- Research
- Open Access
- Published:
Oscillation criteria for third-order functional half-linear dynamic equations
Advances in Difference Equations volume 2017, Article number: 111 (2017)
Abstract
In this paper, we study the third-order functional dynamic equation
on an upper-unbounded time scale \(\mathbb{T}\). We will extend the so-called Hille and Nehari type criteria to third-order dynamic equations on time scales. This work extends and improves some known results in the literature on third-order nonlinear dynamic equations and the results are established for a time scale \(\mathbb{T}\) without assuming certain restrictive conditions on \(\mathbb{T}\). Some examples are given to illustrate the main results.
1 Introduction
We are concerned with the oscillatory behavior of the third-order half-linear functional dynamic equation
on an upper-unbounded time scale \(\mathbb{T}\), where \(\phi_{\alpha }(u):= \vert u \vert ^{\alpha-1}u\), \(\alpha_{1}\), \(\alpha _{2}\), \(\alpha:=\alpha_{1}\alpha_{2}>0\); \(r_{i}\), \(i=1,2\), are positive rd-continuous functions on \(\mathbb{T}\) such that, for \(t_{0}\in \mathbb{T}\),
q is a positive rd-continuous function on \(\mathbb{T}\); and \(g:\mathbb{T\rightarrow T}\) is a rd-continuous function such that \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}g(t)=\infty\). Throughout this paper, we let
We will assume that the reader is familiar with the basic facts of time scales and time scale notation, for an excellent introduction to the calculus on time scales, see Bohner and Peterson [1, 2]. By a solution of equation (1.1) we mean a nontrivial real-valued function \(x\in C_{\mathrm{rd}}^{1}[T_{x},\infty )_{\mathbb{T}}\) for some \(T_{x}\geq t_{0}\) for a positive constant \(t_{0}\in \mathbb{T}\) such that \({x^{[1]}(t), x^{[2]}(t)\in C_{\mathrm{rd}}^{1}[T_{x},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}}\) and \(x(t)\) satisfies equation (1.1) on \([T_{x},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\), where \(C_{\mathrm{rd}}\) is the space of right-dense continuous functions.
In the following, we state some oscillation results for differential equations that will be related to our oscillation results for (1.1) on time scales and explain the important contributions of this paper. In 1918, Fite [3] studied the oscillatory behavior of solutions of the second-order linear differential equation
and showed that if
then every solution of equation (1.4) is oscillatory. Hille [4] improved the condition (1.5) and showed that if
then every solution of (1.4) is oscillatory. Nehari [5] proved that if
then every solution of (1.4) is oscillatory. Wong [6] generalized the Hille-type condition (1.6) for the delay equation
where \(g(t)\geq kt\) with \(0< k<1\), and proved that if
then every solution of (1.8) is oscillatory. Erbe [7] improved the condition (1.9) and proved that if
then every solution of (1.8) is oscillatory where \(g(t)\leq t\). Ohriska [8] proved that, if
then every solution of (1.8) is oscillatory.
Erbe, Peterson and Saker [9] established Hille and Nehari oscillation criteria for the third-order dynamic equation
where q is a positive real-valued rd-continuous function on \(\mathbb{T}\), we list the main results of [9] as follows.
Theorem 1.1
[9]
Every solution of equation (1.12) is either oscillatory or tends to zero eventually provided that
holds and one of the following conditions is satisfied:
-
(a)
$$ \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}t \int_{t}^{\infty}\frac {h_{2}(s,t_{0})}{\sigma(s)}q(s)\Delta s> \frac{1}{4}; $$(1.14)
-
(b)
$$ \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{t} \int _{t_{0}}^{t}h_{2}(s,t_{0})\sigma(s)q(s)\Delta s>\frac{l^{\ast}}{1+l^{\ast}}, $$
where \(l^{\ast}:=\limsup_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\sigma(t)}{t}\) and \(h_{2}(t,s)\) is the Taylor monomial of degree 2; see [1], Section 1.6.
Erbe, Hassan and Peterson [10] studied the third-order dynamic equation
where α is a quotient of odd positive integers, one of which we give below.
Theorem 1.2
[10]
Every solution of equation (1.15) is either oscillatory or tends to zero eventually provided that
and
hold, and one of the following conditions is satisfied:
-
(a)
$$ \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{t^{\alpha}}{r_{1}^{\alpha}(t)}\int_{\sigma(t)}^{\infty}q(s)\Delta s>\frac{\alpha^{\alpha }}{l^{\alpha ^{2}}(\alpha+1)^{\alpha+1}}; $$
-
(b)
$$ \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{t^{\alpha}}{r_{1}^{\alpha}(t)}\int_{\sigma(t)}^{\infty}q(s)\Delta s+\liminf _{t\rightarrow\infty }\frac{1}{t} \int_{t_{0}}^{t}\frac{s^{\alpha+1}}{r_{1}^{\alpha }(s)}q(s)\Delta s>\frac{1}{l^{\alpha(\alpha+1)}}, $$
where \(l:=\liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{t}{\sigma(t)}\).
Saker [11] considered dynamic equation (1.1) with \(\alpha_{1}=r_{1}=1\) and \(\alpha=\alpha_{2}\) is a quotient of odd positive integers when \(g(t)\leq t\), namely,
He established some Hille and Nehari type oscillation criteria for (1.17), one of which we give below.
Theorem 1.3
[11], Theorem 3.4 and Corollaries 3.3, 3.4
Every solution of equation (1.17) is either oscillatory or tends to zero eventually provided that
and
hold, and one of the following conditions is satisfied:
-
(a)
$$ \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{t^{\alpha}}{r_{2}(t)} \int _{\sigma (t)}^{\infty}A(s)\Delta s>\frac{\alpha^{\alpha}}{l^{\alpha ^{2}}(\alpha +1)^{\alpha+1}}; $$
-
(b)
$$ \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{t^{\alpha}}{r_{2}(t)} \int _{\sigma (t)}^{\infty}A(s)\Delta s+\liminf _{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{t}\int_{t_{0}}^{t}\frac{s^{\alpha+1}}{r_{2}(s)}A(s)\Delta s> \frac{1}{l^{\alpha(\alpha+1)}}; $$
-
(c)
$$ \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{t} \int_{t_{0}}^{t}\frac {s^{\alpha+1}}{r_{2}(s)}A(s)\Delta s> \frac{1}{l^{\alpha(\alpha+1)}}; $$
-
(d)
$$ \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{t^{\alpha}}{r_{2}(t)} \int _{\sigma (t)}^{\infty}A(s)\Delta s>\frac{1}{l^{\alpha(\alpha+1)}}, $$
where \(A(s):=q(s) ( \frac{h_{2}(g(s),t_{0})}{\sigma(s)} ) ^{\alpha}\) and \(l:=\liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{t}{\sigma(t)}\).
Theorem 1.4
[11], Corollary 3.5
Assume that (1.19) holds with \(r_{2}(t)=1\) and \(\alpha=\alpha_{2}=1\). Assume
Every solution of the equation
is either oscillatory or tends to zero eventually.
As a special case when \(g(t)=t\), (1.20) reduces to
Comparing (1.14) with (1.21) reveals that the results in [9] improve that of [11] for equation (1.12).
Wang and Xu in [12] considered the third-order dynamic equation
where \(\alpha\geq1\) is a quotient of odd positive integers and with the condition
where
Note that (1.22) depends on a concrete time scale. Very recently, Agarwal, Bohner, Li, and Zhang [13] extended the Hille and Nehari oscillation criteria to the third-order delay dynamic equation
where \(g(t)\leq t\) on \([t_{0},\infty)_{{\mathbb{T}}}\). The results in [13] included the results which were established in [9] and without condition (1.22). For more results on dynamic equations, we refer the reader to [12, 14–30].
The purpose of this paper is to derive some Hille and Nehari oscillation criteria to the more general third-order dynamic equation (1.1) with Laplacians and deviating argument on a general time scale and without assuming the conditions (1.16), (1.18) and (1.22). The results in this paper improve the results in [9–13] for third-order dynamic equations and for both cases \(g(t)\leq t\) or \(g(t)\geq t\).
This paper is organized as follows: After this Introduction, we present our main results in Section 2, followed by demonstrating examples. All the proofs of the main results are given in Sections 3 and 4.
2 Main results
In this section we present the following oscillation criteria of (1.1). The first result is a Fite-Wintner type oscillation criterion.
Theorem 2.1
Assume that (1.2) and
Then every solution of equation (1.1) is either oscillatory or tends to zero eventually.
From Theorem 2.1, we can assume in the next theorems that \(\int_{t_{0}}^{\infty}q(s)\Delta s<\infty\).
In the following, we introduce the following notations:
and
with
Note that \(1\leq L\leq\infty\). Throughout this paper we assume that \(L<\infty\).
Theorem 2.2
Assume that (1.2) and
If
then every solution of equation (1.1) is either oscillatory or tends to zero eventually.
Example 2.1
Consider the nonlinear third-order advanced dynamic equation
where β is a positive constant. Here \(r_{i}(t)=t^{\alpha _{i}-1}1\), \(i=1,2\) and \(q(t)=\frac{1}{t^{1-\beta}}\), then the conditions (1.2) and (2.3) hold since
and
by Example 5.60 in [1]. Then by Theorem 2.2, every solution of (2.4) is oscillatory or tends to zero eventually.
From Theorem 2.2, we can assume in the next theorems that \(\int_{t_{0}}^{\infty}\varphi(s)q(s)\Delta s<\infty\).
Theorem 2.3
Assume that (1.2) and (2.2) hold. If
then every solution of equation (1.1) is either oscillatory or tends to zero eventually.
Example 2.2
Consider the nonlinear third-order advanced dynamic equation
where η is a positive constant and \(l=\liminf_{t\rightarrow \infty } ( \frac{t}{\sigma ( t ) } ) ^{\alpha}>0\). Here \(r_{1}(t)=1\), \(r_{2}(t)=t^{\alpha_{2}}\) and \(q(t)=\frac{\eta\alpha}{ lt^{\alpha+1}}\), then the condition (1.2) and (2.2) hold since
by Example 5.60 in [1] and
Also
if \(\eta>\frac{ ( \alpha L ) ^{\alpha}}{(\alpha +1)^{\alpha+1}}\). Then, by Theorem 2.3, every solution of (2.6) is oscillatory or tends to zero eventually if \(\eta>\frac{ ( \alpha L ) ^{\alpha}}{(\alpha+1)^{\alpha+1}}\).
Theorem 2.4
Assume that (1.2) and (2.2) hold. If for sufficiently large \(T\in{[t}_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\),
then every solution of equation (1.1) is either oscillatory or tends to zero eventually.
Remark 2.1
If the assumption (2.2) is not satisfied, we have some sufficient conditions which ensure that every solution \(x(t)\) of (1.1) oscillates or \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty }x(t)\) exists (finite).
Example 2.3
Consider the nonlinear third-order delay dynamic equation
where η is a positive constant. Choose \(r_{i}\) and \(\alpha_{i}\), \(i=1,2\), satisfying (1.2). To see that (2.7) holds note that
By Theorem 2.4 and Remark 2.1, every solution \(x(t)\) of (2.8) is oscillatory or \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}x(t)\) exists if \(\eta>L^{\alpha+1} ( 1-\frac{1}{ ( \alpha+1 ) L} ) \geq\frac{\alpha}{\alpha+1}\).
Remark 2.2
The important point to note here is that the recent results due to [9–13] and others do not apply to equations (2.4), (2.6) and (2.8).
Theorem 2.5
Assume that \(0<\alpha\leq1\) and (1.2), and (2.2) hold. If for sufficiently large \(T\in{[t}_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\),
then every solution of equation (1.1) is either oscillatory or tends to zero eventually.
Theorem 2.6
Assume that \(\alpha\geq1\) and (1.2), and (2.2) hold. If for sufficiently large \(T\in{[t}_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\),
then every solution of equation (1.1) is either oscillatory or tends to zero eventually.
The next result is an Ohriskais type oscillation criterion.
Theorem 2.7
Assume that (1.2) and (2.2) hold. If
then every solution of equation (1.1) is either oscillatory or tends to zero eventually.
In the following we state further oscillation criteria for equation (1.1).
Theorem 2.8
Every solution of equation (1.1) is either oscillatory or tends to zero eventually provided that (1.2) and (2.2) hold and one of the following conditions is satisfied:
-
(a)
$$ \int_{t_{0}}^{\infty}\bar{\varphi}(s)q(s)\Delta s=\infty; $$
-
(b)
$$ \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}R_{1}^{\alpha} ( t ) \int _{\sigma (t)}^{\infty}\bar{\varphi}(s)q(s)\Delta s> \frac{ ( \alpha L ) ^{\alpha}}{(\alpha+1)^{\alpha+1}}; $$
-
(c)
$$ \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{R_{1}(t)} \int _{T}^{t}R_{1}^{\alpha +1} ( s ) \bar{\varphi}(s)q(s)\Delta s>L^{\alpha+1} \biggl( 1-\frac{1}{ ( \alpha+1 ) L} \biggr) ; $$
-
(d)
$$\begin{aligned}& \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{R_{1}(t)} \int _{T}^{t}R_{1}^{\alpha +1} ( s ) \bar{\varphi}(s)q(s)\Delta s>L^{\alpha+1} \biggl( 1-\frac{1}{\alpha+L} \biggr) \quad \textit{if } 0< \alpha\leq1, \\& \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{R_{1}(t)} \int _{T}^{t}R_{1}^{\alpha +1} ( s ) \bar{\varphi}(s)q(s)\Delta s>\frac{\alpha L^{\alpha+2}}{1+\alpha L} \quad \textit{if } \alpha\geq1, \end{aligned}$$
for sufficiently large \(T\in{[t}_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\), where
$$ \bar{\varphi}(t):= \left\{ \textstyle\begin{array} {l@{\quad}l} 1, & g(t)\geq \sigma(t), \\ {[ \frac{R(g(t))}{R ( \sigma(t) ) } ]} ^{\alpha}, & g(t)\leq \sigma(t).\end{array}\displaystyle \right . $$
Theorem 2.9
Every solution of equation (1.1) is either oscillatory or tends to zero eventually provided hat (1.2) and (2.2) hold and one of the following conditions is satisfied:
-
(a)
$$ \int_{t_{0}}^{\infty}\hat{\varphi}(s)q(s)\Delta s=\infty; $$
-
(b)
$$ \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}R_{2}^{\alpha_{2}} ( t ) \int_{\sigma(t)}^{\infty}\hat{\varphi}(s)q(s)\Delta s> \frac{ ( \alpha _{2}\hat{L} ) ^{\alpha_{2}}}{(\alpha_{2}+1)^{\alpha_{2}+1}}; $$
-
(c)
$$ \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{R_{2}(t)} \int _{T}^{t}R_{2}^{\alpha _{2}+1} ( s ) \hat{\varphi}(s)q(s)\Delta s>\hat {L}^{\alpha _{2}+1} \biggl( 1-\frac{1}{ ( \alpha_{2}+1 ) \hat {L}} \biggr) ; $$
-
(d)
$$\begin{aligned}& \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{R_{2}(t)} \int _{T}^{t}R_{2}^{\alpha _{2}+1} ( s ) \hat{\varphi}(s)q(s)\Delta s>\hat {L}^{\alpha _{2}+1} \biggl( 1-\frac{1}{\alpha_{2}+\hat{L}} \biggr) \quad\textit{if } 0< \alpha _{2}\leq1, \\& \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{R_{2}(t)} \int _{T}^{t}R_{2}^{\alpha _{2}+1} ( s ) \hat{\varphi}(s)q(s)\Delta s>\frac{\alpha _{2}\hat{L}^{\alpha_{2}+2}}{1+\alpha_{2}\hat{L}} \quad\textit{if } \alpha_{2} \geq1, \end{aligned}$$
for sufficiently large \(T\in{[t}_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\), where
$$ \hat{\varphi}(t):=\left\{ \textstyle\begin{array} {l@{\quad}l} R^{\alpha}(t), & g(t)\geq t, \\ R^{\alpha}(g(t)), & g(t)\leq t.\end{array}\displaystyle \right . $$and assume that \(\hat{L}:=\limsup_{t\rightarrow\infty} [ \frac {R_{2} ( \sigma(t) ) }{R_{2}(t)} ] ^{\alpha _{2}}<\infty\).
3 Technical lemmas
In this section we prove the following lemmas which will play an important role in the proof of our main results.
Lemma 3.1
Let (1.2) holds. If \(x(t)\) is an eventually positive solution of equation (1.1), then we only have the following two cases:
-
(I)
\(x^{ [ 1 ] }(t)>0\), \(x^{ [ 2 ] }(t)>0\), \(( x^{ [ 2 ] }(t) ) ^{\Delta}<0\);
-
(II)
\(x^{ [ 1 ] }(t)<0\), \(x^{ [ 2 ] }(t)>0\), \(( x^{ [ 2 ] }(t) ) ^{\Delta}<0\),
eventually.
Lemma 3.2
Let \(x(t)\) be an eventually positive solution of (1.1) satisfying (II) of Lemma 3.1. If (2.2) holds, then \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}x(t)=0\).
Lemma 3.3
Let \(x(t)\) be an eventually positive solution of (1.1) satisfying (I) of Lemma 3.1. Then
Proof
Without loss of generality, assume that
Integrating both sides of the dynamic equation (1.1) from \(t_{0}\) to \(t\in{[t}_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\), we obtain
Since \(x^{\Delta}(t)>0\), then \(x(t)\geq x(t_{0}):=c>0\) for \(t\geq t_{0}\) and so there exists \(t_{1}\in{[t}_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\) such that \(g(t)\in{[t}_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\) and \(x(g(t))\geq c\) for \(t\geq t_{1}\). It follows that
which implies (3.1). □
Lemma 3.4
Let \(x(t)\) be an eventually positive solution of (1.1) satisfying (I) of Lemma 3.1. Then
and
Proof
Without loss of generality, assume that
By using the fact that \(x^{[2]}\) is strictly decreasing on \([t_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\). Then, for \(t\in[ t_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\),
which implies that
where \(\alpha=\alpha_{1}\alpha_{2}\). In the same way, we have
From (3.2), we note that
we have
Then
which yields
This completes the proof. □
Lemma 3.5
Let \(x(t)\) be an eventually positive solution of (1.1) satisfying (I) of Lemma 3.1. Then
Proof
Without loss of generality, assume
Let \(t\in[ t_{0},\infty)_{{\mathbb{T}}}\) be fixed. If \(g(t)\geq t\), then \(x(g(t))\geq x(t)\) by the fact that x is strictly increasing. Now we consider the case when \(g(t)\leq t\). In view of Lemma 3.4 there exists \(t_{1}\in[ t_{0},\infty)_{{\mathbb{T}}}\) such that \(g(t)>t_{0}\) and
In both cases, from the definition of \(\varphi(t)\), equation (1.1) becomes
Integrating both sides of the above inequality from \(t_{1}\) to \(t\in {[t}_{1},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\), we obtain
Since \(x^{\Delta}(t)>0\), then \(x(t)\geq x(t_{1}):=c>0\) for \(t\geq t_{1}\), then
which implies (3.3). This completes the proof. □
Lemma 3.6
Let \(x(t)\) be an eventually positive solution of (1.1) satisfying (I) of Lemma 3.1. Then, for \(t\geq T\),
and
for sufficiently large \(T\in{[t}_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\), where
Proof
Without loss of generality, assume that
Using the product rule and the quotient rule, we get
From (1.1) and the definition of \(w(t)\) we have
As shown in the proof of Lemma 3.5, there exists \(t_{1}\in [ t_{0},\infty)_{{\mathbb{T}}}\) such that \(g(t)>t_{0}\) and
Therefore
By the Pötzsche chain rule ([1], Theorem 1.90), we obtain
If \(0<\alpha\leq1\), then
and if \(\alpha\geq1\), then
Note that \(x(t)\) is strictly increasing on \([t_{1},\infty)_{{\mathbb{T}}}\) we see that, for \(\alpha>0\),
Since \(x^{[2]}(t)\) is strictly decreasing on \([t_{1},\infty)\) we obtain
which implies
By (1.2), we can choose \(t_{2}\geq t_{1}\) such that \(R_{2}(t)-R_{2}(t_{1})\geq1\) for \(t\geq t_{2}\), then, from (3.8) and (3.9), we have
Also by the quotient rule, we get
From (1.1) and the definition of \(w(t)\) we have
Analogously as in the proof of Lemma 3.5, there exists \(t_{1}\in [ t_{0},\infty)_{{\mathbb{T}}}\) such that \(g(t)>t_{0}\) and
Therefore
The rest of the argument is similar to that of previous results as φ is replaced by φ̄, and hence it is omitted. □
We introduce the following notations:
where w is defined by (3.5). So for \(\varepsilon>0\), then by the definitions of \(r_{\ast}\), \(R_{\ast } \) and L we can pick \(T\in[ t_{0},\infty){_{\mathbb{T}}}\), sufficiently large, so that
Lemma 3.7
Let \(x(t)\) be an eventually positive solution of (1.1) satisfying (I) of Lemma 3.1. Then
Proof
Integrating (3.4) from \(\sigma(t)\geq T\) to \(v\in[ t,\infty)_{{\mathbb{T}}}\) and using the fact that \(w>0\), we have
Taking \(v\rightarrow\infty\) we get
Multiplying both sides of (3.11) by \(R_{1}^{\alpha} ( t ) \), we obtain
Therefore, by using (3.10), we have
Using the Pötzsche chain rule ([1], Theorem 1.90), we get
Then from (3.12) and (3.13), we have
which yields
Taking the lim inf of both sides as \(t\rightarrow\infty\) we get
Since \(\varepsilon>0\) is arbitrary, we get the desired inequality:
This completes the proof. □
Lemma 3.8
Let \(x(t)\) be an eventually positive solution of (1.1) satisfying (I) of Lemma 3.1. Then
for sufficiently large \(T\in[ t_{0},\infty){_{\mathbb{T}}.}\)
Proof
Multiplying both sides of (3.4) by \(R_{1}^{\alpha+1} ( t ) \) and integrating from T to \(t\in [ T,\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\), we get
Using integration by parts, we obtain
By the Pötzsche chain rule, we get
Hence
By (3.10), we then get
Using the inequality
with \(A=\alpha\), \(B= ( \alpha+1 ) ( L+\varepsilon ) \) and \(u=R_{1}^{\alpha} ( s ) w ( \sigma(s) ) \), we get
Dividing both sides by \(R_{1}(t)\), we obtain
Since \(w^{\sigma}(t)\leq w(t)\), we get
Taking the lim sup of both sides as \(t\rightarrow\infty\) we obtain
Since \(\varepsilon>0\) is arbitrary, we get
This completes the proof. □
Lemma 3.9
Let \(x(t)\) be an eventually positive solution of (1.1) satisfying (I) of Lemma 3.1. Then
for sufficiently large \(T\in[ t_{0},\infty){_{\mathbb{T}}.}\)
Proof
Multiplying both sides (3.4) by \(R_{1}^{\alpha+1} ( t ) \), we get
Integrating the above inequality (3.16) from T to \(t\in[ T,\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\), we obtain
By integrating by parts, we obtain
As seen in the proof of Lemma 3.8, we have
Therefore
Dividing both sides by \(R_{1}\), we have
Taking the lim sup of both sides as \(t\rightarrow\infty\) and using (1.2), we get
Since \(\varepsilon>0\) is arbitrary, we have the desired inequality:
This completes the proof. □
Lemma 3.10
Let \(0<\alpha\leq1\) and \(x(t)\) be an eventually positive solution of (1.1) satisfying (I) of Lemma 3.1. Then
for sufficiently large \(T\in[ t_{0},\infty){_{\mathbb{T}}.}\)
Proof
As shown in the proof of Lemma 3.9 we have
Assume
By the Pötzsche chain rule we obtain
Then
and so
Dividing both sides by \(R_{1}\), we have
Taking the lim sup of both sides as \(t\rightarrow\infty\) and using (1.2), we get
Since \(\varepsilon>0\) is arbitrary, we have the desired inequality:
This completes the proof. □
Lemma 3.11
Let \(\alpha\geq1\) and \(x(t)\) be an eventually positive solution of (1.1) satisfying (I) of Lemma 3.1. Then
Proof
As seen in the proof of Lemma 3.9, we obtain
Assume
By the Pötzsche chain rule, we obtain
Then
and so
Dividing both sides by \(R_{1}\), we have
Taking the lim sup of both sides as \(t\rightarrow\infty\) and using (1.2), we get
Since \(\varepsilon>0\) is arbitrary, we have the desired inequality:
This completes the proof. □
Remark 3.1
The conclusion of Lemmas 3.5-3.11 remains intact if φ (1.1) is replaced by φ̄.
4 Proofs of the main results
In this section we prove the main results.
Proof of Theorem 2.1
Assume equation (1.1) has a nonoscillatory solution x on \([t_{0},\infty)_{{\mathbb{T}}}\). Then, without loss of generality, assume \(x(t)>0 \) and \(x(g(t))>0\) on \({[t}_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\). Then if case (I) of Lemma 3.1 holds, so by Lemma 3.3, we see
which contradicts (2.1). Now if case (II) of Lemma 3.1 holds, then by Lemma 3.2, we get \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}x(t)=0\). The proof is complete. □
Proof of Theorem 2.2
Assume equation (1.1) has a nonoscillatory solution x on \([t_{0},\infty)_{{\mathbb{T}}}\). Then, without loss of generality, assume \(x(t)>0 \) and \(x(g(t))>0\) on \({[t}_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\). Then if case (I) of Lemma 3.1 holds, so by Lemma 3.5, we see
which contradicts (2.3). Now if case (II) of Lemma 3.1 holds, then by Lemma 3.2, we get \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}x(t)=0\). The proof is complete. □
Proof of Theorem 2.3
Assume equation (1.1) has a nonoscillatory solution x on \([t_{0},\infty)_{{\mathbb{T}}}\). Then, without loss of generality, assume \(x(t)>0 \) and \(x(g(t))>0\) on \({[t}_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\). Then if case (I) of Lemma 3.1 holds, then by Lemma 3.7, we see
Using the inequality (3.14) with \(A=\frac{1}{L}\), \(B=1\) and \(u=r_{\ast}\), we get the desired inequality:
which contradicts (2.5). Now if case (II) of Lemma 3.1 holds, then by Lemma 3.2, we get \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}x(t)=0\). The proof is complete. □
Proof of Theorem 2.4
Assume equation (1.1) has a nonoscillatory solution x on \([t_{0},\infty)_{{\mathbb{T}}}\). Then, without loss of generality, assume \(x(t)>0 \) and \(x(g(t))>0\) on \({[t}_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\). Then if case (I) of Lemma 3.1 holds, then by Lemmas 3.8 and 3.9, we have
and
Therefore
which contradicts the condition (2.7). If case (II) of Lemma 3.1 holds, then by Lemma 3.2, we get \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}x(t)=0\). The proof is complete. □
Proof of Theorem 2.5
Assume equation (1.1) has a nonoscillatory solution x on \([t_{0},\infty)_{{\mathbb{T}}}\). Then, without loss of generality, assume \(x(t)>0 \) and \(x(g(t))>0\) on \({[t}_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\). Then if case (I) of Lemma 3.1 holds, then by Lemmas 3.8 and 3.10, we have
and
Therefore
which contradicts the condition (2.9). If case (II) of Lemma 3.1 holds, then by Lemma 3.2, we get \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}x(t)=0\). The proof is complete. □
Proof of Theorem 2.6
Assume equation (1.1) has a nonoscillatory solution x on \([t_{0},\infty)_{{\mathbb{T}}}\). Then, without loss of generality, assume \(x(t)>0 \) and \(x(g(t))>0\) on \({[t}_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\). Then if case (I) of Lemma 3.1 holds, then by Lemmas 3.8 and 3.11, we have
and
Thus
which contradicts the condition (2.10). If case (II) of Lemma 3.1 holds, then by Lemma 3.2, we get \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}x(t)=0\). The proof is complete. □
Proof of Theorem 2.7
Assume equation (1.1) has a nonoscillatory solution x on \([t_{0},\infty)_{{\mathbb{T}}}\). Then, without loss of generality, assume \(x(t)>0 \) and \(x(g(t))>0\) on \({[t}_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\). Then if case (I) of Lemma 3.1 holds, then
Integrating both sides of the dynamic equation (1.1) from t to \(v\in{[t}_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\), we obtain
As shown in the proof of Lemmas 3.4 and 3.5, we have, for \(t\geq t_{1}\),
and
for some \(t_{1}\in(t_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\) such that \(g(t)\in (t_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\) for \(t\geq t_{1}\). From (4.1) and (4.3), we obtain
Since \(x^{\Delta}(t)>0\), we get
Taking \(v\rightarrow\infty\), we have
which gives us the contradiction
Now if case (II) of Lemma 3.1 holds, then by Lemma 3.2, we get \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}x(t)=0\). The proof is complete. □
Proof of Theorem 2.8
The proof is similar to that of previous results where φ is replaced by φ̄; see Lemma 3.6 and Remark 3.1. □
Proof of Theorem 2.9
Assume equation (1.1) has a nonoscillatory solution x on \([t_{0},\infty)_{{\mathbb{T}}}\). Then, without loss of generality, assume \(x(t)>0 \) and \(x(g(t))>0\) on \({[t}_{0},\infty)_{\mathbb{T}}\). Then if case (I) of Lemma 3.1 holds, then
Define
By the product rule and the quotient rule, we get
From (1.1) and the definition of \(z(t)\), we see that, for \(t\geq t_{0}\),
Hence
As shown in the proof of Lemma 3.4 we get
and as in the proof of Lemma 3.5, there exists \(t_{1}\in [ t_{0},\infty)_{{\mathbb{T}}}\) such that \(g(t)>t_{0}\) and
Then
It follows that, for \(t\geq t_{1}\),
By the Pötzsche chain rule,
If \(0<\alpha_{2}\leq1\), we have
and if \(\alpha_{2}\geq1\), we have
Since \(x^{[1]}\) is strictly increasing and \(x^{[2]}\) is strictly decreasing, we get
Then from (4.5) and (4.6) we obtain
The rest of the argument is similar to that of previous results with \(R_{1}\) is replaced by \(R_{2}\) and hence is omitted. □
References
Bohner, M, Peterson, A: Dynamic Equations on Time Scales: An Introduction with Applications. Birkhäuser, Boston (2001)
Hilger, S: Analysis on measure chains - a unified approach to continuous and discrete calculus. Results Math. 18, 18-56 (1990)
Fite, WB: Concerning the zeros of the solutions of certain differential equations. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 19, 341-352 (1918)
Hille, E: Non-oscillation theorems. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 64, 234-252 (1948)
Nehari, Z: Oscillation criteria for second-order linear differential equations. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 85, 428-445 (1957)
Wong, JSW: Second order oscillation with retarded arguments. In: Ordinary Differential Equations, pp. 581-596. Academic Press, New York (1972)
Erbe, L: Oscillation criteria for second order nonlinear delay equations. Can. Math. Bull. 16, 49-56 (1973)
Ohriska, J: Oscillation of second order delay and ordinary differential equations. Czechoslov. Math. J. 34, 107-112 (1984)
Erbe, L, Peterson, A, Saker, SH: Hille and Nehari type criteria for third-order dynamic equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 329, 112-131 (2007)
Erbe, L, Hassan, TS, Peterson, A: Oscillation of third-order nonlinear functional dynamic equations on time scales. Differ. Equ. Dyn. Syst. 18, 199-227 (2010)
Saker, SH: Oscillation of third-order functional dynamic equations on time scales. Sci. China Math. 54(12), 2597-2614 (2011)
Wang, Y, Xu, Z: Asymptotic properties of solutions of certain third-order dynamic equations. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 236, 2354-2366 (2012)
Agarwal, RP, Bohner, M, Li, T, Zhang, C: Hille and Nehari type criteria for third-order delay dynamic equations. J. Differ. Equ. Appl. 19, 1563-1579 (2013)
Anderson, DR: Oscillation and nonoscillation criteria for two-dimensional time scale systems of first order nonlinear dynamic equations. Electron. J. Differ. Equ. 2009, Article ID 24 (2009)
Erbe, L, Hassan, TS, Peterson, A: Oscillation criteria for nonlinear damped dynamic equations on time scales. Appl. Math. Comput. 203, 343-357 (2008)
Erbe, L, Hassan, TS, Peterson, A: Oscillation criteria for nonlinear functional neutral dynamic equations on time scales. J. Differ. Equ. Appl. 15, 1097-1116 (2009)
Erbe, L, Hassan, TS, Peterson, A: Oscillation of second order functional dynamic equations. Int. J. Differ. Equ. Appl. 5(2), 175-193 (2010)
Hassan, TS: Oscillation criteria for half-linear dynamic equations on time scales. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 345, 176-185 (2008)
Erbe, L, Hassan, TS, Peterson, A, Saker, SH: Oscillation criteria for sublinear half-linear delay dynamic equations on time scales. Int. J. Difference Equ. 3, 227-245 (2008)
Erbe, L, Hassan, TS, Peterson, A, Saker, SH: Oscillation criteria for half-linear delay dynamic equations on time scales. Nonlinear Dyn. Syst. Theory 9(1), 51-68 (2009)
Hassan, TS: Oscillation of third-order nonlinear delay dynamic equations on time scales. Math. Comput. Model. 49, 1573-1586 (2009)
Han, Z, Li, T, Sun, S, Zhang, M: Oscillation behavior of solutions of third-order nonlinear delay dynamic equations on time scales. Commun. Korean Math. Soc. 26, 499-513 (2011)
Li, T, Han, Z, Sun, S, Zhao, Y: Oscillation results for third-order nonlinear delay dynamic equations on time scales. Bull. Malays. Math. Soc. 34, 639-648 (2011)
Li, T, Han, Z, Sun, Y, Zhao, Y: Asymptotic behavior of solutions for third-order half-linear delay dynamic equations on time scales. J. Appl. Math. Comput. 36, 333-346 (2011)
Hovhannisy, G: On oscillations of solutions of third-order dynamic equation. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012, Article ID 715981 (2012)
Senel, MT: Behavior of solutions of a third-order dynamic equation on time scales. J. Inequal. Appl. 2013, Article ID 47 (2013)
Sun, Y, Han, Z, Sun, Y, Pan, Y: Oscillation theorems for certain third-order nonlinear delay dynamic equations on time scales. Electron. J. Qual. Theory Differ. Equ. 2011, Article ID 75 (2011)
Yu, Z, Wang, Q: Asymptotic behavior of solutions of third-order dynamic equations on time scales. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 255, 531-540 (2009)
Bohner, M, Grace, SR, Sağer, I, Tunç, E: Oscillation of third-order nonlinear damped delay differential equations. Appl. Math. Comput. 278, 21-32 (2016)
Grace, SR, Graef, JR, Tunç, E: Oscillatory behavior of a third-order neutral dynamic equation with distributed delays. Electron. J. Qual. Theory Differ. Equ. 2016, Article ID 14 (2016). Proceedings of the 10th Colloquium on the Qualitative Theory of Differential Equations (July 1-4, 2015, Szeged, Hungary)
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the referees for their careful reading of the entire manuscript, which helped to significantly improve the quality of this paper. This work was supported by Research Deanship of Hail University under grant No. 0150258.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Hassan, T.S., Agarwal, R.P. & Mohammed, W.W. Oscillation criteria for third-order functional half-linear dynamic equations. Adv Differ Equ 2017, 111 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13662-017-1164-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13662-017-1164-8
MSC
- 34K11
- 39A10
- 39A99
- 34N05
Keywords
- oscillation criteria
- third order
- dynamic equations
- time scales