- Research Article
- Open access
- Published:
Existence Results of Three-Point Boundary Value Problems for Second-order Ordinary Differential Equations
Boundary Value Problems volume 2011, Article number: 901796 (2011)
Abstract
We establish existence results of the following three-point boundary value problems: ,
,
and
, where
and
. The approach applied in this paper is upper and lower solution method associated with basic degree theory or Schauder's fixed point theorem. We deal with this problem with the function
which is Carathéodory or singular on its domain.
1. Introduction
In this paper, we consider three-point boundary value problem
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ1_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ2_HTML.gif)
where and
.
In the mathematical literature, a number of works have appeared on nonlocal boundary value problems, and one of the first of these was [1]. Il'in and Moiseev initiated the research of multipoint boundary value problems for second-order linear ordinary differential equations, see [2, 3], motivated by the study [4–6] of Bitsadze and Samarskii.
Recently, nonlinear multipoint boundary value problems have been receiving considerable attention, and have been studied extensively by using iteration scheme (e.g., [7]), fixed point theorems in cones (e.g., [8]), and the Leray-Schauder continuation theorem (e.g., [9]). We refer more detailed treatment to more interesting research [10, 11] and the references therein.
The theory of upper and lower solutions is also a powerful tool in studying boundary value problems. For the existence results of two-point boundary value problem, there already are lots of interesting works by applying this essential technique (see [12, 13]). Recently, it is shown that this method plays an important role in proving the existence of solutions for three-point boundary value problems (see [14–16]).
Last but not least, as the singular source term appearing in two-point problems, singular three-point boundary value problems also attract more attention (e.g., [17]).
In this paper, we will discuss the existence of solutions of some general types on three-point boundary value problems by using upper and lower solution method associated with basic degree theory or Schauder's fixed point theorem.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we give two lemmas which will be extensively used later. In Section 3, when the source term is a Carathéodory function, we consider the Sobolev space
defined by
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ3_HTML.gif)
and obtain the existence of -solution in Theorems 3.5 and 3.11. In Section 4, we discuss the singular case, that is,
maybe singular at the end points
or
, or at
. We will introduce the
-class of functions and another space
(see [18, 19]) as follows:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ4_HTML.gif)
and prove the existence of -solution in Theorems 4.1 and 4.4. Some sufficient conditions for constructing upper and lower solutions are given in each section for applications.
2. Preliminaries
Define by
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ5_HTML.gif)
where and
are given as (1.2) and
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ6_HTML.gif)
By direct computations, we get the following results.
Lemma 2.1.
-
(i)
The function
defined by (2.1), is the Green function corresponding for the problem
(2.3)
(ii) The function defined by (2.1), is continuous.
-
(iii)
In the case
, we have
(2.4)
Lemma 2.2.
If , then the problem
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ9_HTML.gif)
with boundary condition (1.2) has a unique solution such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ10_HTML.gif)
where is defined by (2.1).
3. Carathéodory Case
In this section we first introduce the Carathéodory function as follows.
Definition 3.1.
A function defined on
is called a Carathéodory function on
if
(i)for almost every is continuous on
;
(ii)for any the function
is measurable on
;
(iii)for any , there exists
such that for any
and for almost every
with
, we have
.
We in this section assume that is a Carathéodory function and discuss the existence of
-solution by assuming the existence of upper and lower solutions.
3.1. Existence of
-Solutions
We first introduce the definitions of -upper and lower solutions as below.
Definition 3.2.
A function is called a
-lower solution of problem (1.1) and (1.2) if it satisfies
(i),
, and
(ii)for any , either
, or there exists an open interval
containing
such that
and, for almost every
, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ11_HTML.gif)
Definition 3.3.
A function is called a
-upper solution of problem (1.1) and (1.2) if it satisfies
(i),
, and
(ii)for any , either
, or there exists an open interval
containing
such that
and, for almost every
, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ12_HTML.gif)
Before proving our main results, we first consider such a modified problem given as follows:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ13_HTML.gif)
with boundary condition (1.2), where is defined by
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ14_HTML.gif)
Proposition 3.4.
Let and
be respective
-lower and upper solutions of problem (1.1) and (1.2) with
on
. If
is a solution of problem (3.3) and (1.2), then
, for any
.
Proof.
Suppose there exists such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ15_HTML.gif)
Case 1.
If , we have
, which implies
Hence, by Definition 3.2 and the continuity of
at
, there exist an open interval
with
,
and a neighborhood
of
contained in
such that for almost every
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ16_HTML.gif)
Furthermore, it follows from that for
,
, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ17_HTML.gif)
This implies that the minimum of cannot occur at
, a contradiction.
Case 2.
If , by the definition of
-lower solution
, we then have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ18_HTML.gif)
And we get a contradiction.
Case 3.
If , it follows from the conclusion of Case 1 that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ19_HTML.gif)
which is impossible.
Consequently, we obtain on
. By the similar arguments as above, we also have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ20_HTML.gif)
Theorem 3.5.
Let and
be
-lower and upper solutions of problem (1.1) and (1.2) such that
on
and let
be a Carathéodory function on
, where
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ21_HTML.gif)
Then problem (1.1) and (1.2) has at least one solution such that, for all
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ22_HTML.gif)
Proof.
We consider the modified problem (3.3) and (1.2) with respect to the given and
. Consider the Banach space
with supremum and the operator
by
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ23_HTML.gif)
for , where
is defined as (2.1). Since
is a Carathéodory function on
, for almost all
and for all
, there exists a function
, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ24_HTML.gif)
Define
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ25_HTML.gif)
where
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ26_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ27_HTML.gif)
It is clear that is a closed, bounded and convex set in
and one can show that
is a completely continuous mapping by Arzelà-Ascoli theorem and Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem. By applying Schauder's fixed point theorem, we obtain that
has a fixed point in
which is a solution of problem (3.3) and (1.2). From Proposition 3.4, this fixed point is also a solution of problem (1.1) and (1.2). Hence, we complete the proof.
We further illustrate the use of Theorem 3.11 in the following second-order differential equation:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ28_HTML.gif)
with the boundary condition (1.2).
Corollary 3.6.
Assume that is a Carathéodory function satisfying
is essentially bounded for
, where
is a constant large enough. Assume further that
and there exists a constant
such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ29_HTML.gif)
Then, problem (3.18) and (1.2) has at least one solution.
Proof.
By hypothesis, for any given small enough such that
and for almost all
, for any
large enough, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ30_HTML.gif)
We now choose an upper solution of the form
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ31_HTML.gif)
To this end, we compute
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ32_HTML.gif)
Clearly, one can choose such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ33_HTML.gif)
that is,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ34_HTML.gif)
and choose , where
, which is a positive solution of
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ35_HTML.gif)
Hence, if is large enough, we can show that
and
, where
, which implies that
is a positive
-upper solution. In the same way we construct a
-lower solution
on
.
3.2. Nontangency Solution
In this subsection, we afford another stronger lower and upper solutions to get a strict inequality of the solution between them.
Definition 3.7.
A function is a strict
-lower solution of problem (1.1) and (1.2), if it is not a solution of problem (1.1) and (1.2),
,
and for any
, one of the following is satisfied:
(i);
(ii)there exist an interval and
such that
int
,
and for almost every
, for all
we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ36_HTML.gif)
Definition 3.8.
A function is a strict
-upper solution of problem (1.1) and (1.2), if it is not a solution of problem (1.1) and (1.2),
,
and for any
, one of the following is satisfied:
(i),
(ii)there exist an interval and
such that
int
,
and for almost every
, for all
we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ37_HTML.gif)
Remark 3.9.
Every strict -lower(upper) solution of problem (1.1) and (1.2) is a
-lower(upper) solution.
Now we are going to show that the solution curve of problem (1.1) and (1.2) cannot be tangent to upper or lower solutions from below or above.
Proposition 3.10.
Let and
be respective strict
-lower and upper solutions of problem (1.1) and (1.2) with
on
. If
is a solution of problem (1.1) and (1.2) with
on
, then
, for any
.
Proof.
As is not a solution,
is not identical to
. Assume, the conclusion does not hold, then
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ38_HTML.gif)
exists. Hence, has minimum at
, that is,
.
Case 1.
Set . Since
has minimum at
, we have
. According to the Definition 3.7, there exist
,
and
with
such that, for every
,
,
and for a.e.
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ39_HTML.gif)
Hence, we have the contradiction since
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ40_HTML.gif)
Case 2.
If , by the definition of strict
-lower solution that
, we then have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ41_HTML.gif)
And we get a contradiction.
Case 3.
If , repeat the same arguments in Case 3 of the proof of Proposition 3.4. Therefore, we obtain
on
. The inequality
on
can be proved by the similar arguments as above.
Theorem 3.11.
Let and
be strict
-lower and upper solutions of problem (1.1) and (1.2) such that
on
and let
be a Carathéodory function, where
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ42_HTML.gif)
Then, problem (1.1) and (1.2) has at least one solution such that, for any
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ43_HTML.gif)
Proof.
This is a consequence of Theorem 3.5 and Proposition 3.10 and hence, we omits this proof.
4. Singular Case
In this section we give a more general existence result than Theorem 3.11 by assuming the existence of -lower and upper solutions. This makes us to deal with problem (1.1) and (1.2), where the function
is singular at the end point
and
.
Theorem 4.1.
Let and
be
-lower and upper solutions of problem (1.1) and (1.2) such that
on
and let
satisfy the following conditions:
(i)for almost every is continuous on
;
(ii)for any the function
is measurable on
;
(iii)there exists a function such that, for all
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ44_HTML.gif)
where
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ45_HTML.gif)
Then problem (1.1) and (1.2) has at least one solution such that, for all
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ46_HTML.gif)
Proof.
Consider the modified problem (3.3) and (1.2) with respect to the given and
and define
by (3.13). Note that by Lemma 2.2,
is well defined. Define
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ47_HTML.gif)
where
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ48_HTML.gif)
and is defined by (3.17). The rest arguments are similar to the proof of Theorem 3.5.
Remark 4.2.
We have similar results of Theorems 3.5–4.1, respectively, for (1.1) equipped with
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ49_HTML.gif)
where is a constant and
,
are given as (1.2).
Example 4.3.
Consider the problem (4.7), for ,
,
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ50_HTML.gif)
Clearly, is a
-lower solution of (4.7) and
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ51_HTML.gif)
where
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ52_HTML.gif)
From Lemma 2.1, we have and define
. Since, for
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ53_HTML.gif)
that is, , we have, from Lemma 2.2,
and
exists. Let
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ54_HTML.gif)
and, by Lemma 2.2 again, choose such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ55_HTML.gif)
Note that according to the direct computation, we see that is well-defined and is bounded by
. Next, let
. By Young's inequality, it follows that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ56_HTML.gif)
Hence, such is a
-upper solution of (4.7) and
on
. Clearly,
satisfies (i), (ii) of Theorem 4.1. By using Young's inequality again, for
, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ57_HTML.gif)
and . Therefore,
satisfies the assumption (iii) of Theorem 4.1. Consequently, we conclude that this problem has at least one solution
such that, for all
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ58_HTML.gif)
Notice that in Theorem 4.1, one can only deal with the case that is singular at end points
,
. However, when
is singular at
, there is no hope to obtain the solutions directly from Theorem 4.1. We will establish the following theorem to deal with this case by constructing upper and lower solutions to solve this problem.
Theorem 4.4.
Assume
the function is continuous;
there exists and for any compact set
, there is
such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ59_HTML.gif)
for some and
, there is
such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ60_HTML.gif)
where is defined as in Lemma 2.1.
for any compact set , there is
such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ61_HTML.gif)
Then problem (1.1) and (1.2) with has at least one solution
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ62_HTML.gif)
Remark 4.5 (see [12, Remark ]).
Assumption is equivalent to the assumption that there exists
and a function
such that:
(i) for all
,
(ii), for all
,
,
(iii), for all
,
where
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ63_HTML.gif)
Proof.
Step 1.
Construction of lower solutions. Consider such that
and the function
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ64_HTML.gif)
where is chosen small enough so that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ65_HTML.gif)
Next, we choose from the Remark 4.5, and let
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ66_HTML.gif)
where is small enough so that for some points
,
, we have:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ67_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ68_HTML.gif)
Notice that by (4.24) and (4.25), for any such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ69_HTML.gif)
we have:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ70_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ71_HTML.gif)
Step 2.
Approximation problems. We define for each ,
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ72_HTML.gif)
and set
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ73_HTML.gif)
We have that, for each index ,
is continuous and
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ74_HTML.gif)
where
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ75_HTML.gif)
Hence, the sequence of functions converges to
uniformly on any set
, where
is an arbitrary compact subset of
. Next we define
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ76_HTML.gif)
Each of the functions is a continuous function defined on
, moreover
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ77_HTML.gif)
and the sequence converges to
uniformly on the compact subsets of
since
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ78_HTML.gif)
Define now a decreasing sequence such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ79_HTML.gif)
and consider a sequence of the following approximation problems:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ80_HTML.gif)
where .
Step 3.
A lower solution of ( ). It is clear that for any ,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ81_HTML.gif)
As the sequence is decreasing, we also have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ82_HTML.gif)
Clearly, satisfies
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ83_HTML.gif)
It follows from (4.25) and (4.27) that is a lower solution of ( ).
Step 4.
Existence of a solution of (4.7) such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ84_HTML.gif)
From assumption , we can find
and
such that, for all
,
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ85_HTML.gif)
Also, one has
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ86_HTML.gif)
where is a suitable constant. Hence, we obtain, for such
and
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ87_HTML.gif)
Let be a constant such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ88_HTML.gif)
Choose such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ89_HTML.gif)
that is,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ90_HTML.gif)
where is defined by (2.1). Note that
is well-defined and
since
. It is easy to see that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ91_HTML.gif)
So by Remark 4.2, there is a solution of (4.7) such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ92_HTML.gif)
Step 5.
The problem ( ) has at least one solution such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ93_HTML.gif)
Notice that is an upper solution of ( ), since
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ94_HTML.gif)
Step 6.
Existence of a solution. Consider the pointwise limit
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ95_HTML.gif)
It is clear that, for any ,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ96_HTML.gif)
and therefore on
. Let
be a compact interval. There is an index
such that
for all
and therefore for these
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ97_HTML.gif)
Moreover, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ98_HTML.gif)
By Arzelá-Ascoli theorem it is standard to conclude that is a solution of problem (1.1) and (1.2) on the interval
. Since
is arbitrary, we find that
and for all
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ99_HTML.gif)
Since
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ100_HTML.gif)
it remains only to check the continuity of at
. This can be deduced from the continuity of
and the fact that
as
.
Example 4.6.
Consider the following problem , for
,
,
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ101_HTML.gif)
Let , where
. Obviously,
satisfies
and
. Moreover, for any given
and for any compact set
, for
small enough, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ102_HTML.gif)
Hence, holds. Furthermore, for
large enough,
, we have, from Young's inequality by choosing
and
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ103_HTML.gif)
where . Hence,
holds. By Theorem 4.4,
has at least one solution
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2011%2F901796/MediaObjects/13661_2010_Article_66_Equ104_HTML.gif)
References
Bitsadze AV, Samarskii AA: On some of the simplest generalizations of linear elliptic boundary-value problems. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 1969, 185: 739–740.
Il'in VA, Moiseev EI: Nonlocal boundary value problem of the first kind for a Sturm-Liouville operator in its differential and finite difference aspects. Differential Equations 1987, 23(7):803–810.
Il'in VA, Moiseev EI: Nonlocal boundary value problem of the second kind for a Sturm-Liouville operator. Differential Equations 1987, 23(7):979–987.
Bitsadze AV: On the theory of nonlocal boundary value problems. Soviet Mathematics—Doklady 1984, 30(1):8–10.
Bitsadze AV: On a class of conditionally solvable nonlocal boundary value problems for harmonic functions. Soviet Mathematics—Doklady 1985, 31(1):91–94.
Bitsadze AV, Samarskii AA: On some simple generalizations of linear elliptic boundary problems. Soviet Mathematics—Doklady 1969, 10(2):398–400.
Yao Q: Successive iteration and positive solution for nonlinear second-order three-point boundary value problems. Computers & Mathematics with Applications 2005, 50(3–4):433–444. 10.1016/j.camwa.2005.03.006
Yao Q: On the positive solutions of a second-order three-point boundary value problem with Caratheodory function. Southeast Asian Bulletin of Mathematics 2004, 28(3):577–585.
Gupta CP, Trofimchuk SI: A sharper condition for the solvability of a three-point second order boundary value problem. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 1997, 205(2):586–597. 10.1006/jmaa.1997.5252
Ma R: Positive solutions of a nonlinear m -point boundary value problem. Computers & Mathematics with Applications 2001, 42(6–7):755–765. 10.1016/S0898-1221(01)00195-X
Thompson HB, Tisdell C: Three-point boundary value problems for second-order, ordinary, differential equations. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 2001, 34(3–4):311–318. 10.1016/S0895-7177(01)00063-2
De Coster C, Habets P: Upper and lower solutions in the theory of ODE boundary value problems: classical and recent results. In Nonlinear Analysis and Boundary Value Problems for Ordinary Differential Equations, CISM Courses and Lectures. Volume 371. Edited by: Zanolin F. Springer, Vienna, Austria; 1993:1–78.
Lü H, O'Regan D, Agarwal RP: Upper and lower solutions for the singular p -Laplacian with sign changing nonlinearities and nonlinear boundary data. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 2005, 181(2):442–466. 10.1016/j.cam.2004.11.037
Du Z, Xue C, Ge W: Multiple solutions for three-point boundary value problem with nonlinear terms depending on the first order derivative. Archiv der Mathematik 2005, 84(4):341–349. 10.1007/s00013-004-1196-7
Khan RA, Webb JRL: Existence of at least three solutions of a second-order three-point boundary value problem. Nonlinear Analysis. Theory, Methods & Applications 2006, 64(6):1356–1366. 10.1016/j.na.2005.06.040
Minghe P, Chang SK: The generalized quasilinearization method for second-order threepoint boundary value problems. Nonlinear Analysis. Theory, Methods & Applications 2008, 68(9):2779–2790. 10.1016/j.na.2007.02.025
Qu WB, Zhang ZX, Wu JD: Positive solutions to a singular second order three-point boundary value problem. Applied Mathematics and Mechanics 2002, 23(7):854–866. 10.1007/BF02456982
De Coster C, Habets P: Two-Point Boundary Value Problems: Lower and Upper Solutions. Springer, Berlin, Germany; 1984.
Habets P, Zanolin F: Upper and lower solutions for a generalized Emden-Fowler equation. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 1994, 181(3):684–700. 10.1006/jmaa.1994.1052
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
Wang, SP., Tsai, LY. Existence Results of Three-Point Boundary Value Problems for Second-order Ordinary Differential Equations. Bound Value Probl 2011, 901796 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/901796
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/901796