- Research
- Open Access

# Nonlocal boundary value problems with resonant or non-resonant conditions

- Weibing Wang
^{1}Email author and - Xuxin Yang
^{2}

**2013**:238

https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-2770-2013-238

© Wang and Yang; licensee Springer. 2013

**Received:**12 March 2013**Accepted:**9 October 2013**Published:**9 November 2013

## Abstract

We study solvability of nonlocal boundary value problems for second-order differential equations with resonance or non-resonance. The method of proof relies on Schauder’s fixed point theorem. Some examples are presented to illustrate the main results.

**MSC:**34B05.

## Keywords

- nonlocal boundary value problems
- resonance
- non-resonance
- Schauder’s fixed point theorem

## 1 Introduction

where $J=[0,1]$, $0<{a}_{i}\le 1$ for $1\le i\le k$, $0<{\eta}_{1}<{\eta}_{2}<\cdots <{\eta}_{k}<1$, $g:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$, $f:J\times \mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$.

*a priori*estimate for the solution set; see [7, 10–12]. However, it is very difficult to obtain a related estimate for general differential equations. Here we list only a classical result about nonlocal boundary value problems at resonance of the form

where $h:J\times \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ is continuous, $e:J\to \mathbb{R}$ is continuous and ${a}_{i}>0$ for $1\le i\le k$, ${\sum}_{i=1}^{k}{a}_{i}=1$, $0<{\eta}_{1}<{\eta}_{2}<\cdots <{\eta}_{k}<1$.

**Theorem 1.1** [13]

*Suppose that there are two constants*
$M,\delta >0$
*such that*

(A1) $x[h(t,x,0)+e(t)]>\delta $ *for any* $|x|>M$, $t\in J$;

*there exist constants*${L}_{1},{L}_{2}:{L}_{1}>M$, ${L}_{2}<-M$

*such that*

*for*$(t,x,p)\in J\times [-M,M]\times [{L}_{2},{L}_{1}]$,

*Then* (1.2) *has at least one solution*.

For (1.1), condition (A2) in Theorem 1.1 implies that $f(t,x)\equiv g(x)$ for $(t,x)\in J\times [-M,M]$. It follows that (1.1) has infinitely many solutions ($x\equiv C\in [-M,M]$ is the solution of (1.1)). At this point, Theorem 1.1 has little significance for (1.1). Moreover, there are few papers considering multiple results at resonance. For the case with non-resonance, there is an extensive literature; see [14–17] and the references therein.

The main purpose of this article is to discuss the existence of solutions of equation (1.1) by means of Schauder’s fixed point theorem. We only need to consider the behavior of *g* and *f* on some closed sets. Consequently, information on the location of the solution is obtained and multiple results are obtained if *g* and *f* satisfy the given conditions on distinct regions. Our approach is valid for the cases at resonance or non-resonance. In addition, some of our conditions are easily certified (see Corollaries 3.1 and 3.2).

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces an important lemma. Section 3 is devoted to the existence results of (1.1). In Section 4 we extend some results of Section 3 to the general boundary conditions.

## 2 Preliminaries

where $p>0$, $0<{\alpha}_{i}\le 1$, $0<{\eta}_{i}<1$ for $1\le i\le k$, $0<a:={\sum}_{i=1}^{k}{a}_{i}\le 1$ and $h\in C(J,\mathbb{R})$.

**Lemma 2.1**

- (1)
*Boundary value problem*(2.1)*has a unique solution*${x}_{h}\in {C}^{2}(J,\mathbb{R})$. - (2)
*If*$h\equiv C\in R$*on**J**and*$a=1$,*then*${x}_{h}\equiv C/p$*on**J*. - (3)
*If*$h(t)\ge 0$*for all*$t\in J$,*then*${x}_{h}\ge 0$*on**J*;*if*$h(t)\le 0$*for all*$t\in J$,*then*${x}_{h}\le 0$*on**J*. - (4)
*If*$|h(t)|\le C$ ($C>0$)*on**J*,*then*$|{x}_{h}|\le C/p$*on**J*. - (5)
*Define an operator*$A:C(J,\mathbb{R})\to C(J,\mathbb{R})$*by*$A(h)={x}_{h}$,*where*$\parallel h\parallel ={max}_{t\in J}|h(t)|$;*then**A**is completely continuous*.

*Proof*(1) Any solution of the differential equation $-{x}^{\u2033}(t)+px(t)=h(t)$ can be written as

- (2)
The conclusion is obvious.

- (3)
Here we only prove the case of $h\ge 0$. We consider two cases.

which implies that ${x}_{h}^{\prime}$ is nonincreasing on *J*. Noting ${x}_{h}^{\prime}(0)=0$, we obtain that ${x}_{h}$ is nonincreasing. Thus ${x}_{h}(1)={min}_{t\in J}{x}_{h}(t)\le 0$.

Since ${x}_{h}$ is continuous, by the intermediate value theorem, there exists $\theta \in (0,1)$ such that $a{x}_{h}(\theta )={\sum}_{i=1}^{m}{a}_{i}{x}_{h}({\eta}_{i})$.

which implies that ${x}_{h}(1)=0$. Hence, ${x}_{h}(t)\equiv 0$ on *J*.

If $0<a<1$, then ${x}_{h}(1)={\sum}_{i=1}^{m}{a}_{i}{x}_{h}({\eta}_{i})=a{x}_{h}(\theta )\ge a{x}_{h}(1)$, which implies that ${x}_{h}(1)=0$. Hence, ${x}_{h}(t)\equiv 0$ on *J*.

Case 3.2 There exist ${t}_{1},{t}_{2}\in J$ such that ${x}_{h}({t}_{1})<0$ and ${x}_{h}({t}_{2})>0$. We assume that ${t}_{1}<{t}_{2}$. Otherwise, ${x}_{h}(t)\le 0$ for all $t\in [{t}_{1},1]$. Similar to Case 3.1, one can show that ${x}_{h}\equiv 0$ for $t\in [{t}_{1},1]$, which is impossible.

which is a contradiction.

- (4)Since $-C\le h\le C$, using the conclusion of (3), we have${x}_{h-C}\le 0,\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}{x}_{h+C}\ge 0,\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}t\in J.$

If $a=1$, then ${x}_{C}=C/p$ and ${x}_{-C}=-C/p$. Thus $|{x}_{h}|\le C/p$ on *J*.

*J*.

- (5)Let ${h}_{n}\to h$ in $C(J,\mathbb{R})$. For any $\epsilon >0$, there exists $N(\epsilon )>0$ such that$|{h}_{n}(t)-h(t)|<\epsilon ,\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall}t\in J,\mathrm{\forall}n>N(\epsilon ).$

*A*is continuous. Let

*D*be a bounded set in $C(J,\mathbb{R})$. Then there is ${M}_{1}>0$ such that $\parallel h\parallel \le {M}_{1}$ for all $h\in D$. From the conclusion of (4), we obtain that $|A(h)|\le {M}_{1}/p$, which implies that $A(D)$ is a uniformly bounded set. Since $A(h)$,

*h*are bounded for $h\in D$ and

which implies that $A(D)$ is equicontinuous. It follows that $A(D)$ is relatively compact in $C(J,\mathbb{R})$ and *A* is a completely continuous operator. The proof is complete. □

**Remark 2.1**Let $h\equiv 1$ and

The following well-known Schauder fixed point theorem is crucial in our arguments.

**Lemma 2.2** [18]

*Let* *X* *be a Banach space and* $D\subset X$ *be closed and convex*. *Assume that* $T:D\to D$ *is a completely continuous map*; *then* *T* *has a fixed point in* *D*.

## 3 Main results

The following theorem is the main result of the paper.

**Theorem 3.1**

*Assume that there exist constants*$M>m$, $p>0$

*such that*$g\in C([m,M],\mathbb{R})$, $f\in C(J\times [m,M],\mathbb{R})$, $pu+g(u)$

*is nondecreasing in*$u\in [m,M]$

*and*${\alpha}_{p}^{h=1}m\le {\beta}_{p}^{h=1}M$.

*Further suppose that*

*Then* (1.1) *has at least one solution* *x* *with* $m\le x\le M$.

*Proof*From Lemma 2.1, if

*x*is a solution of (1.1),

*x*satisfies

*A*and

*H*defined as $(A\circ H)x=A(Hx)$, and the operator

*H*is defined in $C(J,\mathbb{R})$ as

*A*is one nondecreasing operator, we obtain that for $x\in \mathrm{\Omega}$,

Hence, $(A\circ H)(\mathrm{\Omega})\subset \mathrm{\Omega}$.

Also, the fact that *A* is completely continuous and *H* is continuous gives that $A\circ H:\mathrm{\Omega}\to \mathrm{\Omega}$ is a continuous, compact map. By Lemma 2.2, $A\circ H$ has at least one fixed point in Ω. The proof is complete. □

**Remark 3.1**In Theorem 3.1, the condition that $pu+g(u)$ is nondecreasing in $u\in [m,M]$ can been replaced by the weaker condition

**Corollary 3.1** *Assume that* $a=1$ *and the following condition holds*:

_{1})

*There exist constants*$m<M$

*such that*$g\in {C}^{1}([m,M],\mathbb{R})$, $f\in C(J\times [m,M],\mathbb{R})$,

*and*

*Then* (1.1) *has at least one solution* *x* *with* $m\le x\le M$.

*Proof* Since $g\in {C}^{1}([m,M],\mathbb{R})$, there exists $p>0$ such that the function $pu+g(u)$ is nondecreasing in $u\in [m,M]$. When $a=1$, ${\alpha}_{p}^{h=1}={\beta}_{p}^{h=1}=1$. We directly apply Theorem 3.1 and this ends the proof. □

**Corollary 3.2** *Assume that* $0<a<1$ *and the following condition holds*:

_{2})

*There exists constant*$M>0$

*such that*$g\in {C}^{1}([0,M],\mathbb{R})$, $f\in C(J\times [0,M],\mathbb{R})$,

*and*

*Then* (1.1) *has at least one solution* *x* *with* $0\le x\le M$.

*Proof* Since $g\in {C}^{1}([0,M],\mathbb{R})$, there exists $p>0$ such that the function $pu+g(u)$ is nondecreasing in $u\in [0,M]$. Condition (3.1) is satisfied if (3.4) holds. The proof is complete. □

**Example 3.1**Consider the differential equation

*n*be a positive integer. For any $t\in J$ and $u\in [{m}_{n},{M}_{n}]$,

Hence, by Corollary 3.1, (3.5) has a solution ${m}_{n}\le x\le {M}_{n}$. Since *n* is an arbitrary positive integer, (3.5) has infinitely many solutions.

**Example 3.2**Consider the differential equation

Using Corollary 3.2, we obtain that (3.6) has at least a nonnegative solution $\overline{x}$. Moreover, it is not difficult to show that $\overline{x}\in (0,5)$ for any $t\in J$.

## 4 Generalization

where ${a}_{i},{b}_{j},{c}_{s},{d}_{l}\in \mathbb{R}$ and $0<{\lambda}_{i},{\mu}_{j},{\nu}_{s},{\kappa}_{l}\le 1$ for $1\le i\le {n}_{1}$, $1\le j\le {n}_{2}$, $1\le s\le {m}_{1}$, $1\le l\le {m}_{2}$.

where $p>0$ is sufficiently large, $h:J\to \mathbb{R}$. We introduce the following assumptions.

(P_{1}) The condition $h\in C(J,\mathbb{R})$ implies that boundary value problem (4.2) has a unique solution ${x}_{h}\in {C}^{2}(J,\mathbb{R})$.

(P_{2}) The condition $h\equiv C\in \mathbb{R}$ implies that ${x}_{h}\equiv C/p$ on *J*.

(P_{3}) The condition $h\in C(J,\mathbb{R}):h\ge 0$ ($t\in J$) implies that ${x}_{h}\ge 0$ on *J*.

(P_{4}) The condition $h\in C(J,\mathbb{R}):|h(t)|\le C$ ($C>0$) implies that $|{x}_{h}|\le C/p$ on *J*.

We say that the boundary condition ${U}_{1}x={U}_{2}x=0$ satisfies P_{123} if (4.2) satisfies conditions (P_{1}), (P_{2}), (P_{3}), and P_{134} if (4.2) satisfies conditions (P_{1}), (P_{3}), (P_{4}).

**Theorem 4.1**

- (1)
*Assume that the boundary condition*${U}_{1}x={U}_{2}x=0$*satisfies*P_{123}*and*(H_{1})*holds*.*Then*(4.1)*has at least one solution**x**with*$m\le x\le M$. - (2)
*Assume that the boundary condition*${U}_{1}x={U}_{2}x=0$*satisfies*P_{134}*and*(H_{2})*holds*.*Then*(4.1)*has at least one solution**x**with*$0\le x\le M$.

The proof of Theorem 4.1 is similar to that of Theorem 3.1 and we omit it.

**Remark 4.1**The solution obtained in Corollary 3.2 or (2) of Theorem 4.1 may be trivial. Further suppose that

Then the solution obtained is nonnegative and nontrivial.

**Remark 4.2** The boundary condition ${U}_{1}x={U}_{2}x=0$ satisfies P_{134} if it satisfies P_{123}.

**Remark 4.3**Consider the two-point boundary conditions:

One can easily check that boundary conditions (4.3), (4.4) satisfy P_{123}, and conditions (4.5), (4.6), (4.7) satisfy P_{134}.

where *α*, *β*, *λ*, *μ*, ${b}_{i}$ ($1\le i\le k$), ${c}_{j}$ ($1\le j\le n$) are constants and $\alpha ,\lambda \in (0,+\mathrm{\infty})$, $\beta ,\mu ,{b}_{i},{c}_{j}\in [0,+\mathrm{\infty})$, ${\eta}_{i},{\xi}_{j}\in (0,1)$.

**Theorem 4.2**

*Set*$b={\sum}_{i=1}^{k}{b}_{i}$, $c={\sum}_{j=1}^{n}{c}_{j}$.

- (1)
*If*$b=\alpha $, $c=\lambda $,*then the boundary condition*${U}_{1}x={U}_{2}x=0$*satisfies*P_{123}. - (2)
*If*$b\in [0,\alpha ]$, $c\in [0,\lambda )$*or*$b\in [0,\alpha )$, $c\in [0,\lambda ]$,*then the boundary condition*${U}_{1}x={U}_{2}x=0$*satisfies*P_{134}.

*Proof*Without loss of generality, we assume that $m=n=1$. For any sufficiently large $p>0$ and $h\in C(J,\mathbb{R})$, the linear differential equation

has a unique solution ${x}_{h}\in {C}^{2}(J,\mathbb{R})$.

*J*; if ${x}_{h}\ge 0$ is not true, by the maximum principle, we get that ${x}_{h}(0)={min}_{t\in J}{x}_{h}(t)<0$ or ${x}_{h}(1)={min}_{t\in J}x(t)<0$. If ${x}_{h}(0)={min}_{t\in J}{x}_{h}(t)<0$, then ${x}_{h}^{\prime}(0)\ge 0$. From the boundary conditions, we have

By the maximum principle, we obtain that ${x}_{h}({\xi}_{1})\ge 0$, a contradiction.

If $h\equiv C$ and $b=\alpha $, $c=\lambda $, then ${x}_{h}\equiv C/p$.

Now suppose that $0\le h\le C$ on *J* and $h\not\equiv 0$.

If ${x}_{h}(0)={max}_{t\in J}x(t)>0$, from the boundary conditions, we obtain that $b=\alpha $, $\beta {x}_{h}^{\prime}(0)=0$, which implies that ${x}_{h}({\eta}_{1})={x}_{h}(0)={max}_{t\in J}x(t)$. The case has been discussed. If ${x}_{h}(1)={max}_{t\in J}x(t)>0$, from the boundary conditions, we obtain that $c=\lambda $, $\mu {x}_{h}^{\prime}(1)=0$, which implies that ${x}_{h}({\xi}_{1})={x}_{h}(1)={max}_{t\in J}x(t)$. The case has also been discussed. The proof is complete. □

**Example 4.1**Consider the differential equation

where $\lambda >0$, $0<\eta ,\xi <1$ are constants.

*n*is a sufficiently large, positive integer, then for any $t\in J$, $u\in [{m}_{n},{M}_{n}]$,

By Theorems 4.1 and 4.2, (4.10) has a solution ${m}_{n}\le x\le {M}_{n}$. Hence, (4.10) has infinitely many solutions.

**Example 4.2**Consider the differential equation

where $\mu >0$, $0<{\xi}_{1},{\xi}_{2},{\xi}_{3}<1$, $0\le \lambda \le 0.5$ are constants.

_{134}for $\lambda \in [0,0.5]$ and P

_{123}for $\lambda =0.5$.

- (1)
Equation (4.11) has a solution $0\le \tilde{x}\le 1$ and $\tilde{x}(t)>0$, $t\in (0,1]$ for all $0\le \lambda \le 0.5$. Set $M=1$, then $g(M)=-1\le f(t)\le g(0)$ for all $t\in J$. By Theorems 4.1 and 4.2, (4.11) has a solution $0\le \tilde{x}\le 1$. Now we show that $\tilde{x}(t)>0$ for $t\in (0,1]$. Assume that there exists $r\in (0,1)$ with $\tilde{x}(r)=0$. Since $\tilde{x}(t)\ge 0$, $\tilde{x}(r)$ is minimum value and ${\tilde{x}}^{\prime}(r)=0$, ${\tilde{x}}^{\u2033}(r)\ge 0$. On the other hand, ${\tilde{x}}^{\u2033}(r)={\tilde{x}}^{\mu}(r)cos\tilde{x}(r)-{r}^{2}=-{r}^{2}<0$, a contradiction. If $\tilde{x}(1)=0$, then $\tilde{x}({\xi}_{2})=0$. This is impossible.

- (2)
Equation (4.11) has infinitely many solutions for $\lambda =0.5$. Set ${M}_{n}=2n\pi +2\pi $, ${m}_{n}=2n\pi +1.5\pi $, where $n>0$ is an integer. Since $g({M}_{n})=-{M}_{n}^{\mu}\le f(t)\le g({m}_{n})={m}_{n}^{\mu}$ for all $t\in J$, (4.11) has a solution ${m}_{n}\le x\le {M}_{n}$. Hence, (4.11) has infinitely many solutions.

## Declarations

### Acknowledgements

The work is supported by the NNSF of China (11171085) and Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China.

## Authors’ Affiliations

## References

- 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.
*Differ. Equ.*1987, 23: 803-810.MATHGoogle Scholar - Gupta CP: Solvability of a three-point nonlinear boundary value problem for a second order differential equation.
*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*1992, 168: 540-551. 10.1016/0022-247X(92)90179-HMathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Marano SA: A remark on a second order 3-point boundary value problem.
*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*1994, 183: 518-522. 10.1006/jmaa.1994.1158MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Infante G, Zima M: Positive solutions of multi-point boundary value problems at resonance.
*Nonlinear Anal.*2008, 69: 2458-2465. 10.1016/j.na.2007.08.024MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Ma RY: Multiplicity results for a third order boundary value problem at resonance.
*Nonlinear Anal.*1998, 32: 493-499. 10.1016/S0362-546X(97)00494-XMathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Nieto JJ: Existence of a solution for a three-point boundary value problem for a second-order differential equation at resonance.
*Bound. Value Probl.*2013., 2013: Article ID 130Google Scholar - Webb JRL, Zima M: Multiple positive solutions of resonant and nonresonant nonlocal boundary value problems.
*Nonlinear Anal.*2009, 71: 1369-1378. 10.1016/j.na.2008.12.010MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Henderson J: Existence and uniqueness of solutions of
*m*-point nonlocal boundary value problems for ordinary differential equations.*Nonlinear Anal. TMA*2011, 74(1):2576-2584.View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Franco D, Infante G, Minhós F: Nonlocal boundary value problems.
*Bound. Value Probl.*2012. 10.1186/1687-2770-2012-2Google Scholar - Prezeradzki B, Stańczy R: Solvability of a multi-point boundary value problem at resonance.
*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*2001, 264: 253-261. 10.1006/jmaa.2001.7616MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Liu B: Solvability of multi-point boundary value problem at resonance (II).
*Appl. Math. Comput.*2003, 136: 353-377. 10.1016/S0096-3003(02)00050-4MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Franco D, Infante G, Zima M: Second order nonlocal boundary value problems at resonance.
*Math. Nachr.*2011, 284(7):875-884. 10.1002/mana.200810841MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Ma RY: Existence theorem for a second order
*m*-point boundary value problem.*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*1997, 211: 545-555. 10.1006/jmaa.1997.5416MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Webb JRL, Infante G: Non-local boundary value problems of arbitrary order.
*J. Lond. Math. Soc.*2009, 79: 238-258.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Webb JRL: Optimal constants in a nonlocal boundary value problem.
*Nonlinear Anal.*2005, 63: 672-685. 10.1016/j.na.2005.02.055MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Chen H: Positive solutions for the nonhomogeneous three-point boundary value problem of second-order differential equations.
*Math. Comput. Model.*2007, 45: 844-852. 10.1016/j.mcm.2006.08.004View ArticleMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Kiguradze I, Kiguradze T: Optimal conditions of solvability of nonlocal problems for second-order ordinary differential equations.
*Nonlinear Anal. TMA*2011, 74(3):757-767. 10.1016/j.na.2010.09.023MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Guo D, Lakshmikantham V:
*Nonlinear Problem in Abstract Cones*. Academic Press, New York; 1988.MATHGoogle Scholar

## Copyright

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.