- Open Access
Dirichlet problem in Banach spaces: the bound sets approach
© Andres et al.; licensee Springer. 2013
- Received: 19 October 2012
- Accepted: 16 January 2013
- Published: 11 February 2013
The existence and localization result is obtained for a multivalued Dirichlet problem in a Banach space. The upper-Carathéodory and Marchaud right-hand sides are treated separately because in the latter case, the transversality conditions derived by means of bounding functions can be strictly localized on the boundaries of bound sets.
MSC:34A60, 34B15, 47H04.
- Dirichlet problem
- bounding functions
- solutions in a given set
- condensing multivalued operators
The Dirichlet problem and its special case with homogeneous boundary conditions, usually called the Picard problem, belong to the most frequently studied boundary value problems. A lot of results concerning the standard problem for scalar second-order ordinary differential equations were generalized in various directions.
In Euclidean spaces, besides many extensions to vector equations, vector inclusions were under consideration, e.g., in [1–4]. In abstract spaces, usually in Banach and Hilbert spaces, equations, e.g., in [5–11] and inclusions, e.g., in [9, 12, 13] were treated.
Sadovskii’s or Darbo’s fixed point theorems, jointly with the usage of a measure of noncompactness, were applied in [5, 8, 9, 11]. Kakutani’s or Ky Fan’s fixed point theorems were applied with the upper and lower solutions technique in  and with a measure of noncompactness in . On the other hand, continuation principles were employed in [2, 4, 7].
The main aim of our present paper is an extension of the finite-dimensional results in [2, 4] into infinite-dimensional ones. We were also stimulated by the work of Jean Mawhin in , where degree arguments were applied to the Dirichlet problem in a Hilbert space probably for the first time, and in , where a bound sets approach was systematically developed. Hence, besides these two approaches, our extension consists in the consideration of differential inclusions in rather general Banach spaces and the usage of a measure of noncompactness. Similar results were already obtained in an analogous way by ourselves for Floquet problems in [15–18].
Besides the existence, the localization of solutions will be obtained in our main theorems (see Theorem 5.1 and Theorem 5.2). Unlike in , where the solutions belong to a positively invariant set, in our paper, some trajectories can escape from the prescribed set of candidate solutions. Moreover, the associated bound set need not be compact as in . Similarly, the main difference between our results and those in [9, 13] consists in the application of a continuation principle jointly with a bound sets approach, which allows us to check fixed point free boundaries of given bound sets. This, in particular, means that, unlike in [9, 13], some trajectories can again escape from the prescribed set of candidate solutions in a transversal way.
where is an upper-Carathéodory mapping or a globally upper semicontinuous mapping with compact, convex values (for the related definitions, see Section 2).
The main purpose of the present paper is to prove the existence of a Carathéodory solution to problem (1) in a given set Q. This will be achieved by means of a suitable continuation principle. The crucial condition of the continuation principle described in Section 3 consists in guaranteeing the fixed point free boundary of Q w.r.t. an admissible homotopical bridge starting from (1) (see condition (v) in Proposition 3.1 below). This requirement will be verified by means of Lyapunov-like bounding functions, i.e., via a bound sets technique. That is also why the whole Section 4 is devoted to this technique applied to Dirichlet problem (1). We will distinguish two cases, namely when F is an upper-Carathéodory mapping and when F is globally upper semicontinuous (i.e., a Marchaud mapping). Unlike in the first case, the second one allows us to apply bounding functions which can be strictly localized at the boundaries of given bound sets.
for each . Let be a closed interval. By the symbol , we will mean the set of all Bochner integrable functions . For the definition and properties, see, e.g., [, pp.693-701].
The symbol will denote the set of functions whose first derivative is absolutely continuous. Then and the fundamental theorem of calculus (the Newton-Leibniz formula) holds (see, e.g., [, pp.243-244], [, pp.695-696]). In the sequel, we will always consider as a subspace of the Banach space .
Given and , the symbol will denote, as usually, the set , where B is the open unit ball in E, i.e., .
A multivalued mapping is called upper semicontinuous (shortly, u.s.c.) if for each open subset , the set is open in X.
A multivalued mapping is called compact if the set is contained in a compact subset of Y; it is called quasi-compact if it maps compact sets onto relatively compact sets; and completely continuous if it maps bounded sets onto relatively compact sets.
We say that a multivalued mapping with closed values is a step multivalued mapping if there exists a finite family of disjoint measurable subsets , such that and F is constant on every . A multivalued mapping with closed values is called strongly measurable if there exists a sequence of step multivalued mappings such that as for a.a. , where stands for the Hausdorff distance.
A multivalued mapping is called an upper-Carathéodory mapping if the map is strongly measurable for all , the map is u.s.c. for almost all and the set is compact and convex for all .
Let us note that if are Banach spaces, then an upper-Carathéodory mapping is weakly superpositionally measurable, i.e., that for each continuous , the composition possesses a single-valued measurable selection (see, e.g., [12, 20]).
for a.a. and for all .
In the sequel, the measure of noncompactness will also be employed.
Definition 2.1 Let N be a partially ordered set, E be a Banach space and let denote the family of all nonempty subsets of E. A function is called a measure of noncompactness (m.n.c.) in E if for all , where denotes the closed convex hull of Ω.
monotone if for all ,
nonsingular if for all and ,
invariant with respect to the union with compact sets if for every relatively compact and every ,
regular when if and only if Ω is relatively compact,
algebraically semi-additive if for all .
Definition 2.2 An m.n.c. β with values in a cone of a Banach space has the semi-homogeneity property if for all and all .
It is obvious that an m.n.c. which is invariant with respect to the union with compact sets is also nonsingular.
The Hausdorff measure of noncompactness is monotone, nonsingular, algebraically semi-additive and has the semi-homogeneity property.
defined on the bounded set , where the ordering is induced by the positive cone in and where denotes the modulus of continuity of a subset .a Such a μ is an m.n.c. in , as shown in the following lemma (proven in ), where the properties of μ will be also discussed.
Lemma 2.1 The function μ given by (4) defines an m.n.c. in ; such an m.n.c. μ is monotone, invariant with respect to the union with compact sets and regular.
The m.n.c. μ defined by (4) will be used in order to solve problem (1) (cf. Theorem 5.1).
Definition 2.3 Let E be a Banach space and . A multivalued mapping with compact values is called condensing with respect to an m.n.c. β (shortly, β-condensing) if for every such that , it holds that Ω is relatively compact.
A family of mappings with compact values is called β-condensing if for every such that , it holds that Ω is relatively compact.
The following convergence result will be also employed.
Lemma 2.2 (cf. [, Lemma III.1.30])
the set is relatively compact for every ,
there exists such that for a.a. and for all ,
the set is weakly relatively compact for a.a. .
converges uniformly to x in ,
converges weakly in to .
has a strongly measurable selection for every ,
is u.s.c. for a.a. ,
the set is compact and convex for all .
for a.a. and every . Let us define the Nemytskiǐ operator in the following way: for every . Then, if sequences and , , , are such that in and weakly in , then .
The proof of the main result (cf. Theorem 5.1 below) will be based on the combination of a bound sets technique together with the following continuation principle developed in .
- (ii)For every nonempty, bounded set , there exists such that
The solution mapping is quasi-compact and μ-condensing with respect to a monotone and nonsingular m.n.c. μ defined on .
For each , the set of solutions of the problem is a subset of IntQ, i.e., for all .
For each , the solution mapping has no fixed points on the boundary ∂Q of Q.
Then the b.v.p. (5) has a solution in Q.
The proof of the continuation principle is based on the fact that the family of problems depending on two parameters and is associated to the original b.v.p. (5). This family is defined in such a way that if is its corresponding solution mapping, then all fixed points of the map are solutions of (5) (see condition (6)).
The continuation principle formulated in Proposition 3.1 requires, in particular, the existence of a suitable set of candidate solutions. The set Q should satisfy the transversality condition (v), i.e., it should have a fixed-point free boundary with respect to the solution mapping . Since the direct verification of the transversality condition is usually a difficult task, we will devote this section to a bound sets technique which can be used for guaranteeing such a condition. For this purpose, we will define the set Q as , where K is nonempty and open in E and denotes its closure.
Hence, let us consider the Dirichlet boundary value problem (1) and let be a -function satisfying
(H2) for all .
Definition 4.1 A nonempty open set is called a bound set for the b.v.p. (1) if every solution x of (1) such that for each does not satisfy for any .
Let be the Banach space dual to E and let us denote by the pairing (the duality relation) between E and , i.e., for all and , we put . The proof of the following proposition is quite analogous to the finite-dimensional case considered in . Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, we present it here, too.
holds for all . Then K is a bound set for the Dirichlet problem (1).
Proof Let be a solution of problem (1). We assume, by a contradiction, that there exists such that . The point must lie in according to the Dirichlet boundary conditions and the fact that .
Since is locally Lipschitzian, there exist a neighborhood U of and a constant such that is Lipschitzian with a constant L. Let be such that for each .
In order to get the desired contradiction, let us define the function as the composition . According to the regularity properties of x and V, . Since and for all , is a local maximum point for g. Therefore, . Moreover, there exist points , such that and .
according to assumption (7), it leads to a contradiction with inequality (9).
which leads to a contradiction with inequality (10).
Therefore, we get the contradiction in case that at least one of conditions (7), (8) holds which completes the proof. □
If the mapping is globally u.s.c. in , then the transversality conditions can be localized directly on the boundary of K, as will be shown in the following proposition, whose proof is again quite analogous to the finite-dimensional case considered in .
for all . Then K is a bound set for problem (1).
Proof Let be a solution of problem (1). We assume, by a contradiction, that there exists such that . Since and x satisfies Dirichlet boundary conditions, .
Let us define the function as the composition . Then and for all , i.e., there is a local maximum for g at the point 0, and so . Consequently, satisfies condition (11).
Since is locally Lipschitzian, there exist a neighborhood U of and a constant such that is Lipschitzian with a constant L.
Let be an arbitrary decreasing sequence of positive numbers such that as , for all .
Since and for all , there exists, for each , such that .
where as .
where , as and .
Inequalities (16) and (17) are in a contradiction with condition (12), because , satisfies condition (11) and . □
with t, x, y, w as in Proposition 4.1 or in Proposition 4.2.
with t, x, y and w as in Proposition 4.1 or in Proposition 4.2, where .
Definition 4.2 A -function with a locally Lipschitzian Fréchet derivative which satisfies conditions (H1), (H2) and all assumptions in Proposition 4.1 or Proposition 4.2 is called a bounding function for problem (1).
Combining the continuation principle with the bound sets technique, we are ready to state the main result of the paper concerning the solvability and localization of a solution of the multivalued Dirichlet problem (1).
Theorem 5.1 Consider the Dirichlet b.v.p. (1), where is an upper-Carathéodory multivalued mapping. Assume that is an open, convex set containing 0. Furthermore, let the following conditions be satisfied:
() for a.a. and each bounded , where and γ is the Hausdorff measure of noncompactness in E.
for a.a. and all ,
Finally, let there exist a function with a locally Lipschitzian Fréchet derivative satisfying conditions (H1), (H2), and at least one of conditions (7), (8) for a suitable , all , , , and . Then the Dirichlet b.v.p. (1) admits a solution whose values are located in .
and let the set Q of candidate solutions be defined as . Because of the convexity of K, the set Q is closed and convex.
and denote by a solution mapping which assigns to each the set of solutions of . We will show that the family of the above b.v.p.s satisfies all assumptions of Proposition 3.1.
In this case, which, together with the definition of , ensures the validity of (6).
Thus, the set of solutions of is nonempty. The convexity of the solution sets follows immediately from the properties of a mapping F and the fact that problems are fully linearized.
ad (ii) Assuming that is defined by , condition (ii) in Proposition 3.1 is ensured directly by assumption (5 ).
ad (iii) Since the verification of condition (iii) in Proposition 3.1 is technically the most complicated, it will be subdivided into two parts: (iii1) the quasi-compactness of the solution operator , (iii2) the condensity of w.r.t. the monotone and nonsingular (cf. Lemma 2.1) m.n.c. μ defined by (4).
and that .
Since and in , there exists a bounded such that for all and . Therefore, there exists, according to condition (), such that for every and a.a. .
Hence, the sequences and are bounded and is uniformly integrable.
for a.a. , which implies that is relatively compact.
by which , are relatively compact for a.a. . Moreover, since satisfies for all equation (20), is relatively compact for a.a. . Thus, according to Lemma 2.2, there exist a subsequence of , for the sake of simplicity denoted in the same way as the sequence, and such that converges to in and converges weakly to in . Therefore, the mapping is quasi-compact.
Since and Θ is bounded in , by means of (), we get the existence of such that for a.a. and all . This implies for a.a. and all .
Hence, also and since μ is regular, we have that Θ is relatively compact. Therefore, condition (iii) in Proposition 3.1 holds.
ad (iv) For all , the problem has only the trivial solution. Since , condition (iv) in Proposition 3.1 is satisfied.
This implies that , which ensures condition (v) in Proposition 3.1. □
If the mapping is globally u.s.c. in (i.e., a Marchaud map), then we are able to improve Theorem 5.1 in the following way.
Theorem 5.2 Consider the Dirichlet b.v.p. (1), where is an upper semicontinuous mapping with compact, convex values. Assume that is an open, convex set containing 0. Moreover, let conditions (), (), () from Theorem 5.1 be satisfied.
Furthermore, let there exist a function with a locally Lipschitz Frechét derivative satisfying (H1) and (H2). Moreover, let, for all , , and satisfying (11), condition (12) hold for all . Then the Dirichlet b.v.p. (1) admits a solution whose values are located in .
Proof The verification is quite analogous as in Theorem 5.1 when just replacing the usage of Proposition 4.1 by Proposition 4.2. □
- (i)is an upper-Carathéodory multivalued mapping and is completely continuous for a.a. such that
- (ii)is a Carathéodory multivalued mapping such that
- (iii)there exist and such that, for all with , , , and , we have
Then the Dirichlet problem (26) admits, according to Theorem 5.1, a solution such that for all .
for a.a. and every bounded , where γ stands for the Hausdorff measure of noncompactness in H.
for a.a. and every bounded , i.e., , for (cf. ()).
for a.a. and all .
i.e., (18) in ().
and the bound set K as in order to get a claim.
- (i)is a completely continuous mapping for a.a. such that
- (ii)is a Lipschitzian mapping for a.a. with the Lipschitz constant
Applying now Theorem 5.2, by the analogous arguments as in Example 6.1, the Dirichlet problem (26) admits a solution such that for all .
Because of the Dirichlet boundary conditions for , there exists a zero point of , i.e., , by which the same estimates can be also obtained without an explicit usage of the Green function above. Otherwise, it is not so easy to obtain such estimates, because Rolle’s theorem fails in general.
For obtaining the estimation of the solution derivative in a Hilbert space H, one can also apply, under natural assumptions, the p-Nagumo condition derived in .
a The m.n.c. is monotone, nonsingular and algebraically subadditive on (cf., e.g., ) and it is equal to zero if and only if all the elements are equi-continuous.
The first and third authors were supported by the grant PrF_2012_017. The second author was supported by the national research project PRIN “Ordinary Differential Equations and Applications”.
- De Blasi FS, Pianigiani G: Solution sets of boundary value problems for nonconvex differential inclusions. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 1993, 1: 303-314.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Kožušníková M: A bounding functions approach to multivalued Dirichlet problem. Atti Semin. Mat. Fis. Univ. Modena Reggio Emilia 2007, 55: 133-151.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Miklaszewski D: The two-point problem for nonlinear ordinary differential equations and differential inclusions. Univ. Iagell Acta Math. 1998, 36: 127-132.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Pavlačková M: A bound sets technique for Dirichlet problem with an upper-Carathéodory right-hand side. Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Fac. Rerum Nat., Math. 2010, 49(2):95-106.MATHGoogle Scholar
- Lakshmikantham V, Chandra J, Mitchell AR: Existence of solutions of boundary value problems for nonlinear second order systems in Banach space. Nonlinear Anal. 1978, 2: 157-168. 10.1016/0362-546X(78)90062-7MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Khrennikov AY: Dirichlet’s problem in Banach space. Math. Notes Acad. Sci. USSR 1983, 34(4):804-808.MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mawhin J: Two point boundary value problems for nonlinear second order differential equations in Hilbert spaces. Tohoku Math. J. 1980, 32(2):225-233. 10.2748/tmj/1178229639MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mönch H: Boundary value problems for nonlinear differential equations of second order in Banach spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 1980, 4(5):985-999. 10.1016/0362-546X(80)90010-3MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Palmucci M, Papalini F: Periodic and boundary value problems for second order differential inclusions. J. Appl. Math. Stoch. Anal. 2001, 14: 161-182. 10.1155/S1048953301000120MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Schmitt K, Volkmann P: Boundary value problems for second order differential equations in convex subsets in a Banach space. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 1976, 218: 397-405.MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zhou WX, Peng J: Existence of solution to a second-order boundary value problem via noncompactness measures. Discrete Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2012., 2012: Article ID 786404. doi:10.1155/2012/786404Google Scholar
- Deimling K: Multivalued Differential Equations. de Gruyter, Berlin; 1992.MATHView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wang Z, Zhang F: Two points boundary value problems in Banach spaces. Appl. Math. Mech. 1996, 17(3):275-280. English editionMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Gaines RE, Mawhin JL Lect. Notes in Math. 568. In Coincidence Degree and Nonlinear Differential Equations. Springer, Berlin; 1977.Google Scholar
- Andres J, Górniewicz L: Topological Fixed Point Principles for Boundary Value Problems. Kluwer, Dordrecht; 2003.MATHView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Andres J, Malaguti L, Pavlačková M: On second-order boundary value problems in Banach spaces: a bound sets approach. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 37(2):303-341.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Andres J, Malaguti L, Pavlačková M: A Scorza-Dragoni approach to second-order boundary value problems in abstract spaces. Appl. Math. Inf. Sci. 2012, 6(2):177-192.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Andres J, Malaguti L, Taddei V: On boundary value problems in Banach spaces. Dyn. Syst. Appl. 2009, 18: 275-302.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Papageorgiou NS, Kyritsi-Yiallourou ST: Handbook of Applied Analysis. Springer, Berlin; 2009.MATHGoogle Scholar
- Kamenskii MI, Obukhovskii VV, Zecca P: Condensing Multivalued Maps and Semilinear Differential Inclusions in Banach Spaces. de Gruyter, Berlin; 2001.MATHView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hu S, Papageorgiou NS: Handbook of Multivalued Analysis, Vol. I: Theory. Kluwer, Dordrecht; 1997.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vrabie II: Compactness Methods for Nonlinear Evolutions. 2nd edition. Longman, Harlow; 1990.Google Scholar
- Andres J, Kožušníková M, Malaguti L: Bound sets approach to boundary value problems for vector second-order differential inclusions. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71(1-2):28-44. 10.1016/j.na.2008.10.028MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Aubin JP, Cellina A: Differential Inclusions. Springer, Berlin; 1984.MATHView ArticleGoogle Scholar
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.