆ¥{g}_{1}âˆ’{g}_{2}âˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}\\ â‰¤\frac{M+1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}{âˆ¥{f}_{1}âˆ’{f}_{2}âˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}+\frac{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}{âˆ¥{g}_{1}âˆ’{g}_{2}âˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}},\end{array}$

which implies

$\left(1âˆ’\frac{M+1}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}\right){âˆ¥{f}_{1}âˆ’{f}_{2}âˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}â‰¤\frac{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Î»}+1}{âˆ¥{g}_{1}âˆ’{g}_{2}âˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}},$

so

${âˆ¥{f}_{1}âˆ’{f}_{2}âˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}â‰¤\frac{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Î»}âˆ’M}{âˆ¥{g}_{1}âˆ’{g}_{2}âˆ¥}_{{c}^{0}}.$
(3.9)

Inequality (3.5) yields that the solution of (1.1) in $X\left(I;M\right)$ is continuously dependent on the given function g in $X\left(I;{M}_{1}\right)$.â€ƒâ–¡

Definition 3.2 The functional equation

${E}_{1}\left(\mathrm{Ï†}\right)={E}_{2}\left(\mathrm{Ï†}\right)$
(3.10)

has the Hyers-Ulam stability [26] if for any approximate solution ${\mathrm{Ï†}}_{s}$ such as $âˆ¥{E}_{1}\left({\mathrm{Ï†}}_{s}\right)={E}_{2}\left({\mathrm{Ï†}}_{s}\right)âˆ¥â‰¤\mathrm{Î´}$, there exist a solution Ï† of equation (3.10) such as $âˆ¥\mathrm{Ï†}âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{s}âˆ¥â‰¤\mathrm{Îµ}$, where $\mathrm{Î´}â‰¥0$, $\mathrm{Îµ}>0$, and a constant Îµ dependent only on Î´.

Theorem 3.6 (Hyers-Ulam stability)

Suppose that $gâˆˆX\left(I;{m}_{1},{M}_{1}\right)$, and ${\mathrm{Ï†}}_{s}âˆˆX\left(I;m,M\right)$ satisfy

$|g\left(x\right)âˆ’\left(1+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}\right){\mathrm{Ï†}}_{s}\left(x\right)+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{s}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}x\right)|â‰¤\mathrm{Î´},\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{âˆ€}xâˆˆI,$
(3.11)

where $\mathrm{Î´}>0$ is a positive constant. If (2.6), (3.1) and (3.5) are satisfied, there exists a unique continuous solution $\mathrm{Ï†}âˆˆX\left(I;m,M\right)$ of (1.1) such that

$|\mathrm{Ï†}\left(x\right)âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{s}\left(x\right)|â‰¤\mathrm{Î¶}\mathrm{Î´},\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{âˆ€}xâˆˆI,$
(3.12)

where $\mathrm{Î¶}=\frac{1}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}\left(1âˆ’\mathrm{Î·}\right)}$, $\mathrm{Î·}=\frac{M+1}{\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}+\frac{{M}^{2}}{{m}_{1}}<1$.

Proof Construct a sequence $\left\{{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}\right\}$ of functions as follows. Take ${\mathrm{Ï†}}_{0}={\mathrm{Ï†}}_{s}$, and then define ${\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}$ as in (2.7) and $L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}$ as in (2.8). By Lemma 2.4, both ${\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}$ and $L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}$ are well defined for any integer $kâ‰¥1$. Lemma 2.4 and Lemma 2.5 also imply that ${\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}$ or $L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}$ is an orientation-preserving homeomorphism from I into itself with ${\left(L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}\right)}^{âˆ’1}âˆˆX\left(I;\frac{1}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{2}},\frac{1}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}\right)$, where ${\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}$ and ${\mathrm{Î¾}}_{2}$ are given in (2.5).

Now we claim that

$âˆ¥gâˆ’L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}âˆ˜{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}âˆ¥â‰¤{\mathrm{Î·}}^{kâˆ’1}\mathrm{Î´},$
(3.13)
$âˆ¥{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}âˆ¥â‰¤{\mathrm{Î·}}^{kâˆ’1}\frac{\mathrm{Î´}}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}$
(3.14)

for all $xâˆˆI$ and $k=1,2,â€¦$â€‰.

The case $k=1$ is trivial. Assume that (3.13) and (3.14) hold for k. Since

$\begin{array}{rl}âˆ¥g\left(x\right)âˆ’L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆ˜{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆ¥& â‰¤âˆ¥L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}âˆ˜{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆ’L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆ˜{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆ¥\\ â‰¤\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}âˆ¥âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}^{âˆ’1}\left({\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}\right)\right)+{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}^{âˆ’1}\left({\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}\right)\right)âˆ¥\\ â‰¤\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}âˆ¥{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}^{âˆ’1}\right)âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}^{âˆ’1}\right)âˆ¥\\ â‰¤\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}\left(âˆ¥{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}^{âˆ’1}\right)âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}^{âˆ’1}\right)âˆ¥+âˆ¥{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}^{âˆ’1}\right)âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}^{âˆ’1}\right)âˆ¥\right)\\ â‰¤\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}}\left(\mathrm{Î»}{M}^{2}âˆ¥{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}^{âˆ’1}âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}^{âˆ’1}âˆ¥+\left(M+1\right)âˆ¥{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}âˆ¥\right),\end{array}$

where Lemma 2.3 is applied. From the hypothesis of induction, it follows that

$\begin{array}{rl}âˆ¥g\left(x\right)âˆ’L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆ˜{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆ¥& â‰¤{M}^{2}âˆ¥{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}^{âˆ’1}âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}^{âˆ’1}âˆ¥+\frac{\left(M+1\right)}{\mathrm{Î»}}âˆ¥{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}âˆ¥\\ â‰¤{\left(\frac{{M}^{2}}{{m}_{1}}+\frac{M+1}{\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}\right)}^{k}\mathrm{Î´}={\mathrm{Î·}}^{k}\mathrm{Î´}.\end{array}$

Moreover,

$\begin{array}{rl}âˆ¥{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k+1}âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆ¥& =âˆ¥{\left(L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}\right)}^{âˆ’1}âˆ˜gâˆ’{\left(L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}\right)}^{âˆ’1}âˆ˜L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆ˜{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆ¥\\ â‰¤\frac{1}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}âˆ¥gâˆ’L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆ˜{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆ¥\\ â‰¤{\mathrm{Î·}}^{k}\frac{\mathrm{Î´}}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}.\end{array}$

Thus, (3.13) and (3.14) hold.

On the other hand, for any positive integers k and l with $k>l$, by (3.14)

$\begin{array}{rl}âˆ¥{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{l}âˆ¥& â‰¤âˆ¥{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}âˆ¥+âˆ¥{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’2}âˆ¥+â‹¯+âˆ¥{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{l+1}âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{l}âˆ¥\\ â‰¤{\mathrm{Î·}}^{kâˆ’1}\frac{\mathrm{Î´}}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}+{\mathrm{Î·}}^{kâˆ’2}\frac{\mathrm{Î´}}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}+â‹¯+{\mathrm{Î·}}^{l}\frac{\mathrm{Î´}}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}\\ â‰¤\frac{{\mathrm{Î·}}^{k}âˆ’{\mathrm{Î·}}^{l}}{1âˆ’\mathrm{Î·}}\frac{\mathrm{Î´}}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}.\end{array}$
(3.15)

Note that $\mathrm{Î·}<1$, so from (3.15), it follows that

This implies that $\left\{{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}\left(x\right)\right\}$ is a Cauchy sequence. Hence, $\left\{{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}\left(x\right)\right\}$ uniformly converges in the Banach space ${C}^{0}\left(I\right)$. Let $\mathrm{Ï†}={lim}_{kâ†’+\mathrm{âˆž}}{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}\left(x\right)$. Clearly, $\mathrm{Ï†}âˆˆX\left(I;m,M\right)$. From (3.13),

$âˆ¥gâˆ’L\mathrm{Ï†}âˆ˜\mathrm{Ï†}âˆ¥=\underset{kâ†’+\mathrm{âˆž}}{lim}âˆ¥gâˆ’L{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆ˜{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆ¥â‰¤\underset{kâ†’+\mathrm{âˆž}}{lim}{\mathrm{Î·}}^{k}\mathrm{Î´}=0,$
(3.16)

i.e., Ï† is a solution of (1.1). Furthermore, from (3.14)

$\begin{array}{rl}âˆ¥\mathrm{Ï†}âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{s}âˆ¥& =\underset{kâ†’+\mathrm{âˆž}}{lim}âˆ¥{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{0}âˆ¥\\ â‰¤\underset{kâ†’+\mathrm{âˆž}}{lim}\left(âˆ¥{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{k}âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}âˆ¥+âˆ¥{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’1}âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{kâˆ’2}âˆ¥+â‹¯+âˆ¥{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{1}âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{0}âˆ¥\right)\\ â‰¤\underset{kâ†’+\mathrm{âˆž}}{lim}\left({\mathrm{Î·}}^{kâˆ’1}\frac{\mathrm{Î´}}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}+{\mathrm{Î·}}^{kâˆ’2}\frac{\mathrm{Î´}}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}+â‹¯+\frac{\mathrm{Î´}}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}\right)\\ â‰¤\frac{\frac{\mathrm{Î´}}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}}{1âˆ’\mathrm{Î·}}=\frac{1}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}\left(1âˆ’\mathrm{Î·}\right)}\mathrm{Î´}.\end{array}$

Thus, $âˆ¥\mathrm{Ï†}âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{s}âˆ¥<\mathrm{Î¶}\mathrm{Î´}$. Then (3.12) holds.

Concerning the uniqueness, we assume that there is another continuous solution $\mathrm{Ï•}âˆˆX\left(I;m,M\right)$ (), such that

$|\mathrm{Ï•}\left(x\right)âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}_{s}\left(x\right)|â‰¤\mathrm{Îµ},$

where $\mathrm{Îµ}>0$ only depends on Î´. Then

$\begin{array}{rl}âˆ¥\mathrm{Ï†}âˆ’\mathrm{Ï•}âˆ¥& =âˆ¥{\left(L\mathrm{Ï†}\right)}^{âˆ’1}âˆ˜gâˆ’{\left(L\mathrm{Ï•}\right)}^{âˆ’1}âˆ˜gâˆ¥\\ â‰¤âˆ¥{\left(L\mathrm{Ï†}\right)}^{âˆ’1}âˆ’{\left(L\mathrm{Ï•}\right)}^{âˆ’1}âˆ¥\\ â‰¤âˆ¥{\left(L\mathrm{Ï†}\right)}^{âˆ’1}âˆ’{\left(L\mathrm{Ï†}\right)}^{âˆ’1}âˆ˜\left(L\mathrm{Ï†}\right)âˆ˜{\left(L\mathrm{Ï•}\right)}^{âˆ’1}âˆ¥\\ â‰¤\frac{1}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}âˆ¥\left(L\mathrm{Ï•}\right)âˆ˜{\left(L\mathrm{Ï•}\right)}^{âˆ’1}âˆ’\left(L\mathrm{Ï†}\right)âˆ˜{\left(L\mathrm{Ï•}\right)}^{âˆ’1}âˆ¥\\ â‰¤\frac{1}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}âˆ¥L\mathrm{Ï†}âˆ’L\mathrm{Ï•}âˆ¥\\ â‰¤\frac{1}{\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}\left(âˆ¥{\mathrm{Ï†}}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Ï†}}^{âˆ’1}\right)âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï•}}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Ï†}}^{âˆ’1}\right)âˆ¥+âˆ¥{\mathrm{Ï•}}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Ï†}}^{âˆ’1}\right)âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï•}}^{2}\left(\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Ï•}}^{âˆ’1}\right)âˆ¥\right)\\ â‰¤\frac{M+1}{\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}âˆ¥\mathrm{Ï†}âˆ’\mathrm{Ï•}âˆ¥+\frac{{M}^{2}}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}âˆ¥{\mathrm{Ï†}}^{âˆ’1}âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï•}}^{âˆ’1}âˆ¥\\ â‰¤\frac{M+1}{\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}âˆ¥\mathrm{Ï†}âˆ’\mathrm{Ï•}âˆ¥+\frac{{M}^{2}}{{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}âˆ¥{\mathrm{Ï†}}^{âˆ’1}âˆ’{\mathrm{Ï†}}^{âˆ’1}âˆ˜\mathrm{Ï†}âˆ˜{\mathrm{Ï•}}^{âˆ’1}âˆ¥\\ â‰¤\frac{M+1}{\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}âˆ¥\mathrm{Ï†}âˆ’\mathrm{Ï•}âˆ¥+\frac{{M}^{2}}{m{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}âˆ¥\mathrm{Ï•}âˆ˜{\mathrm{Ï•}}^{âˆ’1}âˆ’\mathrm{Ï†}âˆ˜{\mathrm{Ï•}}^{âˆ’1}âˆ¥\\ â‰¤\frac{M+1}{\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}âˆ¥\mathrm{Ï†}âˆ’\mathrm{Ï•}âˆ¥+\frac{{M}^{2}}{m{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}âˆ¥\mathrm{Ï•}âˆ’\mathrm{Ï†}âˆ¥,\end{array}$

that is,

$\left(1âˆ’\frac{M+1}{\mathrm{Î»}{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}âˆ’\frac{{M}^{2}}{m{\mathrm{Î¾}}_{1}}\right)âˆ¥\mathrm{Ï†}âˆ’\mathrm{Ï•}âˆ¥â‰¤0.$
(3.17)

The assumption of Theorem 3.6 yields $âˆ¥\mathrm{Ï†}âˆ’\mathrm{Ï•}âˆ¥=0$, i.e., $\mathrm{Ï†}=\mathrm{Ï•}$, which contradicts with the assumption. The proof is completed.â€ƒâ–¡

## 4 Example

Example 1 Consider the equation

$f\left(x\right)=\frac{2}{3}{f}^{2}\left(\frac{1}{2}x\right)+\frac{1}{3}g\left(x\right),$
(4.1)

where $xâˆˆ\left[0,1\right]$ and $\mathrm{Î»}=\frac{1}{2}$. Let

$g\left(x\right)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{8}x,\hfill & 0â‰¤xâ‰¤\frac{1}{4},\hfill \\ \frac{1}{4}xâˆ’\frac{1}{32},\hfill & \frac{1}{4}
(4.2)

Then $g\left(x\right)$ is quasi-convex and nonconvex (see Figure 1). Note that, for $xâˆˆ\left[0,\frac{1}{4}\right]$ and $yâˆˆ\left[\frac{3}{4},1\right]$

$\begin{array}{rl}|f\left(x\right)âˆ’f\left(y\right)|& =|\frac{1}{2}yâˆ’\frac{1}{4}âˆ’\frac{1}{8}x|=|\frac{1}{8}\left(yâˆ’x\right)+\frac{3}{8}\left(yâˆ’\frac{2}{3}\right)|\\ â‰¤\frac{1}{8}|yâˆ’x|+\frac{3}{8}|yâˆ’x|=\frac{1}{2}|yâˆ’x|.\end{array}$

Similarly, we can show that for any $x,yâˆˆ\left[0,1\right]$, $|f\left(x\right)âˆ’f\left(y\right)|â‰¤\frac{1}{2}|yâˆ’x|$. Thus, ${M}_{1}=\frac{1}{2}$.

For $xâˆˆ\left[\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2}\right]$ and $yâˆˆ\left[\frac{3}{4},1\right]$, we have

$|f\left(x\right)âˆ’f\left(y\right)|=|\frac{1}{2}yâˆ’\frac{1}{4}âˆ’\frac{1}{4}x+\frac{1}{32}|â‰¥\frac{1}{4}|yâˆ’x|âˆ’\frac{1}{4}|yâˆ’\frac{7}{8}|.$

If $1â‰¥yâ‰¥\frac{7}{8}$, then $|f\left(x\right)âˆ’f\left(y\right)|â‰¥\frac{1}{4}|yâˆ’x|â‰¥\frac{1}{8}|yâˆ’x|$; if $\frac{7}{8}â‰¥yâ‰¥\frac{3}{4}$, then

$|f\left(x\right)âˆ’f\left(y\right)|â‰¥\frac{1}{4}|yâˆ’x|âˆ’\frac{1}{32}â‰¥\frac{3}{16}|yâˆ’x|â‰¥\frac{1}{8}|yâˆ’x|,$

since $\frac{1}{2}â‰¤|yâˆ’x|â‰¤\frac{3}{4}$. Similarly, we can show that for any $x,yâˆˆ\left[0,1\right]$, $|f\left(x\right)âˆ’f\left(y\right)|â‰¥\frac{1}{8}|yâˆ’x|$. Thus, ${m}_{1}=\frac{1}{8}$. Therefore, we can get a quasi-convex solution $f\left(x\right)$ of equation (4.1) by Theorem 3.3, which is continuously dependent on the given function $g\left(x\right)âˆˆX\left(I;{M}_{1}\right)$ with $M=\frac{3âˆ’\sqrt{7}}{2}$ by Theorem 3.5. Moreover, equation (4.1) satisfies the Hyers-Ulam stability in $X\left(I;\frac{131âˆ’49\sqrt{7}}{152âˆ’48\sqrt{7}},\frac{3âˆ’\sqrt{7}}{2}\right)$ by Theorem 3.6.

## References

1. Feigenbaum MJ: Quantitative universality for a class of non-linear transformations. J. Stat. Phys. 1978, 19: 25-52. 10.1007/BF01020332

2. McCarthy PJ: The general exact bijective continuous solution of Feigenbaumâ€™s functional equation. Commun. Math. Phys. 1983, 91(3):431-443. 10.1007/BF01208784

3. Epstein H: New proofs of the existence of the Feigenbaum function. Commun. Math. Phys. 1986, 106: 395-426. 10.1007/BF01207254

4. Eckmann JP, Wittwer P: A complete proof of the Feigenbaum conjectures. J. Stat. Phys. 1987, 46: 455-477. 10.1007/BF01013368

5. Thompson CJ, McGuire JB: Asymptotic and essentially singular solution of the Feigenbaum equation. J. Stat. Phys. 1988, 51(5-6):991-1007. 10.1007/BF01014896

6. Yang L, Zhang JZ: The second type of Feigenbaumâ€™s functional equation. Sci. China Ser. A 1986, 15: 1061-1069. (in Chinese)

7. Zhang WN:Discussion on the iterated equation ${âˆ‘}_{i=1}^{n}{\mathrm{Î»}}_{i}{f}^{i}\left(x\right)=F\left(x\right)$. Chin. Sci. Bull. 1987, 32: 1441-1451.

8. Zhang WN: On continuous solutions of n -th order polynomial-like iterative equations. Publ. Math. (Debr.) 2010, 76(1-2):117-134.

9. Xu B, Zhang WN: Decreasing solutions and convex solutions of the polynomial-like iterative equation. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 329(1):483-497. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.06.087

10. Si JG, Zhang M: Construction of convex solutions of the second type of Feigenbaumâ€™s functional equations. Sci. China Ser. A 2009, 39(1):49-70. (in Chinese)

11. Xu B, Zhang WN, Si JG: Analytic solutions of an iterative functional differential equation which may violate the Diophantine condition. J. Differ. Equ. Appl. 2004, 10(2):201-211. 10.1080/1023-6190310001596571

12. Si JG: The existence of local analytic solutions of the iterated equations. Acta Math. Sci. 1994, 14(4):53-63.

13. Si JG, Zhang WN: Analytic solutions of an iterative functional differential equation. Appl. Math. Comput. 2004, 150(3):647-659. 10.1016/S0096-3003(03)00296-0

14. Zhang WN, Baker JA: Continuous solutions of a polynomial-like iterative equation with variable coefficients. Ann. Pol. Math. 2000, 73: 29-36.

15. Li XP, Deng S: Differentiability for the high dimensional polynomial-like iterative equation. Acta Math. Sci. Ser. B 2005, 25(1):130-136.

16. Li XP, Deng S: An iterative equation on the unit circle. Acta Math. Sci. 2006, 26(3):145-149.

17. Deng S: Remark on invariant curves for planar mappings. Appl. Math. Comput. 2011, 217: 8419-8424. 10.1016/j.amc.2011.03.038

18. Zhang WX, Zhang WN: Computing iterative roots of polygonal functions. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2007, 205(1):497-508. 10.1016/j.cam.2006.05.026

19. Hyers DH: On the stability of the linear functional equation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1941, 27: 222-224. 10.1073/pnas.27.4.222

20. Xu B, Zhang WN: Construction of continuous solution and stability polynomial-like iterative equation. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 325: 1160-1170. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.02.065

21. Xu B, Zhang WN: Hyers-Ulam stability for a nonlinear iterative equation. Colloq. Math. 2002, 93(1):1-9. 10.4064/cm93-1-1

22. Zhang WX, Xu B: Hyers-Ulam-Rassias stability for a multivalued iterative equation. Acta Math. Sci. 2008, 28(1):54-62.

23. Roberts AW, Varberg DE: Convex Functions. Academic Press, New York; 1973.

24. Zhang WN:Discussion on the differentiable solutions of the iterated equation ${âˆ‘}_{i=1}^{n}{\mathrm{Î»}}_{i}{f}^{i}\left(x\right)=F\left(x\right)$. Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl. 1990, 15(4):387-398. 10.1016/0362-546X(90)90147-9

25. Golubitsky M, Stewart IN, Schaeffer DG Applied Mathematical Sciences 69. In Singularities and Groups in Bifurcation Theory, vol. II. Springer, New York; 1988.

26. Kim GH: On the stability of generalized gamma functional equation. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2000, 23(8):513-520. 10.1155/S0161171200003598

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the PhD Start-up Fund of the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China (S2011040000464), the Project of Department of Education of Guangdong Province, China (2012KJCX0074), the Natural Science Funds of Zhanjiang Normal University (QL1002, LZL1101), and the Doctoral Project of Zhanjiang Normal University (ZL1109). The authors would like to thank Dr. Shengfu Deng for his very helpful comments and suggestions.

## Author information

Authors

### Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaopei Li.

### Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

### Authorsâ€™ contributions

All the authors have contributed in all the parts, and they have read and approved the final manuscript.

## Authorsâ€™ original submitted files for images

Below are the links to the authorsâ€™ original submitted files for images.

## Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

Liang, Y., Li, X. & Mi, Y. The ${C}^{0}$ solutions of the Feigenbaum-like functional equation. Adv Differ Equ 2013, 231 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1847-2013-231