- Research Article
- Open Access
Superlinear Singular Problems on the Half Line
Boundary Value Problems volume 2010, Article number: 429813 (2010)
The paper studies the singular differential equation , which has a singularity at . Here the existence of strictly increasing solutions satisfying is proved under the assumption that has two zeros 0 and and a superlinear behaviour near . The problem generalizes some models arising in hydrodynamics or in the nonlinear field theory.
Let us consider the problem
where is a positive real parameter.
Let . A function satisfying (1.1) on is called a solution of ( 1.1 ) on.
Let be a solution of (1.1) on for each . Then is called a solution of ( 1.1 ) on. If moreover fulfils conditions (1.2), it is called a solution of problem ( 1.1 ), ( 1.2 ).
A strictly increasing solution of problem (1.1), (1.2) is called a homoclinic solution.
In this paper we are interested in the existence of strictly increasing solutions and, in particular, of homoclinic solutions. In what follows we assume
Under assumptions (1.3)–(1.8) problem (1.1), (1.2) generalizes some models arising in hydrodynamics or in the nonlinear field theory (see [1–5]). If a homoclinic solution exists, many important properties of corresponding models can be obtained. Note that if we extend the function in (1.1) from the half-line onto (as an even function), then any solution of (1.1), (1.2) has the same limit as and . This is a motivation for Definition 1.3. Equation (1.1) is singular at because . In [6, 7] we have proved that assumptions (1.3)–(1.8) are sufficient for the existence of strictly increasing solutions and homoclinic solutions provided
Here we assume that (1.9) is not valid. Then
and the papers [6, 8] provide existence theorems for problem (1.1), (1.2) if has a sublinear or linear behaviour near . The case that has a superlinear behaviour near is studied in this paper. To this aim we consider the initial conditions
where , and introduce the following definition.
Let and let be a solution of (1.1) on satisfying (1.11). Then is called a solution of problem ( 1.1 ), ( 1.11 ) on. If moreover fulfils
then is called an escape solution of problem ( 1.1 ), ( 1.11 ).
We have proved in [6, 8] that for sublinear or linear the existence of a homoclinic solution follows from the existence of an escape solution of problem (1.1), (1.11). Therefore our first task here is to prove that at least one escape solution of (1.1), (1.11) exists, provided (1.3)–(1.8), (1.10), and
hold, and has a superlinear behaviour near . This is done in Section 2. Using the results of Section 2 "Theorem 2.10", and of [6, Theroms 13, 14 and 20] we get the existence of a homoclinic solution in Section 3.
Note that by Definitions 1.3 and 1.4 just the values of a solution which are less than are important for a decision whether the solution is homoclinic or escape one. Therefore condition (1.13) can be assumed without any loss of generality.
Close problems about the existence of positive solutions have been studied in [9–11].
2. Escape Solutions
In this section we assume that (1.3)–(1.8), (1.10), and (1.13) hold. We will need some lemmas.
Lemma 2.1 (see [6, Lemma 3]).
For each , problem (1.1), (1.11) has a unique solution on such that
In what follows by a solution of (1.1), (1.11) we mean a solution on .
Remark 2.2 (see [6, Remark 4]).
Choose and , and consider the initial conditions
Problem (1.1), (2.2) has a unique solution on . In particular, for and , we get and , respectively. Clearly, for , and are solutions of (1.1) on the whole interval .
Let and let be a solution of problem (1.1), (1.11) which is not an escape solution. Let us denote
Then holds and is increasing on . If , then and
The inequality yields . By (1.1) and (1.10), we get on and hence is increasing on . As , one has on and consequently on . Therefore .
Let . Then is the first zero of and . Remark 2.2 yields that is not possible. This implies that . As is strictly increasing on and is not an escape solution, we have on . Thus on and hence is decreasing on . This gives (2.4).
Let and let be a solution of problem (1.1), (1.11) which is not an escape solution. Assume that is given by Lemma 2.3. Then
From (1.1), we have
and, by multiplication and integration over ,
?(1) Assume that . The definition of yields on . Since is not an escape solution, it is bounded above and there exists
Therefore the following integral is bounded and, since it is increasing, it has a limit
So, by (2.7), exists. By virtue of (2.8), we get
If , then by (1.4), (1.10) and (2.6) we get , which contradicts (2.10). Hence, . In particular, if is defined as in Lemma 2.3, then
? (2) Assume that . Then the continuity of gives and of Lemma 2.3 fulfils . We deduce that on as in the proof of Lemma 2.3. Remark 2.2 yields that if , then neither nor can occur. Therefore .
Let and let be a solution of problem (1.1), (1.11). Further assume maximal such that and for . Then
For , let us denote
For equality (2.13) see Lemma 4.6 in . Let us prove (2.15). Using the per partes integration, we get for
By multiplication and integration of (1.1) we obtain
and by the per partes integration,
To compute , we use (1.1) and get
By the per partes integration we derive
We have proved that (2.15) is valid.
Let , and let be solutions of problem (1.1), (1.11) with , . Let us denote
Then for each there exists a unique satisfying
If the sequence is unbounded, then there exists an escape solution in .
Choose . The monotonicity and continuity of in give a unique . If is unbounded we argue as in the proof of Lemma 4.8 in .
Let and let , , and be sequences from Lemma 2.6. Assume that for any , is not an escape solution of problem (1.1), (1.11). Lemma 2.6 implies that
We can assume that that either there exists such that
Otherwise we take a subsequence. Some additional properties of are given in the next two lemmas.
and assume that the sequence is bounded above. Then there exists such that
By Lemma 2.4 we have
Step 1 (sequence is bounded).
Assume on the contrary that is unbounded. We may write
(otherwise we take a subsequence). Equality (2.13) yields for and ,
Using (1.4), (1.6), (1.10), and the fact that for , we get
Consequently, inequality in (2.31) leads to
for . Therefore
We will consider two cases.
If (2.25) holds, then (2.34) gives for
By (2.30), for each sufficiently large , we get
Putting it to (2.35), we have , contrary to (2.29).
If (2.26) holds, then (2.34) gives for
Due to (2.30), we have
for each sufficiently large . Putting it to (2.37), we get for . Integrating it over , we obtain . Equation (1.1) and condition (1.13) yield for , and so , contrary to (2.29).
We have proved that there exists such that
Step 2 (estimate for ).
Choose . By (2.32) we get
This together with (2.31) and (2.39) imply
According to (2.27) and Lemma 2.3 we see that is the first zero of . Since the sequence is bounded above, there exists such that , . Then (1.8) and (2.41) give
Then, by virtue of (2.4), inequality (2.28) is valid.
Consider and satisfying (2.23) and (2.24). Let , be given by (2.27). Assume that
Then there exists such that
Assume on the contrary that
By Lemma 2.3, is increasing on , . Therefore
and therefore there exists such that
Moreover (2.23), (2.24), (2.27), (2.44), and the monotonicity of and yield
Integrating the last inequality over , we obtain , so , a contradiction.
Let real sequences , , be given and assume that
(for we assume ) be such that
Assume that is given by (2.14) with . Then
By (2.50), . Condition (2.52) yields that there exists such that
where . Consequently,
where , because is less than the critical value . We have proved (2.53).
Now we are ready to prove the following main result of this paper.
for some . Further, let and be such that (2.51) and (2.52) are valid. Then there exists such that the corresponding solution of problem (1.1), (1.11) is an escape solution.
Assumption (2.51) implies , and hence we can choose and define by (2.14). According to (1.4), (1.10), and (2.56), there exists such that for . Consequently, we can find such that
Let , , , be sequences defined in Lemma 2.6. Moreover, let
Assume that for any , is not an escape solution of problem (1.1), (1.11). By Lemma 2.4 we have
Condition (2.60) gives such that
Choose an arbitrary . We will construct a contradiction.
Step 1 (inequality for ).
Since is increasing on , (2.62) gives a unique satisfying
By (2.59) we have
because for . Further, there exists satisfying
Therefore, according to (2.12),
Let us put
Then inequalities (2.15) and (2.66) imply
Step 2 (estimate of from below).
Since is a solution of (1.1) on , we have
where , are such that
Integrating (2.70) over , we get
By (2.52), (2.60) and , we deduce that
Since for , we get
Due to (2.58), there exists such that . Then and . Hence for each there exists such that, for ,
Having in mind (2.75), we can choose in (2.62) such that for all the inequality holds. Hence (2.72) and the first inequality in (2.77) yield
Put . Then , and
On the other hand, by (2.76),
By (2.79), this yields
Step 3 (estimate of ).
The inequality gives . Hence there exists such that
Having in mind (2.76), we choose to this and then, by the second inequality in (2.77), we obtain
By Lemmas 2.7 and 2.8 there exists such that
Here , , if (2.25) holds and , , if (2.26) holds. In addition there exists such that , . (Note that if in Lemma 2.8 is not bounded but does not fulfil (2.44), we work with a proper subsequence fulfilling (2.44).) By virtue of (2.84) and (2.85) we get
Inequalities (2.84) and (2.86) yield
Step 4 (final contradictions).
Putting (2.81) and (2.87) to (2.68) and using (1.6), (1.10) and , we obtain
First, let us assume that (2.26) holds and , . So, conditions (2.85), and (2.88) yield
Letting we get a contradiction to (2.53).
Finally, let us assume that (2.25) holds and , . Then (2.61), (2.88), and yield
contrary to (2.53).
We assume that in Theorem 2.10. In particular for and , , the function can behave in neighbourhood of as a function for arbitrary .
Now, let (2.58) hold for . Then and therefore
which is the first condition in (1.9). We have proved in [6, 7] that, in this case, assumptions (1.3)–(1.8) are sufficient for the existence of an escape solution.
Let and , . Then and
Hence, for condition (2.58) is satisfied. The critical value is equal to 3. By Theorem 2.10, if fulfils (2.52) with , problem (1.1), (1.11) has an escape solution.
Let , . Then and
Hence, for condition (2.58) is satisfied. The critical value is equal to 5. By Theorem 2.10, if fulfils (2.52) with , problem (1.1), (1.11) has an escape solution.
3. Homoclinic Solutions
Having an escape solution we can deduce the existence of a homoclinic solution by the same arguments as in . For completeness we bring here the main ideas. Remember that our basic assumptions (1.3)–(1.8), (1.10) and (1.13) are fulfilled in this section.
By Lemma 11 in , a solution of problem (1.1), (1.11) is homoclinic if and only if
By Theorem 16 in , a solution of problem (1.1), (1.11) is an escape solution if and only if
The third type of solutions of problem (1.1), (1.11) is characterized in the next definition.
A solution of problem (1.1), (1.11) is called damped, if
The following properties of damped and escape solutions are important for the existence of homoclinic solutions.
Theorem 3.2 (see [6, Theorem 13] (on damped solutions)).
Let be of (1.5) and (1.6). Assume that is a solution of problem (1.1), (1.11) with . Then is damped.
Theorem 3.3 (see [6, Theorem 14]).
Let be the set of all such that corresponding solutions of problem (1.1), (1.11) are damped. Then is open in .
Theorem 3.4 (see [6, Theorem 20]).
Let be the set of all such that corresponding solutions of problem (1.1), (1.11) are escape ones. Then is open in .
Having these theorems we get the main result of this section.
Theorem 3.5 (On a homoclinic solution).
Assume that the assumptions of Theorem 2.10 are satisfied. Then problem (1.1), (1.2) has a homoclinic solution.
By Theorems 3.2 and 3.3, the set is nonempty and open in . By Theorem 3.4, the set is open in . Using Theorem 2.10, we get that is nonempty. Therefore the set is nonempty and if , then the corresponding solution of problem (1.1), (1.11) is neither damped nor an escape solution. Therefore , and by Lemma 11 in , such solution is homoclinic.
The proof of Theorem 3.5 implies that if problem (1.1), (1.11) has an escape solution, then it has also a homoclinic solution. Hence the following corollary is true.
Assume that the assumptions of Theorem 2.10 are satisfied. Let problem (1.1), (1.11) have no homoclinic solution. Then it has no escape solution.
If we assume (2.51) and (2.52), then the growth of at is less than the critical value . This is necessary for the existence of homoclinic solutions of some types of (1.1). See the next example.
Let , , . Consider (1.1), where and for and for . Then and satisfy conditions (1.3)–(1.8), (1.10), (1.13), (2.52) and (2.58) with . By Theorem 3.5, if
then problem (1.1), (1.11) has a homoclinic solution. But if
then we have proved in  that problem (1.1), (1.11) has no homoclinic solution and consequently no escape solution.
Dell'Isola F, Gouin H, Rotoli G: Nucleation of spherical shell-like interfaces by second gradient theory: numerical simulations. European Journal of Mechanics, B/Fluids 1996,15(4):545-568.
Derrick GH: Comments on nonlinear wave equations as models for elementary particles. Journal of Mathematical Physics 1964, 5: 1252-1254. 10.1063/1.1704233
Gouin H, Rotoli G: An analytical approximation of density profile and surface tension of microscopic bubbles for Van Der Waals fluids. Mechanics Research Communications 1997,24(3):255-260. 10.1016/S0093-6413(97)00022-0
Kitzhofer G, Koch O, Lima P, Weinmüller E: Efficient numerical solution of the density profile equation in hydrodynamics. Journal of Scientific Computing 2007,32(3):411-424. 10.1007/s10915-007-9141-0
Lima PM, Konyukhova NB, Sukov AI, Chemetov NV: Analytical-numerical investigation of bubble-type solutions of nonlinear singular problems. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 2006,189(1-2):260-273. 10.1016/j.cam.2005.05.004
Rachunková I, Tomecek J: Bubble-type solutions of nonlinear singular problems. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 2010,51(5-6):658-669.
Rachunková I, Tomecek J: Strictly increasing solutions of a nonlinear singular differential equation arising in hydrodynamics. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications 2010,72(3-4):2114-2118. 10.1016/j.na.2009.10.011
Rachunková I, Tomecek J: Homoclinic solutions of singular nonautonomous second-order differential equations. Boundary Value Problems 2009, 2009:-21.
Berestycki H, Lions P-L, Peletier LA:An ODE approach to the existence of positive solutions for semilinear problems in . Indiana University Mathematics Journal 1981,30(1):141-157. 10.1512/iumj.1981.30.30012
Bonheure D, Gomes JM, Sanchez L: Positive solutions of a second-order singular ordinary differential equation. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications 2005,61(8):1383-1399. 10.1016/j.na.2005.02.029
Conti M, Merizzi L, Terracini S:Radial solutions of superlinear equations on . I. A global variational approach. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 2000,153(4):291-316. 10.1007/s002050050015
Rachunková I: Nonexistence results in critical and supercritical cases of singular problems on the half-line. submitted
This paper was supported by the Council of Czech Government MSM 6198959214.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Rachunková, I., Tomecek, J. Superlinear Singular Problems on the Half Line. Bound Value Probl 2010, 429813 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/429813
- Differential Equation
- Field Theory
- Partial Differential Equation
- Unique Solution
- Ordinary Differential Equation