Nonlocal boundary value problems with resonant or non-resonant conditions

Weibing Wang; Xuxin Yang

doi:10.1186/1687-2770-2013-238

Impact Factor 0.819

Research

Open Access

Nonlocal boundary value problems with resonant or non-resonant conditions

Weibing Wang¹Email author and
Xuxin Yang²

Boundary Value Problems20132013:238

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

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

In this paper, we investigate the existence of solutions for the following boundary value problem:

{\begin{cases} - x^{″} (t) = g (x (t)) - f (t, x (t)), t \in J, \\ x^{'} (0) = 0, x (1) = \sum_{i = 1}^{k} a_{i} x (η_{i}), \end{cases}

(1.1)

where $J = [0, 1]$ , $0 < a_{i} \leq 1$ for $1 \leq i \leq k$ , $0 < η_{1} < η_{2} < \dots < η_{k} < 1$ , $g : R \to R$ , $f : J \times R \to R$ .

Nonlocal boundary value problems, studied by Il’in and Moiseev [1], have been addressed by many authors; see, for example, [2–9] and references therein. In the related literature, (1.1) is called resonance when

\sum_{i = 1}^{k} a_{i} = 1

, and non-resonance when

\sum_{i = 1}^{k} a_{i} \neq 1

. For the boundary value problems at resonance, researchers usually use the continuity method or nonlinear alternative, which involves a complicated 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

{\begin{cases} - x^{″} (t) = h (t, x (t), x^{'} (t)) + e (t), t \in J, \\ x^{'} (0) = 0, x (1) = \sum_{i = 1}^{k} a_{i} x (η_{i}), \end{cases}

(1.2)

where $h : J \times R \times R \to R$ is continuous, $e : J \to R$ is continuous and $a_{i} > 0$ for $1 \leq i \leq k$ , $\sum_{i = 1}^{k} a_{i} = 1$ , $0 < η_{1} < η_{2} < \dots < η_{k} < 1$ .

Theorem 1.1 [13]

Suppose that there are two constants $M, δ > 0$ such that

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

(A2) there exist constants

L_{1}, L_{2} : L_{1} > M

,

L_{2} < - M

such that

\begin{matrix} h (t, x, L_{1}) + e (t) \geq 0, \forall (t, x) \in J \times [- M, M], \\ h (t, x, L_{2}) + e (t) \leq 0, \forall (t, x) \in J \times [- M, M]; \end{matrix}

(A3) for

(t, x, p) \in J \times [- M, M] \times [L_{2}, L_{1}]

,

| h (t, x, p) + e (t) | \leq \frac{M}{1 - η_{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

In this section, we consider the following boundary value problem for the linear differential equation:

{\begin{cases} - x^{″} (t) + p x (t) = h (t), t \in J, \\ x^{'} (0) = 0, x (1) = \sum_{i = 1}^{k} a_{i} x (η_{i}), \end{cases}

(2.1)

where $p > 0$ , $0 < α_{i} \leq 1$ , $0 < η_{i} < 1$ for $1 \leq i \leq k$ , $0 < a : = \sum_{i = 1}^{k} a_{i} \leq 1$ and $h \in C (J, R)$ .

Lemma 2.1

(1)

Boundary value problem (2.1) has a unique solution $x_{h} \in C^{2} (J, R)$ .
(2)

If $h \equiv C \in R$ on J and $a = 1$ , then $x_{h} \equiv C / p$ on J.
(3)

If $h (t) \geq 0$ for all $t \in J$ , then $x_{h} \geq 0$ on J; if $h (t) \leq 0$ for all $t \in J$ , then $x_{h} \leq 0$ on J.
(4)

If $| h (t) | \leq C$ ( $C > 0$ ) on J, then $| x_{h} | \leq C / p$ on J.
(5)

Define an operator $A : C (J, R) \to C (J, R)$ by $A (h) = x_{h}$ , where $∥ h ∥ = {max}_{t \in J} | h (t) |$ ; then A is completely continuous.

Proof (1) Any solution of the differential equation

- x^{″} (t) + p x (t) = h (t)

can be written as

x (t) = c_{1} e^{t \sqrt{p}} + c_{2} e^{- t \sqrt{p}} + φ (t),

where

c_{1}

,

c_{2}

are constants and

φ \in C^{2} (t, R)

is a particular solution of

- x^{″} (t) + p x (t) = h (t)

. From the boundary conditions, we obtain that

{\begin{cases} c_{1} [e^{\sqrt{p}} - \sum_{i = 1}^{k} a_{i} e^{\sqrt{p} η_{i}}] + c_{2} [e^{- \sqrt{p}} - \sum_{i = 1}^{k} a_{i} e^{- \sqrt{p} η_{i}}] = \sum_{i = 1}^{k} a_{i} φ (η_{i}) - φ (1), \\ \sqrt{p} (c_{1} - c_{2}) = - φ^{'} (0) . \end{cases}

(2.2)

Since the above system has a unique solution

(c_{1}, c_{2})

, (2.1) has a unique solution

x_{h} \in C^{2} (t, R)

.

(2)

The conclusion is obvious.
(3)

Here we only prove the case of $h \geq 0$ . We consider two cases.

Case 3.1 Assume that

x_{h} (t) \leq 0

for all

t \in J

. We show that

x_{h} (t) \equiv 0

,

t \in J

. From (2.1), we obtain that

x_{h}^{″} (t) = p x_{h} (t) - h (t) \leq 0, \forall t \in J,

which implies that $x_{h}^{'}$ is nonincreasing on J. Noting $x_{h}^{'} (0) = 0$ , we obtain that $x_{h}$ is nonincreasing. Thus $x_{h} (1) = {min}_{t \in J} x_{h} (t) \leq 0$ .

Since $x_{h}$ is continuous, by the intermediate value theorem, there exists $θ \in (0, 1)$ such that $a x_{h} (θ) = \sum_{i = 1}^{m} a_{i} x_{h} (η_{i})$ .

If

a = 1

, one can obtain from the monotonicity of

x_{h}

that

x_{h} (t) \equiv x_{h} (1)

on

[θ, 1]

. Hence,

0 \geq p x (1) = - x_{h}^{″} (t) + p x_{h} (t) = h (t) \geq 0, t \in [θ, 1],

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

If $0 < a < 1$ , then $x_{h} (1) = \sum_{i = 1}^{m} a_{i} x_{h} (η_{i}) = a x_{h} (θ) \geq a x_{h} (1)$ , 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, $x_{h} (t) \leq 0$ 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.

If there is

ε > 0

such that

x_{h} (t) \leq 0

for

t \in (0, ε)

, it is easy to check that

x_{h} (t) \leq 0

for all

t \in J

, a contradiction. Since

x_{h} (1) \geq \sum_{{i : x_{h} (η_{i}) < 0}} a_{i} x_{h} (η_{i}) \geq min {x_{h} (η_{i}) : x_{h} (η_{i}) < 0}

, there exists

r \in (0, 1)

such that

x_{h} (r) = {min}_{t \in J} x_{h} (t)

. Noting that

x_{h}^{″} (r) \geq 0

and

x_{h} (r) < 0

, we obtain that

0 > p x_{h} (r) = h (r) + x_{h}^{″} (r) \geq 0,

which is a contradiction.

From Cases 3.1 and 3.2, one can easily obtain that

x_{h} \geq 0

for all

t \in J

.

(4)

Since $- C \leq h \leq C$ , using the conclusion of (3), we have
$x_{h - C} \leq 0, x_{h + C} \geq 0, t \in J .$

Noting that

x_{h - C} = x_{h} - x_{C}

,

x_{h + C} = x_{h} - x_{- C}

, we obtain that

x_{- C} \leq x_{h} \leq x_{C}, t \in J .

(2.3)

If $a = 1$ , then $x_{C} = C / p$ and $x_{- C} = - C / p$ . Thus $| x_{h} | \leq C / p$ on J.

Assume that

a < 1

. There exist

t_{1}, t_{2} \in [0, 1)

such that

x_{C} (t_{1}) = max_{t \in J} x_{C} (t), x_{- C} (t_{2}) = min_{t \in J} x_{- C} (t) .

Noting that

x_{C}^{″} (t_{1}) \leq 0

and

x_{- C}^{″} (t_{2}) \geq 0

, we have

0 \leq p x_{C} (t_{1}) = C + x_{C}^{″} (t_{1}) \leq C,

(2.4)

and

0 \geq p x_{- C} (t_{2}) = - C + x_{- C}^{″} (t_{2}) \geq - C .

(2.5)

From (2.3), (2.4) and (2.5), we obtain that

| x_{h} | \leq C / p

on J.

(5)

Let $h_{n} \to h$ in $C (J, R)$ . For any $ε > 0$ , there exists $N (ε) > 0$ such that
$| h_{n} (t) - h (t) | < ε, \forall t \in J, \forall n > N (ε) .$

Noting that

A (h_{n} - h) = x_{h_{n}} - x_{h}

, using the conclusion of (4), we obtain that

| x_{h_{n}} - x_{h} | \leq ε / p, \forall t \in J, \forall n > N (ε),

which implies that A is continuous. Let D be a bounded set in

C (J, R)

. Then there is

M_{1} > 0

such that

∥ h ∥ \leq M_{1}

for all

h \in D

. From the conclusion of (4), we obtain that

| A (h) | \leq M_{1} / p

, which implies that

A (D)

is a uniformly bounded set. Since

A (h)

, h are bounded for

h \in D

and

{(A h)}^{'} (t) = p \int_{0}^{t} (A h) (s) d s - \int_{0}^{t} h (s) d s,

there exists

M_{2} > 0

such that

| {(A h)}^{'} (t) | \leq M_{2}, t \in J, h \in D,

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

Remark 2.1 Let

h \equiv 1

and

α_{p}^{h = 1} = max_{t \in J} p x_{h} (t), β_{p}^{h = 1} = min_{t \in J} p x_{h} (t) .

By a direct computation, one can obtain that

0 < β_{p}^{h = 1} \leq α_{p}^{h = 1} \leq 1

and

\begin{matrix} α_{p}^{h = 1} = 1 - \frac{2 (1 - a)}{e^{\sqrt{p}} + e^{- \sqrt{p}} - \sum_{i = 1}^{k} a_{i} [e^{\sqrt{p} η_{i}} + e^{- \sqrt{p} η_{i}}]}, \\ β_{p}^{h = 1} = 1 - \frac{(1 - a) (e^{\sqrt{p}} + e^{- \sqrt{p}})}{e^{\sqrt{p}} + e^{- \sqrt{p}} - \sum_{i = 1}^{k} a_{i} [e^{\sqrt{p} η_{i}} + e^{- \sqrt{p} η_{i}}]} . \end{matrix}

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], R)

,

f \in C (J \times [m, M], R)

,

p u + g (u)

is nondecreasing in

u \in [m, M]

and

α_{p}^{h = 1} m \leq β_{p}^{h = 1} M

. Further suppose that

g (M) - \frac{(1 - α_{p}^{h = 1}) p M}{α_{p}^{h = 1}} \leq f (t, u) \leq g (m) - \frac{(1 - β_{p}^{h = 1}) p m}{β_{p}^{h = 1}}, \forall (t, u) \in J \times [m, M] .

(3.1)

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

Proof From Lemma 2.1, if x is a solution of (1.1), x satisfies

x = (A \circ H) x,

where

A \circ H

is composition of A and H defined as

(A \circ H) x = A (H x)

, and the operator H is defined in

C (J, R)

as

(H x) (t) = p x (t) + g (x (t)) - f (t, x (t)) .

Note that

{\begin{cases} - {[(A \circ H) x]}^{″} (t) + p [(A \circ H) x] (t) = (H x) (t), t \in J, \\ {[(A \circ H) x]}^{'} (0) = 0, [(A \circ H) x] (1) = \sum_{i = 1}^{k} a_{i} [(A \circ H) x] (η_{i}) . \end{cases}

(3.2)

Obviously, a fixed point of

A \circ H

is a solution of (1.1). Set

Ω = {x \in C (J, R) : m \leq x (t) \leq M, t \in J}

. Since the function

p u + g (u)

is nondecreasing in

u \in [m, M]

, we obtain that for

x \in Ω

,

p m + g (m) \leq p x (t) + g (x (t)) \leq p M + g (M) .

Using (3.1), we have

\frac{p m}{β_{p}^{h = 1}} \leq (H x) (t) = p x (t) + g (x (t)) - f (t, x (t)) \leq \frac{p M}{α_{p}^{h = 1}}

for any

x \in Ω

. Since

β_{p}^{h = 1} \leq p A (1) \leq α_{p}^{h = 1}

, and A is one nondecreasing operator, we obtain that for

x \in Ω

,

m \leq A (\frac{p m}{β_{p}^{h = 1}}) \leq (A \circ H) x \leq A (\frac{p M}{α_{p}^{h = 1}}) = \frac{p M}{α_{p}^{h = 1}} A (1) \leq M .

Hence, $(A \circ H) (Ω) \subset Ω$ .

Also, the fact that A is completely continuous and H is continuous gives that $A \circ H : Ω \to Ω$ 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

p u + g (u)

is nondecreasing in

u \in [m, M]

can been replaced by the weaker condition

p m + g (m) \leq p u + g (u) \leq p M + g (M), \forall u \in [m, M] .

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

(H₁) There exist constants

m < M

such that

g \in C^{1} ([m, M], R)

,

f \in C (J \times [m, M], R)

, and

g (M) \leq f (t, u) \leq g (m), \forall (t, u) \in J \times [m, M] .

(3.3)

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

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

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

(H₂) There exists constant

M > 0

such that

g \in C^{1} ([0, M], R)

,

f \in C (J \times [0, M], R)

, and

g (M) \leq f (t, u) \leq g (0), \forall (t, u) \in J \times [0, M] .

(3.4)

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

Proof Since $g \in C^{1} ([0, M], R)$ , there exists $p > 0$ such that the function $p u + g (u)$ 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

{\begin{cases} - x^{″} (t) = sin x + t^{2} e^{- x (t)}, t \in J, \\ x^{'} (0) = 0, x (1) = x (η), η \in (0, 1) . \end{cases}

(3.5)

Let

m_{n} = (2 n + 0.5) π

,

M_{n} = (2 n + 1.5) π

,

g (u) = sin u

,

f (t, u) = - t^{2} e^{- u}

and n be a positive integer. For any

t \in J

and

u \in [m_{n}, M_{n}]

,

g (M_{n}) = - 1 \leq f (t, u) \leq 1 = g (m_{n}) .

Hence, by Corollary 3.1, (3.5) has a solution $m_{n} \leq x \leq M_{n}$ . Since n is an arbitrary positive integer, (3.5) has infinitely many solutions.

Example 3.2 Consider the differential equation

{\begin{cases} - x^{″} (t) = 2 - e^{x (t)} + x^{2} (t), t \in J, \\ x^{'} (0) = 0, x (1) = \frac{1}{2} x (η), η \in (0, 1) . \end{cases}

(3.6)

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

4 Generalization

In this section, we extend some results in the previous section to the following equation:

{\begin{cases} - x^{″} (t) = g (x (t)) - f (t, x (t)), t \in J, \\ U_{1} x = 0, U_{2} x = 0, \end{cases}

(4.1)

where

U_{1}

and

U_{2}

are linear operators defined as

U_{1} x = \sum_{i = 1}^{n_{1}} a_{i} x (λ_{i}) + \sum_{j = 1}^{n_{2}} b_{j} x^{'} (μ_{j}), U_{2} x = \sum_{s = 1}^{m_{1}} c_{s} x (ν_{s}) + \sum_{l = 1}^{m_{2}} d_{l} x^{'} (κ_{l}),

where $a_{i}, b_{j}, c_{s}, d_{l} \in R$ and $0 < λ_{i}, μ_{j}, ν_{s}, κ_{l} \leq 1$ for $1 \leq i \leq n_{1}$ , $1 \leq j \leq n_{2}$ , $1 \leq s \leq m_{1}$ , $1 \leq l \leq m_{2}$ .

Consider the boundary value problem for the linear differential equation:

{\begin{cases} - x^{″} (t) + p x (t) = h (t), t \in J, \\ U_{1} x = 0, U_{2} x = 0, \end{cases}

(4.2)

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

(P₁) The condition $h \in C (J, R)$ implies that boundary value problem (4.2) has a unique solution $x_{h} \in C^{2} (J, R)$ .

(P₂) The condition $h \equiv C \in R$ implies that $x_{h} \equiv C / p$ on J.

(P₃) The condition $h \in C (J, R) : h \geq 0$ ( $t \in J$ ) implies that $x_{h} \geq 0$ on J.

(P₄) The condition $h \in C (J, R) : | h (t) | \leq C$ ( $C > 0$ ) implies that $| x_{h} | \leq C / p$ on J.

We say that the boundary condition $U_{1} x = U_{2} x = 0$ satisfies P₁₂₃ if (4.2) satisfies conditions (P₁), (P₂), (P₃), and P₁₃₄ if (4.2) satisfies conditions (P₁), (P₃), (P₄).

Theorem 4.1

(1)

Assume that the boundary condition $U_{1} x = U_{2} x = 0$ satisfies P₁₂₃ and (H₁) holds. Then (4.1) has at least one solution x with $m \leq x \leq M$ .
(2)

Assume that the boundary condition $U_{1} x = U_{2} x = 0$ satisfies P₁₃₄ and (H₂) holds. Then (4.1) has at least one solution x with $0 \leq x \leq M$ .

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

g (0) - f (t, 0) ≢ 0, t \in J .

Then the solution obtained is nonnegative and nontrivial.

Remark 4.2 The boundary condition $U_{1} x = U_{2} x = 0$ satisfies P₁₃₄ if it satisfies P₁₂₃.

Remark 4.3 Consider the two-point boundary conditions:

x^{'} (0) = x^{'} (1) = 0,

(4.3)

x (0) = x (1), x^{'} (0) = x^{'} (1),

(4.4)

x (0) = x (1) = 0,

(4.5)

x^{'} (0) = x (1) = 0,

(4.6)

x (0) = x^{'} (1) = 0 .

(4.7)

One can easily check that boundary conditions (4.3), (4.4) satisfy P₁₂₃, and conditions (4.5), (4.6), (4.7) satisfy P₁₃₄.

Next, we consider the boundary conditions

\begin{aligned} U_{1} x : = α x (0) - β x^{'} (0) - \sum_{i = 1}^{k} b_{i} x (η_{i}) = 0, \\ U_{2} x : = λ x (1) + μ x^{'} (1) - \sum_{j = 1}^{n} c_{j} x (ξ_{j}) = 0, \end{aligned}

(4.8)

where α, β, λ, μ, $b_{i}$ ( $1 \leq i \leq k$ ), $c_{j}$ ( $1 \leq j \leq n$ ) are constants and $α, λ \in (0, + \infty)$ , $β, μ, b_{i}, c_{j} \in [0, + \infty)$ , $η_{i}, ξ_{j} \in (0, 1)$ .

Theorem 4.2 Set

b = \sum_{i = 1}^{k} b_{i}

,

c = \sum_{j = 1}^{n} c_{j}

.

(1)

If $b = α$ , $c = λ$ , then the boundary condition $U_{1} x = U_{2} x = 0$ satisfies P₁₂₃.
(2)

If $b \in [0, α]$ , $c \in [0, λ)$ or $b \in [0, α)$ , $c \in [0, λ]$ , then the boundary condition $U_{1} x = U_{2} x = 0$ satisfies P₁₃₄.

Proof Without loss of generality, we assume that

m = n = 1

. For any sufficiently large

p > 0

and

h \in C (J, R)

, the linear differential equation

{\begin{cases} - x^{″} (t) + p x (t) = h (t), t \in J, \\ U_{1} x = 0, U_{2} x = 0 \end{cases}

(4.9)

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

Suppose that

h \geq 0

on J; if

x_{h} \geq 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}^{'} (0) \geq 0

. From the boundary conditions, we have

0 > x_{h} (0) = \frac{β}{α} x_{h}^{'} (0) + \frac{b_{1}}{α} x_{h} (η_{1}) \geq \frac{b_{1}}{α} x_{h} (η_{1}) \geq x_{h} (η_{1}) .

By the maximum principle, we obtain that

x_{h} (η_{1}) \geq 0

, which is a contradiction. If

x_{h} (1) = {min}_{t \in J} x_{h} (t) < 0

, then

x_{h}^{'} (1) \leq 0

. From the boundary conditions, we have

0 > x_{h} (1) = \frac{c_{1}}{λ} x_{h} (ξ_{1}) - \frac{μ}{λ} x_{h}^{'} (1) \geq \frac{c_{1}}{λ} x_{h} (ξ_{1}) \geq x_{h} (ξ_{1}) .

By the maximum principle, we obtain that $x_{h} (ξ_{1}) \geq 0$ , a contradiction.

If $h \equiv C$ and $b = α$ , $c = λ$ , then $x_{h} \equiv C / p$ .

Now suppose that $0 \leq h \leq C$ on J and $h ≢ 0$ .

If there is

θ \in (0, 1)

such that

x_{h} (θ) = {max}_{t \in J} x (t) > 0

, noting that

x_{h}^{″} (θ) \leq 0

, we have

0 \leq p x_{h} (θ) \leq - x_{h}^{″} (θ) + p x_{h} (θ) = h (θ) \leq C .

If $x_{h} (0) = {max}_{t \in J} x (t) > 0$ , from the boundary conditions, we obtain that $b = α$ , $β x_{h}^{'} (0) = 0$ , which implies that $x_{h} (η_{1}) = x_{h} (0) = {max}_{t \in J} x (t)$ . The case has been discussed. If $x_{h} (1) = {max}_{t \in J} x (t) > 0$ , from the boundary conditions, we obtain that $c = λ$ , $μ x_{h}^{'} (1) = 0$ , which implies that $x_{h} (ξ_{1}) = x_{h} (1) = {max}_{t \in J} x (t)$ . The case has also been discussed. The proof is complete. □

Example 4.1 Consider the differential equation

{\begin{cases} - x^{″} (t) = {sin}^{- 1} x (t) - x^{λ} (t) + t x (t), t \in J, \\ x (0) = x (η), x (1) = x (ξ), \end{cases}

(4.10)

where $λ > 0$ , $0 < η, ξ < 1$ are constants.

Let

g (u) = {sin}^{- 1} u

and

f (t, u) = u^{λ} - t u

. Set

m_{n} = 2 n π + {(4 n π)}^{- λ - 1}

,

M_{n} = 2 n π + 0.5 π

. If n is a sufficiently large, positive integer, then for any

t \in J

,

u \in [m_{n}, M_{n}]

,

1 = g (M_{n}) \leq f (t, u) \leq g (m_{n}) \approx {(4 n π)}^{λ + 1} .

By Theorems 4.1 and 4.2, (4.10) has a solution $m_{n} \leq x \leq M_{n}$ . Hence, (4.10) has infinitely many solutions.

Example 4.2 Consider the differential equation

{\begin{cases} - x^{″} (t) + x^{μ} (t) cos x (t) = t^{2}, t \in J, \\ x (0) - x^{'} (0) = x (ξ_{1}), x (1) = \frac{1}{2} x (ξ_{2}) + λ x (ξ_{3}), \end{cases}

(4.11)

where $μ > 0$ , $0 < ξ_{1}, ξ_{2}, ξ_{3} < 1$ , $0 \leq λ \leq 0.5$ are constants.

In fact,

g (u) = - u^{μ} cos u

and

f (t) = - t^{2}

. The boundary conditions in (4.11) satisfy P₁₃₄ for

λ \in [0, 0.5]

and P₁₂₃ for

λ = 0.5

.

(1)

Equation (4.11) has a solution $0 \leq \tilde{x} \leq 1$ and $\tilde{x} (t) > 0$ , $t \in (0, 1]$ for all $0 \leq λ \leq 0.5$ . Set $M = 1$ , then $g (M) = - 1 \leq f (t) \leq g (0)$ for all $t \in J$ . By Theorems 4.1 and 4.2, (4.11) has a solution $0 \leq \tilde{x} \leq 1$ . 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 $\tilde{x} (t) \geq 0$ , $\tilde{x} (r)$ is minimum value and ${\tilde{x}}^{'} (r) = 0$ , ${\tilde{x}}^{″} (r) \geq 0$ . On the other hand, ${\tilde{x}}^{″} (r) = {\tilde{x}}^{μ} (r) cos \tilde{x} (r) - r^{2} = - r^{2} < 0$ , a contradiction. If $\tilde{x} (1) = 0$ , then $\tilde{x} (ξ_{2}) = 0$ . This is impossible.
(2)

Equation (4.11) has infinitely many solutions for $λ = 0.5$ . Set $M_{n} = 2 n π + 2 π$ , $m_{n} = 2 n π + 1.5 π$ , where $n > 0$ is an integer. Since $g (M_{n}) = - M_{n}^{μ} \leq f (t) \leq g (m_{n}) = m_{n}^{μ}$ for all $t \in J$ , (4.11) has a solution $m_{n} \leq x \leq M_{n}$ . 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

(1)

Department of Mathematics, Hunan University of Science and Technology

(2)

Department of Mathematics, Hunan First Normal College

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.