- Research
- Open access
- Published:
Existence of solutions for functional boundary value problems of second-order nonlinear differential equations system at resonance
Advances in Difference Equations volume 2017, Article number: 269 (2017)
Abstract
In this paper, by using the coincidence degree theory due to Mawhin and constructing suitable operators, we study the solvability for functional boundary value problems of second-order nonlinear differential equations system at resonance with \(\dim\operatorname{Ker} L=3\) and 4, respectively.
1 Introduction
The existence of solutions for integer order differential equations with specific boundary conditions and resonance scenarios have been studied by many authors (see [1–14] and the references therein). Recently, attention has shifted to problems with linear functional conditions. The differential operator \(L:C^{1}[0,1]\rightarrow L^{1}[0,1]\), \(Lx=x''\) known to us is done in [15] for a resonant problem, where the authors studied the existence of solutions to the problem of second-order nonlinear differential equation
which generalizes recent work on multi-point and integral boundary value problems. Although it excellently generalizes and extends many results for nonlocal second-order problems at resonance, it does not contain a complete analysis for this problem. For example, in [16], to see this, set \(B_{1}(t)=\alpha b, B_{1}(1)=\alpha a, B_{2}(t)=b, B_{2}(1)=a\), where \(a,b,\alpha\in R\) and \(a,b\neq0\), then \(B_{1}(t)B_{2}(1)=B_{1}(1)B_{2}(t)\) with \(\operatorname{Ker} L=\{c(at-b):c\in R\}\), \(\operatorname{dim}\operatorname{Ker} L=1\). This case cannot be derived from the results of [15] pertaining to the cases of resonance. And in [15], the authors also make the unnecessary artificial assumptions \(\Gamma _{1}(t^{2})\neq0,\Gamma_{1}(t^{3})\neq0 \), notably, for these assumptions, some interesting results have been obtained in [17] for a resonant problem that allow us to bypass above minor technical difficulty (see Lemma 1.1 below). Thus, we improve the results of [1–13] and [14] in that respect as well. In addition, it clearly can also be used for higher order problems with functional conditions see [18, 19]. Inspired by the above literature, we will study the existence of solutions to functional boundary value problems of differential equations system. To the best of our knowledge, this subject has not been studied. In the present paper, we investigate the following equations:
where \(\Gamma_{i}:C^{1}[0,1]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\), \(i=1,2,3,4\), are continuous linear functionals. we will always suppose that the following condition holds:
- \((H)\) :
-
Let \(f,g:[0,1]\times\mathbb{R}^{4}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\) satisfy Carathéodory conditions, i.e., \(f(\cdot,u)\) and \(g(\cdot ,u)\) are measurable for each fixed \(u\in\mathbb{R}^{4}\), \(f(t,\cdot)\) and \(g(t,\cdot)\) are continuous for a.e. \(t\in[0,1]\) and \(\sup\{ \vert f(t,x) \vert : x\in D_{0}\}, \sup\{ \vert g(t,x) \vert : x\in D_{0}\} \in L^{1}([0, 1])\) for any compact set \(D_{0} \in\mathbb{R}^{4}\).
Lemma 1.1
[17]
There must exist \(h_{1}\in L^{1}[0,1]\) such that \((\Gamma_{1}-\alpha_{1}\Gamma_{2})(\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)h_{1}(s)\,ds)=1\).
Definition 1.1
We say \((x,y)\in C^{1}[0,1]\times C^{1}[0,1]\) is a solution of functional boundary value problems (FBVPs) (1.1) which means that \((x,y)\) satisfies (1.1).
2 Preliminaries
We present some necessary definitions and lemmas. Consider the following conditions:
- \((A_{1})\) :
-
\(\frac{\Gamma_{1}(t)}{\Gamma_{2}(t)}=\frac{\Gamma _{1}(1)}{\Gamma_{2}(1)}\), \(\Gamma_{3}(1)=0\), \(\Gamma_{3}(t)=0\), \(\Gamma _{4}(1)=0\), \(\Gamma_{4}(t)=0\),
- \((A_{2})\) :
-
\(\frac{\Gamma_{3}(t)}{\Gamma_{4}(t)}=\frac{\Gamma _{3}(1)}{\Gamma_{4}(1)}\), \(\Gamma_{1}(1)=0\), \(\Gamma_{1}(t)=0\), \(\Gamma _{2}(1)=0\), \(\Gamma_{2}(t)=0\),
- \((A_{3})\) :
-
\(\Gamma_{1}(1)=\Gamma_{1}(t)=\Gamma_{2}(1)=\Gamma _{2}(t)=0\), \(\Gamma_{3}(1)=\Gamma_{3}(t)=\Gamma_{4}(1)=\Gamma_{4}(t)=0\).
We should prove the following. If \((A_{1})\) or \((A_{2})\) holds, then
If \((A_{3})\) holds, then \(\operatorname{Ker} L=\{(at+b,ct+d)| a,b,c,d\in\mathbb{R}\}\). In fact, if exchange the places of \(\Gamma_{1}\) and \(\Gamma_{3}\), \(\Gamma _{2}\) and \(\Gamma_{4}\) in the boundary value conditions, respectively, condition \((A_{1})\) just becomes \((A_{2})\). So we only need to focus on the FBVPs (1.1) under conditions \((A_{1})\), \((A_{3})\).
As usual, we shall use the classical spaces \(C^{1}[0,1]\) and \(L^{1}[0,1]\). For \((x,y)\in C^{1}[0,1]\times C^{1}[0,1]\), we define the norm \(\Vert (x,y) \Vert =\max\{ \Vert x \Vert , \Vert y \Vert \}\), where \(\Vert x \Vert =\max\{ \Vert x \Vert _{\infty}, \Vert x' \Vert _{\infty}\} \), \(\Vert x \Vert _{\infty}=\max_{t\in[0,1]}|x(t)|\). We denote the norm in \(L^{1}[0,1]\) by \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{1}\). Similarly, for \((u,v)\in L^{1}[0,1]\times L^{1}[0,1]\), we denote the norm \(\Vert (u,v) \Vert _{1}\) and define the norm \(\Vert (u,v) \Vert _{1}=\max\{ \Vert u \Vert _{1}, \Vert v \Vert _{1}\}\), where \(\Vert u \Vert _{1}=\int _{0}^{1}|u(t)|\,dt,u\in L^{1}[0,1]\). We also use the Sobolev space \(W^{2,1}(0,1)\) defined by
Let \(Y=C^{1}[0,1]\times C^{1}[0,1]\) with norm \(\Vert (x,y) \Vert \), \(Z=L^{1}[0,1]\times L^{1}[0,1]\) with norm \(\Vert (x,y) \Vert _{1}\). Clearly, \(Y,Z\) are Banach spaces.
Let the linear operator \(L:\operatorname{dom} L\subset Y \rightarrow Z\) be defined by \(L(x,y)=(x'',y'')\), where
Let the nonlinear operator \(N:Y\rightarrow Z\) be defined by
Then FBVPs (1.1) can be written as \(L(x,y)=N(x,y)\).
Definition 2.1
Let Y, Z be real Banach spaces, \(L:\operatorname{dom} L\subset Y\rightarrow Z\) be a linear operator. YÂ is said to be the Fredholm operator of index zero provided that:
-
(i)
ImL is a closed subset of Z;
-
(ii)
\(\dim \operatorname{Ker} L=\operatorname{co}\dim \operatorname{Im} L<+\infty\).
Let Y, Z be real Banach spaces, \(L:\operatorname{dom} L \subset Y\rightarrow Z\) be a linear operator. L is said to be the Fredholm operator of index zero. \(P:Y\rightarrow Y\), \(Q:Z\rightarrow Z\) are continuous projectors such that \(\operatorname{Im}P=\operatorname{Ker}L\), \(\operatorname{Ker}Q=\operatorname{Im}L\), \(Y=\operatorname{Ker}L\oplus \operatorname{Ker}P\) and \(Z=\operatorname{Im}L\oplus \operatorname{Im}Q\). It follows that \(L|_{\operatorname{dom}L\cap \operatorname{Ker}P}:\operatorname{dom}L\cap \operatorname{Ker}P\rightarrow \operatorname{Im}L\) is reversible. We denote the inverse of the mapping by \(K_{P}\) (generalized inverse operator of L). If Ω is an open bounded subset of Y such that \(\operatorname{dom} L\cap\Omega\neq\emptyset\), the mapping \(N:Y\rightarrow Z\) will be called L-compact on Ω̅, if \(QN(\overline{\Omega})\) and \(K_{P}(I-Q)N:\overline{\Omega }\rightarrow Y\) are continuous and compact.
The following is the Kolmogorov-Riesz criterion (see, for example, [20])
Lemma 2.1
For \(1\leq p <\infty,E\subset L^{P}[0,1]\) is compact if
-
(a)
E is bounded;
-
(b)
the limit \(\lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow0}\int_{0}^{1}|g(s+\varepsilon)-g(s)|^{p}\,ds=0\) is uniform in E.
Lemma 2.2
[16]
Let \(L: \operatorname{dom} L\subset Y \rightarrow Z\) be a Fredholm operator of index zero and \(N:Y\rightarrow Z\) is L-compact on Ω̅. Assume that the following conditions are satisfied:
-
(i)
\(Lu \neq \lambda Nu\) for every \((u,\lambda)\in[(\operatorname{dom} L\setminus\operatorname{Ker} L) \cap\partial\Omega]\times(0,1)\);
-
(ii)
\(Nu \notin \operatorname{Im} L\) for every \(u\in\operatorname{Ker} L \cap\partial\Omega\);
-
(iii)
\(\operatorname{deg}(QN|_{\operatorname{Ker} L}, \Omega\cap\operatorname{Ker} L, 0)\neq0\), where \(Q: Z\rightarrow Z\) is a continuous projector such that \(\operatorname{Im} L= \operatorname{Ker} Q\).
Then the equation \(Lx=Nx\) has at least one solution in \(\operatorname{dom} L \cap\overline{\Omega}\).
Now, we give \(\operatorname{Ker} L, \operatorname{Im} L\) and some necessary operators under conditions \((A_{1})\) and \((A_{3})\), respectively.
Lemma 2.3
There exist \(m_{i},n_{i}\in\mathbb {N}^{+}, m_{i},n_{i}>1, m_{i}\neq n_{i},i=1,2\) such that \(\Gamma_{1}(t^{n_{1}})\Gamma _{2}(t^{m_{1}})-\Gamma_{1}(t^{m_{1}})\Gamma_{2}(t^{n_{1}})\neq0\), \(\Gamma _{3}(t^{n_{2}})\Gamma_{4}(t^{m_{2}})-\Gamma_{3}(t^{m_{2}})\Gamma_{4}(t^{n_{2}})\neq0\).
Proof
For convenience, assume, by way of contradiction, that \(\frac{\Gamma_{1}(t^{m_{1}})}{\Gamma_{2}(t^{m_{1}})}=\frac{\Gamma _{1}(t^{n_{1}})}{\Gamma_{2}(t^{n_{1}})}=k\) for all \(m_{1},n_{1}\in\mathbb{N}^{*}\), so we have
By \((A_{2})\), \((\Gamma_{1}-k\Gamma_{2} )(1)= (\Gamma_{1}-k\Gamma _{2} )(t)=0\). Thus, \(\Gamma_{1}(p(t))=k\Gamma_{2}(p(t))\) for every polynomial p.
Since \(\Gamma_{1}(x)-k\Gamma_{2}(x)\neq0\) on all of \(x\in C^{1}[0,1]\), there exists \(v_{0}\in C^{1}[0,1]\) such that \(\Gamma_{1}(v_{0})-k\Gamma_{2}(v_{0})\neq0\). Choose a sequence of polynomials \(\{p_{m}\}\) such that \(\Vert v_{0}-p_{m} \Vert <\frac {1}{m}\). Then \(0\neq| (\Gamma_{1}-k\Gamma_{2} )(v_{0})|=| (\Gamma _{1}-k\Gamma_{2} )(v_{0}-p_{m})+ (\Gamma_{1}-k\Gamma_{2} )(p_{m})|=| (\Gamma_{1}-k\Gamma_{2} )(v_{0}-p_{m})| \leq \Vert (\Gamma_{1}-k\Gamma_{2} ) \Vert \Vert v_{0}-p_{m} \Vert <(\beta_{1}+|\alpha |\beta_{2})\frac{1}{m}\) for all \(m\in\mathbb{N}\), which is a contradiction. Similarly, for \(\Gamma_{3}\) and \(\Gamma_{4}\), we omit the corresponding details as straightforward. □
For convenience, we denote
- \((B_{1})\) :
-
The linear functionals \(\Gamma_{1},\Gamma_{2}:Y\rightarrow\mathbb {R}\) satisfy \(\Gamma_{2}(t)=b,\Gamma_{2}(1)=a,\Gamma_{1}(t)=\alpha_{1}b,\Gamma _{1}(1)=\alpha_{1}a\), where \(a^{2}+b^{2}\neq0,\alpha_{1},a,b\in\mathbb{R}\).
- \((B_{2})\) :
-
The functionals \(\Gamma_{1},\Gamma_{2},\Gamma_{3},\Gamma _{4}:Y\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\) are linear continuous with respective norms \(\beta_{1},\beta_{2},\beta_{3},\beta_{4}\), that is, \(|\Gamma_{i}(x)|\leq\beta_{i} \Vert x \Vert , |\Gamma_{j}(y)|\leq\beta_{j} \Vert y \Vert ,i=1,2,j=3,4\).
Lemma 2.4
Assume \((A_{1})\) holds, then \(L:\operatorname{dom}L\subset Y\rightarrow Z\) is a Fredholm mapping of index zero, \(\dim\operatorname{Ker} L=\operatorname{co}\dim \operatorname{Im}L=3\).
Proof
If \((x,y)\in \operatorname{Ker}L\) and \(L(x,y)=(x'',y'')=(0,0)\), we have \((x(t),y(t))=(k_{1}t+k_{2},k_{3}t+k_{4})\).
Based on the condition \((A_{1})\), we have
where \(c_{1},c,d\in\mathbb{R}\). So,
Now, we verify
Let \((u,v)\in \operatorname{Im}L\), then there exists \((x,y)\in \operatorname{dom}L\) such that \(L(x,y)=(u,v)\), that is,
and \(\Gamma_{i}(x)=0,\Gamma_{j}(y)=0,i=1,2,j=3,4\). Hence,
Considering the resonance condition \((B_{1})\), we have
That is,
If
take
It is clear that \(L(x,y)=(x'',y'')=(u,v)\) and \(\Gamma_{i}(x)=0, \Gamma_{j}(y)=0,i=1,2,j=3,4\).
That is, \((u,v)\in \operatorname{Im}L\), i.e.
Combining the above we obtain (2.1).
Define \(Q:Z\rightarrow Z\) as follows: \(Q(u,v)=(Q_{1}u,(T_{1}v)t^{n_{2}-2}+(T_{2}v)t^{m_{2}-2})\), where
and \(h_{1}\) is introduced in Lemma 1.1, \(m_{2}\) and \(n_{2}\) are the same as in Lemma 2.3.
By Lemma 2.3, \((B_{1})\), and the property of \(h_{1}\) in Lemma 1.1, we have
We have, for each \((u,v)\in Z\),
So \(Q:Z\rightarrow Z\) is a continuous linear projector such that \(\operatorname{Im}L=\operatorname{Ker}Q\) and \(\operatorname{Im}Q=\{(c_{1}h_{1}(t),ct^{n_{2}-2}+dt^{m_{2}-2})|c_{1},c,d\in \mathbb{R}\}\). It is clear that \(Z=\operatorname{Im}L\oplus \operatorname{Im}Q\) and \(\dim \operatorname{Ker}L=\operatorname{co}\dim \operatorname{Im}L=3\), that is, L is a Fredholm mapping of index zero. □
Define an operator \(P:Y\rightarrow Y\) as follows:
It is easy to check that \(P^{2}(x,y)=P(x,y),(x,y)\in Y\), it is also elementary to confirm the identity \(\operatorname{Im} P=\operatorname{Ker}L\). So, \(Y=\operatorname{Ker}L\oplus \operatorname{Ker}P\).
The mapping \(K_{P}:\operatorname{Im}L\rightarrow \operatorname{dom}L\cap \operatorname{Ker}P\) defined by
is the inverse of L. In fact, \(LK_{P}(u,v)=(u,v)\) for all \((u,v)\in \operatorname{Im}L\). For \((x,y)\in \operatorname{dom}L\cap \operatorname{Ker}P\),
Thus, \(K_{P}=(L|_{\operatorname{dom}L\cap \operatorname{Ker}P})^{-1}\).
Lemma 2.5
If \((A_{3})\) holds, Then \(L:\operatorname{dom}L\subset Y\rightarrow Z\) is a Fredholm mapping of index zero, \(\dim\operatorname{Ker} L=\operatorname{co}\dim \operatorname{Im}L=4\).
Proof
Considering \((A_{3})\), for every \(a,b,c,d\in\mathbb{R}\), \(\Gamma_{i}(at+b)=a\Gamma_{i}(t)+b\Gamma_{i}(1)=0,\Gamma_{j}(ct+d)=c\Gamma _{j}(t)+d\Gamma_{j}(1)=0\), \(i=1,2,j=3,4\).
So it is easy to obtain
For each \((u,v)\in \operatorname{Im}L\), there exists \((x,y)\in \operatorname{dom}L\) such that \(L(x,y)=(x'',y'')=(u,v)\). Hence,
From the above equations, we have
Therefore,
For each \((u,v)\in Z\) satisfying \(\Gamma_{i} (\int _{0}^{t}(t-s)u(s)\,ds )=0,\Gamma_{j} (\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)v(s)\,ds )=0,i=1,2,j=3,4\), let
We have \(L(x,y)=(u(t),v(t)),t\in(0,1)\) and
That is, \((u,v)\in \operatorname{Im}L\), i.e.,
From the above two aspects, we have
By Lemma 2.3, define \(Q:Z\rightarrow Z\) as follows:
Similarly, we can get \(Q^{2}(u,v)=Q(u,v)\), so \(Q:Z\rightarrow Z\) is a well-defined projector. Now, it is obvious that \(\operatorname{Im}L=\operatorname{Ker}Q\). Noting that Q is a linear projector, we have \(Z= \operatorname{Im}Q\oplus \operatorname{Ker}Q\). So, \(Z=\operatorname{Im}L\oplus \operatorname{Im}Q\) and \(\dim \operatorname{Ker}L=\dim \operatorname{Im}Q=\operatorname{co}\dim \operatorname{Im}L=4\). So, L is a Fredholm mapping of index zero. □
Let the mapping \(P:Y\rightarrow Y\) be defined by
Noting that P is a continuous linear projector and \(\operatorname{Ker}P=\{(x,y)\in Y:x(0)=0,x'(0)=0,y(0)=0,y'(0)=0\}\), it is easy to know that \(Y=\operatorname{Ker}L\oplus \operatorname{Ker}P\).
The generalized inverse operator of L, \(K_{P}:\operatorname{Im}L\rightarrow \operatorname{dom}L\cap \operatorname{Ker}P\) can be defined by
is the inverse of L. In fact, if \((u,v)\in \operatorname{Im}L\), then
If \((x,y)\in \operatorname{dom}L\cap \operatorname{Ker}P\), then \(L(x,y)=(x'',y''), x(0)+x'(0)t=0\) and \(y(0)+y'(0)t=0\). We have
Thus, \(K_{P}=(L|_{\operatorname{dom}L\cap \operatorname{Ker}P})^{-1}\).
3 Main results
By making use of Lemmas 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4, we can obtain the following existence theorem for FBVPs (1.1) at \(\dim \operatorname{Ker}L=3\).
Theorem 3.1
Assume \((A_{1})\), \((H)\) and the following conditions hold:
\((D_{1})\). There exist constants \(M_{1}>0,M_{2}>0\) such that, for \((x,y)\in \operatorname{dom}L\), if \(|x(t)|+|x'(t)|>M_{1}\), for \(t\in[0,1]\), then
if \(|y(t)|+|y'(t)|>M_{2}\), for \(t\in[0,1]\),
or
\((D_{2})\). There exist nonnegative functions \(a_{i},b_{i},e_{i},d_{i},\rho_{i}\in L^{1}[0,1],i=1,2\) such that
\((D_{3})\). There exist constants \(E_{i}>0,i=1,2,3\), such that either for each \((c_{1},b_{3},b_{4})\in\mathbb{R}^{3}\):
\(|c_{1}|>E_{1}\), then
\(|b_{3}|>E_{2}\), then
\(|b_{4}|>E_{3}\), then
or \((c_{1},b_{3},b_{4})\in\mathbb{R}^{3}:|c_{1}|>E_{1}\), then
\(|b_{3}|>E_{2}\), then
\(|b_{4}|>E_{3}\), then
Then FBVPs (1.1) has at least one solution in \(C^{1}[0,1]\times C^{1}[0,1]\) provided that
where \(B_{1}= \Vert a_{1} \Vert _{1}+ \Vert e_{1} \Vert _{1}, B_{2}= \Vert a_{2} \Vert _{1}+ \Vert e_{2} \Vert _{1}, C_{1}= \Vert b_{1} \Vert _{1}+ \Vert d_{1} \Vert _{1},C_{2}= \Vert b_{2} \Vert _{1}+ \Vert d_{2} \Vert _{1}\).
The proof of Theorem 3.1 will be based on the next two lemmas.
Lemma 3.1
Assume that \((A_{1}),(H),(D_{1}),(D_{2})\) and \((D_{3})\) hold. Then
and
are bounded.
Proof
For \((x,y)\in\Omega_{1}\), we have \((x,y)\notin \operatorname{Ker}L, \lambda\neq0\) and \(N(x,y)\in \operatorname{Im}L\).
So
and
By \((D_{1})\), there exist constants \(t_{i}\in[0,1],i=1,2\) such that \(|x(t_{1})|\leq M_{1},|x'(t_{1})|\leq M_{1},|y(t_{2})|\leq M_{2},|y'(t_{2})|\leq M_{2}\).
Since \(x(t)=x(t_{1})+ \int _{t_{1}}^{t}x'(s)\,ds\), \(y(t)=y(t_{2})+ \int_{t_{2}}^{t}y'(s)\,ds\), we get
Thus,
By \(L(x,y)=\lambda N(x,y)\), we obtain
thus, \(|x'(t)|< \Vert N_{1}x \Vert _{1}+M_{1},|y'(t)|< \Vert N_{2}y \Vert _{1}+M_{2}\), where \(N(x,y)=(N_{1}x,N_{2}y)\),
That is, \(\max\{ \Vert x' \Vert _{\infty}, \Vert y' \Vert _{\infty}\}< \Vert N(x,y) \Vert _{1}+\max\{M_{1},M_{2}\}\).
By \((D_{2})\) and (3.7), we have
for the sake of brevity, let \(A_{1}= \Vert \rho_{1} \Vert _{1}+ \Vert a_{1} \Vert _{1}M_{1}+ \Vert b_{1} \Vert _{1}M_{2}+M_{1}, A_{2}= \Vert \rho_{2} \Vert _{1}+ \Vert a_{2} \Vert _{1}M_{1}+ \Vert b_{2} \Vert _{1}M_{2}+M_{2}\), then by (3.10) and (3.9), we have \(\Vert y' \Vert _{\infty}<\frac{A_{2}+B_{2} \Vert x' \Vert _{\infty}}{1-C_{2}}\), \(\Vert x' \Vert _{\infty}<\frac{A_{1}+\frac{C_{1}A_{2}}{1-C_{2}}}{1-B_{1}-\frac {C_{1}B_{2}}{1-C_{2}}}\).
Similarly, \(\Vert y' \Vert _{\infty}<\frac{A_{2}+\frac {B_{2}A_{1}}{1-B_{1}}}{1-C_{2}-\frac{C_{1}B_{2}}{1-B_{1}}}\).
By (3.8), \(\Vert (x,y) \Vert <\infty\). Therefore \(\Omega_{1}\) is bounded.
For \((x,y)\in \Omega_{2},(x,y)= (c_{1}(at-b),b_{3}t+b_{4} ),c_{1},b_{3},b_{4}\in\mathbb{R}\) and \(N(x,y)\in \operatorname{Im}L\). So,
and
Considering \((D_{3}),|c_{1}|\leq E_{1},|b_{3}|\leq E_{2},|b_{4}|\leq E_{3}\), we have \(\Vert x \Vert \leq E_{1} \Vert at-b \Vert \), \(\Vert y \Vert \leq E_{2}+E_{3}\). Therefore \(\Omega_{2}\) is bounded. □
Lemma 3.2
Assume that \((A_{1})\), \((H)\) and \((D_{3})\) hold. Then
is bounded, where \(J:\operatorname{Ker}L\rightarrow \operatorname{Im}Q\) is homeomorphous: \((x,y)= (c_{1}(at-b),b_{3}+b_{4}t ),c_{1},b_{3}, b_{4}\in\mathbb{R}\),
Proof
For \((x,y)\in\Omega_{3}\), \(\lambda J(x,y)+(1-\lambda )QN(x,y)=0\). If \(\lambda=1\), then \(c_{1}=0,b_{3}=0,b_{4}=0\). That is, \((x,y)=0\). If \(\lambda\neq1\), we can have
and
From Lemma 2.3,
it yields
if \(|c_{1}|>E_{1},|b_{3}|>E_{2},|b_{4}|>E_{3}\), considering above equalities, (3.11) and (3.1)-(3.3), we have
Thus \(|c_{1}|\leq E_{1},|b_{3}|\leq E_{2},|b_{4}|\leq E_{3}\). So, \(\Omega_{3}\) is bounded.
By the same method we can also see that \(\Omega_{3}\) is bounded. □
Proof of Theorem 3.1
Let Ω be a bounded open subset of Y such that \(\bigcup_{j=1}^{3}\overline{\Omega}_{j} \subset\Omega\). The compactness of \(K_{P}(I-Q)N:\overline{\Omega}\rightarrow Y\) and \(QN(\overline{\Omega}) \) will follow from the Arzela-Ascoli theorem and the Kolmogorov-Riesz criterion, respectively. Thus N is L-compact on Ω̅.
Then from above arguments, we have
-
(i)
\(L(x,y) \neq\lambda N(x,y)\), for every \(((x,y),\lambda )\in[(\operatorname{dom} L\setminus\operatorname{Ker} L) \cap\partial\Omega]\times(0,1)\);
-
(ii)
\(N(x,y) \notin\operatorname{Im} L\), for every \((x,y)\in\operatorname{Ker} L \cap \partial\Omega\).
At last we will prove that (iii) of Lemma 2.2. is satisfied.
Let \(H ((x,y),\lambda )=\pm\lambda J(x,y)+(1-\lambda)QN(x,y)=0\), noting that \(\Omega_{3}\subset\Omega\), we know \(H ((x,y), \lambda )\neq0\) for every \(((x,y),\lambda)\in\partial\Omega\cap \operatorname{Ker} L\). Thus, by the homotopic property of degree
Then by Lemma 2.2, \(L(x,y)=N(x,y)\) has at least one solution in \(\operatorname{dom}L\cap\overline{\Omega}\). The proof of Theorem 3.1 is completed. □
Theorem 3.2
Assume \((A_{3}),(D_{2}),(H)\) and the following conditions hold:
\((D_{4})\). There exist constants \(M_{3}>0,M_{4}>0\) such that, for \((x,y)\in \operatorname{dom}L\), if \(|x(t)|+|x'(t)|>M_{3}\), for \(t\in[0,1]\), then
or
if \(|y(t)|+|y'(t)|>M_{4}\), for \(t\in[0,1]\), then
or
\((D_{5})\). There exist constants \(E_{i}>0,i=4,5\), such that either for each \((a_{1},a_{2},b_{3},b_{4})\in\mathbb{R}^{4}\):
\(\vert a_{1} \vert >E_{4}\), then
\(|a_{2}|>E_{5}\), then
\(|b_{3}|>E_{6}\), then
\(|b_{4}|>E_{7}\), then
or for each \((a_{1},a_{2},b_{3},b_{4})\in\mathbb{R}^{4}\):
\(\vert a_{1} \vert >E_{4}\), then
\(|a_{2}|>E_{5}\), then
\(|b_{3}|>E_{6}\), then
\(|b_{4}|>E_{7}\), then
Then FBVP (1.1) has at least one solution in \(C^{1}[0,1]\times C^{1}[0,1]\) provided that
where \(B_{1}= \Vert a_{1} \Vert _{1}+ \Vert e_{1} \Vert _{1}, B_{2}= \Vert a_{2} \Vert _{1}+ \Vert e_{2} \Vert _{1},C_{1}= \Vert b_{1} \Vert _{1}+ \Vert d_{1} \Vert _{1},C_{2}= \Vert b_{2} \Vert _{1}+ \Vert d_{2} \Vert _{1}\).
The proof of Theorem 3.2 will also be based on the next two lemmas.
Lemma 3.3
Assume that \((A_{3}),(B_{2}),(H),(D_{2}),(D_{4})\) and \((D_{5})\) hold. Then
and
are bounded.
Proof
For \((x,y)\in\Omega_{1}\), we have \((x,y)\notin \operatorname{Ker}L,\lambda\neq0\) and \(N(x,y)\in \operatorname{Im}L\).
So
By \((D_{4})\), there exist constants \(t_{i}\in[0,1],i=3,4\) such that
Since
we get
Thus,
By the proof of method in Lemma 3.1, we obtain \(\Vert x' \Vert _{\infty}<\frac{A_{3}+\frac{C_{1}A_{4}}{1-C_{2}}}{1-B_{1}-\frac {C_{1}B_{2}}{1-C_{2}}}\), \(\Vert y' \Vert _{\infty}<\frac{A_{4}+\frac {B_{2}A_{3}}{1-B_{1}}}{1-C_{2}-\frac{C_{1}B_{2}}{1-B_{1}}}\), where \(A_{3}= \Vert \rho_{1} \Vert _{1}+ \Vert a_{1} \Vert _{1}M_{3}+ \Vert b_{1} \Vert _{1}M_{4}+M_{3}, A_{4}= \Vert \rho_{2} \Vert _{1}+ \Vert a_{2} \Vert _{1}M_{3}+ \Vert b_{2} \Vert _{1}M_{4}+M_{4}\), by (3.21), \(\Vert (x,y) \Vert <\infty\). Therefore \(\Omega_{1}\) is bounded.
For \((x,y)\in\Omega_{2}, (x,y)(t)=(a_{1}+a_{2}t,b_{3}+b_{4}t),a_{i},b_{j}\in\mathbb {R},i=1,2,j=3,4, t\in[0,1]\) and \(N(x,y)\in \operatorname{Im}L\).
So
and
Considering \((D_{5})\), \(|a_{1}|\leq E_{4},|a_{2}|\leq E_{5},|b_{3}|\leq E_{6},|b_{4}|\leq E_{7}\), so \(\Vert x \Vert \leq E_{4}+E_{5}\), \(\Vert y \Vert \leq E_{6}+E_{7}\).
Therefore, \(\Omega _{2}\) is bounded. □
Lemma 3.4
Assume that \((A_{3}),(B_{2}),(H)\) and \((D_{5})\) hold. Then
is bounded, where \(J:\operatorname{Ker}L\rightarrow \operatorname{Im}Q\) is homeomorphous: \((x,y)(t)=(a_{1}+a_{2}t,b_{3}+b_{4}t)\), \(a_{1},a_{2},b_{3},b_{4}\in\mathbb{R}\),
Proof
For every \((x,y)\in\Omega_{3}\), \(\lambda J(x,y)+(1-\lambda )QN(x,y)=0\). If \(\lambda=1\), then \(a_{1}=0,a_{2}=0,b_{3}=0,b_{4}=0\). That is, \((x,y)=0\). If \(\lambda\neq1\), we can have
and
From Lemma 2.3,
it yields
if \(|a_{1}|>E_{4},|a_{2}|>E_{5},|b_{3}|>E_{6},|b_{4}|>E_{7}\), considering the above equalities and (3.12)-(3.15), we have \(\Vert x \Vert \leq E_{4}+E_{5}\), \(\Vert y \Vert \leq E_{6}+E_{7}\). So, \(\Omega_{3}\) is bounded.
If (3.16)-(3.19) hold, then let \(\Omega_{3}=\{(x,y)\in \operatorname{Ker}L:-\lambda J(x,y)+(1-\lambda)QN(x,y)=0,\lambda\in[0,1]\}\). Similar to the above arguments, we can show that \(\Omega_{3}\) is bounded, too. □
Proof of Theorem 3.2
Let Ω be a bounded open subset of Y such that \(\bigcup_{j=1}^{3}\overline{\Omega}_{j} \subset\Omega\). The compactness of \(K_{P}(I-Q)N:\overline{\Omega}\rightarrow Y\) and \(QN(\overline{\Omega}) \) will follow from the Arzela-Ascoli theorem and the Kolmogorov-Riesz criterion, respectively. Thus N is L-compact on Ω̅. Then from the above arguments, we have
-
(i)
\(L(x,y) \neq\lambda N(x,y)\), for every \(((x,y),\lambda )\in[(\operatorname{dom} L\setminus\operatorname{Ker} L) \cap\partial\Omega]\times(0,1)\);
-
(ii)
\(N(x,y) \notin\operatorname{Im} L\), for every \((x,y)\in\operatorname{Ker} L \cap \partial\Omega\).
At last we will prove that (iii) of Lemma 2.2 is satisfied.
Let \(H ((x,y),\lambda )=\pm\lambda J(x,y)+(1-\lambda )QN(x,y)=0\), noting that \(\Omega_{3}\subset\Omega\), we know \(H ((x,y), \lambda )\neq0\) for every \(((x,y),\lambda)\in\partial\Omega \cap \operatorname{Ker} L\). Thus, by the homotopic property of degree
Then by Lemma 2.2, \(L(x,y)=N(x,y)\) has at least one solution in \(\operatorname{dom}L\cap\overline{\Omega}\). The proof of Theorem 3.2 is completed. □
The next lemma provides norm estimates needed for the following result.
Lemma 3.5
For \((u,v)\in Z, K_{P}(u,v)=(K_{P_{1}}u,K_{P_{2}}v)\), where \(K_{P_{1}}u=-\frac{bt+a}{a^{2}+b^{2}}\Gamma_{2} (\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)u(s)\,ds )+\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)u(s)\,ds, K_{P_{2}}v=\int_{0}^{t}(t-s)v(s)\,ds\), then
-
(1)
\(\Vert K_{P_{1}}u \Vert \leq \Vert K_{P_{1}} \Vert \Vert u \Vert _{1}\),
-
(2)
\(\Vert K_{P_{2}}v \Vert \leq \Vert v \Vert _{1}\),
where \(\Vert K_{P_{1}} \Vert =(\frac{ \Vert bt+a \Vert \beta_{2}}{a^{2}+b^{2}}+1)\).
Proof
Observe that due to \(|\Gamma_{2}(x)|\leq\beta_{2} \Vert x \Vert \),
and \(|(K_{P_{1}}u)'(t)|\leq(\frac{|b|}{a^{2}+b^{2}}\beta_{2}+1) \Vert u \Vert _{1}\); (1) follows from the above two inequalities. Similarly, we can obtain (2). □
Theorem 3.3
Assume \((A_{1})\) with \(a\neq0\), \((H)\), \((D_{3})\) (of Theorem 3.1) and the following conditions hold:
\((D_{5})\). There exist constants \(M_{1},M_{5},M_{6}>0\) such that, for \((x,y)\in \operatorname{dom}L\), if \(|x'(t)|>M_{1}\), for \(t\in[0,1]\), then
if \(|y'(t)|>M_{5}\),
or if \(|y(t)|>M_{6}\),
\((D_{6})\). There exist nonnegative functions \(a_{i},b_{i},e_{i},d_{i},\rho_{i}\in L^{1}[0,1],i=1,2\) such that
where
Then FBVP (1.1) has at least one solution in \(C^{1}[0,1]\times C^{1}[0,1]\).
Proof
As in the proof of Lemma 3.1, by \((D_{5})\), there exist constants \(M_{i}>0, t_{i}\in[0,1],i=5,6,7\) such that \(|x'(t_{5})|\leq M_{1},|y'(t_{6})|\leq M_{5},|y(t_{7})|\leq M_{6}\). Since \(x'(t)=x'(t_{5})+ \int _{t_{5}}^{t}x''(s)\,ds\), \(y'(t)=y'(t_{6})+ \int_{t_{6}}^{t}y''(s)\,ds\), we get
where \(N(x,y)=(N_{1}x,N_{2}y)\), \(N_{1}x= f (s,x(s),y(s),x'(s),y'(s) )\), and \(N_{2}y= g (s,x(s),y(s),x'(s), y'(s) )\). Write \((x,y)=(x_{1},y_{1})+(x_{2},y_{2})\), where \((x_{1},y_{1})=(I-P)(x,y)\in {\operatorname{dom}L\cap \operatorname{Ker}P}\) and \((x_{2},y_{2})=P(x,y)\in \operatorname{Im} P\).
Then since \((x_{1},y_{1})=(I-P)(x,y)\in{\operatorname{dom}L\cap \operatorname{Ker}P}\), \((x_{1},y_{1})=K_{P}L(x_{1},y_{1})=K_{P}L(I-P)(x,y)=\lambda K_{P}N(x,y)\).
As in the proof of Lemma 3.5,
Now, \((x_{2},y_{2})=(x,y)-(x_{1},y_{1})\), so \(x_{2}'=x'-x'_{1},y_{2}'=y'-y'_{1}\) and \(|x'_{2}(t)|\leq|x'(t)|+|x'_{1}(t)|< M_{1}+( \Vert K_{P_{1}} \Vert +1) \Vert N_{1}x \Vert _{1}\), \(|y'_{2}(t)|\leq|y'(t)|+|y'_{1}(t)|< M_{5}+2 \Vert N_{2}y \Vert _{1}\) by (3.23). Recall that \((x_{2},y_{2})(t)=P(x,y)(t)=(c(x)(at-b),y'(0)t+y(0))\), where
is introduced for the sake of brevity. Hence
That is,
Thus,
Similarly, it is easy to obtain \(|y'(0)|< M_{5}+2 \Vert N_{2}y \Vert _{1}\). In addition, \(|y_{2}(t_{7})|\leq|y(t_{7})|+|y_{1}(t_{7})|\leq M_{6}+ \Vert N_{2}y \Vert _{1}\), so, \(|y_{2}(t_{7})|=|y'(0)t_{7}+y(0)|\leq M_{6}+ \Vert N_{2}y \Vert _{1}\) and \(|y(0)|\leq M_{5}+M_{6}+3 \Vert N_{2}y \Vert _{1}\), thus
By (3.23) and (3.24), \(\Vert x \Vert \leq \Vert x_{1} \Vert + \Vert x_{2} \Vert \leq C_{3}+C_{4} \Vert N_{1}x \Vert _{1}\), where
\(\Vert y \Vert \leq \Vert y_{1} \Vert + \Vert y_{2} \Vert \leq2M_{5}+M_{6}+6 \Vert N_{2}y \Vert _{1}\) by (3.23) and (3.25). Finally, it follows from \((D_{6})\) that
Therefore \(\Omega_{1}\) is bounded. The rest of the proof repeats that of Theorem 3.1. □
We now provide an example that satisfies the assumptions of Theorem 3.3. Consider the kind of equation system
where
It is easy to see that \(\Gamma_{1}(t)=2,\Gamma_{1}(1)=2,\Gamma _{2}(t)=-1,\Gamma_{2}(1)=-1,\Gamma_{3}(t)=\Gamma_{3}(1)=\Gamma_{4}(t)=\Gamma _{1}(1)=0\), so that \(\alpha_{1}=-2,a=b=-1\) and \({\operatorname{Ker}L}=\{ (c_{1}(t-1),b_{3}t+b_{4})|c_{1},b_{3},b_{4}\in\mathbb{R}\}\). It is not difficult to verify that \(h_{1}\equiv-\frac{12}{5}\) satisfies Lemma 1.1.
Also,
that is, \(\beta_{2}=3,\rho_{1}=0,\rho_{2}=1, \Vert a_{1} \Vert _{1}=\frac{1}{32}, \Vert b_{1} \Vert _{1}=\frac{1}{32}, \Vert e_{1} \Vert _{1}=\frac{1}{32}, \Vert d_{1} \Vert _{1}=\frac{1}{32}, \Vert a_{2} \Vert _{1}= \Vert b_{2} \Vert _{1}= \Vert e_{2} \Vert _{1}= \Vert d_{2} \Vert _{1}=\frac{1}{32}, \Vert K_{P_{1}} \Vert =4, \Vert K_{P_{2}} \Vert =1, \Vert t-b/a \Vert =1\),
and
Let \(M_{1}=36\). Since \(N(x,y)=(N_{1}x,N_{2}y)\), if \(x'(t)>36\), then \(N_{1}x(t)>-1-\frac{3}{32}+\frac{1}{32}M_{1}>0\), and if \(x'(t)<-36\), then \(N_{1}x(t)<\frac{3}{32}-\frac{1}{32}M_{1}<0\). Taking \(M_{5}=36, M_{6}=36\), if \(y'(t)>36\), then \(N_{2}y(t)>0\), and if \(y'(t)<-36\), then \(N_{2}y(t)<0\) for \(t\in[\frac{1}{2},1]\). And if \(y(t)>36\), then \(N_{2}y(t)>0\), and \(y(t)<-36\), then \(N_{2}y<0\) for \(t\in[0,\frac{1}{2}]\).
Observe that
where
Obviously, \(\kappa(s)<0,s^{2}\geq0\) in\([0,1]\), therefore,
provided \((x,y)\in \operatorname{dom} L \backslash \operatorname{Ker} L\) satisfies \(|x'(t)|>M_{1}=36,|y'(t)|>M_{5}=36,|y(t)|>M_{6}=36\). Hence \((D_{5})\) holds.
Finally, for\((x,y)\in{\operatorname{Ker} L},x_{c_{1}}(t)=c_{1}(t-1),y_{b}(t)=b_{3}t+b_{4}\).
Consequently,
since \(\kappa(s)<0\) in \([0,1]\) and
provided \(|c_{1}|>E_{1}=3\). When \(|b_{3}|>E_{2}=35,|b_{4}|>E_{3}=35\),
since \(s^{2}>0\) in \([\frac{1}{2},1]\), and
then condition \((D_{3})\) is satisfied. It follows from Theorem 3.3 that there must be at least one solution in \(C^{1}[0,1]\times C^{1}[0,1]\).
References
Xue, C, Ge, W: The existence of solutions for multi-point boundary value problem at resonance. Acta Math. Sin. 48, 281-290 (2005)
Ma, R: Existence results of a m-point boundary value problem at resonance. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 294, 147-157 (2004)
Lu, S, Ge, W: On the existence of m-point boundary value problem at resonance for higher order differential equation. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 287, 522-539 (2003)
Liu, Y, Ge, W: Solvability of nonlocal boundary value problems for ordinary differential equations of higher order. Nonlinear Anal. 57, 435-458 (2004)
Du, Z, Lin, X, Ge, W: Some higher-order multi-point boundary value problem at resonance. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 177, 55-65 (2005)
Karakostas, G, Tsamatos, P: On a nonlocal boundary value problem at resonance. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 259, 209-218 (2001)
Prezeradzki, B, Stanczy, R: Solvability of a multi-point boundary value problem at resonance. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 264, 253-261 (2001)
Liu, B: Solvability of multi-point boundary value problem at resonance (II). Appl. Math. Comput. 136, 353-377 (2003)
Gupta, C: Solvability of multi-point boundary value problem at resonance. Results Math. 28, 270-276 (1995)
Lian, H, Pang, H, Ge, W: Solvability for second-order three-point boundary value problems at resonance on a half-line. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 337, 1171-1181 (2008)
Zhang, X, Feng, M, Ge, W: Existence result of second-order differential equations with integral boundary conditions at resonance. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 353, 311-319 (2009)
Kosmatov, N: Multi-point boundary value problems on an unbounded domain at resonance. Nonlinear Anal. 68, 2158-2171 (2008)
Du, B, Hu, X: A new continuation theorem for the existence of solutions to P-Laplacian BVP at resonance. Appl. Math. Comput. 208, 172-176 (2009)
Cui, Y: Solvability of second-order boundary-value problems at resonance involving integral conditions. Electron. J. Differ. Equ. 2012, 45 (2012)
Zhao, Z, Liang, J: Existence of solutions to functional boundary value problem of second-order nonlinear differential equation. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 373, 614-634 (2011)
Mawhin, J: Topological Degree Methods in Nonlinear Boundary Value Problems. NSFCBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics. Am. Math. Soc., Providence (1979)
Kosmatov, N, Jiang, W: Second-order functional problems with a resonance of dimension one. Differ. Equ. Appl. 8(3), 349-365 (2016)
Jiang, W: Solvability for a coupled system of fractional differential equations at resonance. Nonlinear Anal., Real World Appl. 13, 2285-2292 (2012)
Jiang, W: Solvability of fractional differential equations with p-Laplacian at resonance. Appl. Math. Comput. 260, 48-56 (2015)
Hanche-Olsen, H, Helge, H: The Kolmogorov-Riesz compactness theorem. Expo. Math. 28, 385-394 (2010)
Acknowledgements
We thank both reviewers for their valuable comments. This work was supported by The Graduate Student Innovation Project Fund of Hebei Province (No. CXZZSS2017093).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
The main idea of this paper was proposed by SB and JW. SB prepared the manuscript initially and performed all the steps of the proofs in this research. All authors 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
Jiang, W., Sun, B. Existence of solutions for functional boundary value problems of second-order nonlinear differential equations system at resonance. Adv Differ Equ 2017, 269 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13662-017-1307-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13662-017-1307-y