RETRACTED ARTICLE: Existence and uniqueness of solutions for the Schrödinger integrable boundary value problem

Abstract

This paper is mainly devoted to the study of one kind of nonlinear Schrödinger differential equations. Under the integrable boundary value condition, the existence and uniqueness of the solutions of this equation are discussed by using new Riesz representations of linear maps and the Schrödinger fixed point theorem.

1 Introduction

The nonlinear Schrödinger differential (NSD) equation is one of the most important inherently discrete models. NSD equations play a crucial role in the modeling of a great variety of phenomena, ranging from solid state and condensed matter physics to biology [1–4]. For example, they have been successfully applied to the modeling of localized pulse propagation optical fibers and wave guides, to the study of energy relaxation in solids, to the behavior of amorphous material, to the modeling of self-trapping of vibrational energy in proteins or studies related to the denaturation of the NSD double strand [5].

In 1961, Gross considered a NSD equation with Dirac distribution defect (see [6]),

$$ i u_{t}+\frac{1}{2} u_{xx}+q\delta_{a} u+g \bigl( \vert u \vert ^{2} \bigr) u=0 \quad \mbox{in } \boldsymbol{ \Omega }\times \mathbb{R}_{+}, $$

where $\boldsymbol{\Omega }\subset \mathbb{R}$, $u=u(x,t)$ is the unknown solution maps $\boldsymbol{\Omega }\times \mathbb{R}_{+}$ into $\mathbb{C}$, $\delta_{a}$ is the Dirac distribution at the point $a\in \boldsymbol{\Omega }$, namely, $\langle \delta_{a},v\rangle = v(a)$ for $v \in \mathbf{H}^{1}(\boldsymbol{\Omega })$, and $q \in \mathbb{R}$ represents its intensity parameter. Such a distribution is introduced in order to model physically the defect at the point $x=a$ (see [7]). The function g represents a generalization of the classical nonlinear Schrödinger equation (see for example [8]). As for other contributions to the analysis of nonlinear Schrödinger equations, we refer to Refs. [9–12] and the references therein.

In this paper, we consider the following NSD equation:

$$\begin{aligned} \mathfrak{X}_{s}=x+ \int_{0}^{s} b(s,\mathfrak{X}_{s})\,ds+ \int_{0}^{s} h(s, \mathfrak{X}_{s})\,d \langle \mathfrak{B} \rangle _{s}+ \int_{0} ^{s}\sigma (s,\mathfrak{X}_{s})\,d \mathfrak{B}_{s}, \end{aligned}$$

(1)

where $0\le s\le S$ and $\langle \mathfrak{B} \rangle$ is the quadratic variation of the Brownian motion $\mathfrak{B}$.

It is worth mentioning that (1) comes from an expansion of the Feynman path integral from Brownian-like to Lévy-like quantum mechanical paths (see [13] for details). When the coefficients b, h and σ are constants in (1), the Lévy dynamics becomes the Brownian dynamics, and (1) reduces to the classical stochastic differential equation

$$ \mathfrak{Y}_{s}=\xi + \int^{S}_{s}f(s,\mathfrak{Y}_{s}, \mathfrak{Z} _{s})\,ds+ \int^{S}_{s}g(s,\mathfrak{Y}_{s}, \mathfrak{Z}_{s})\,d \langle B \rangle _{s}- \int^{S}_{s}\mathfrak{Z}_{s}\,d \mathfrak{B}_{s}-(\mathfrak{K}_{S}- \mathfrak{K}_{s}) $$

(2)

under standard Lipschitz conditions on $f(s, y, z)$, $g(s, y, z)$ in y, z and the $L_{G}^{p}(\Omega_{S} )$ ($p>1$) integrability condition on ξ. The solution $(\mathfrak{Y},\mathfrak{Z},\mathfrak{K})$ is universally defined in the space of the Schrödinger framework, in which the processes have a strong regularity property. It should be noted that K is a decreasing Schrödinger martingale.

It is well known that classical stochastic differential equations are encountered when one applies the stochastic maximum principle to optimal stochastic control problems. Such equations are also encountered in the probabilistic interpretation of a general type of systems quasilinear PDEs, as well as in finance (see [13–15] for details).

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we introduce some notions and results. In Sect. 3, the main results and their proofs are presented.

2 Preliminaries

In this section, we introduce some notations and preliminary results in Schrödinger framework which are needed in the following section. More details can be found in [16–19].

Let $\Gamma_{S} = C_{0}([0,S ];R)$, the space of real valued continuous functions on $[0,S]$ with $w_{0} = 0$, be endowed with the distance (see [20])

$$ d\bigl(w^{1},w^{2}\bigr):=\sum_{N=1}^{\infty } \frac{(\max_{0\le s\le N} \vert w_{s} ^{1}-w_{s}^{2} \vert )\land 1}{2^{N}} $$

(3)

and let $\mathfrak{B}_{s}(w) = w_{s}$ be the canonical process. Denote by $\mathbb{F} := \{\mathcal{F}_{s}\}_{0\leq s\leq S}$ the natural filtration generated by $\mathfrak{B}_{s}$, let $L^{0}(\Gamma_{S} )$ be the space of all $\mathbb{F}$-measurable real functions. Let

$$ L_{ip}(\Gamma_{S}):= \bigl\{ \phi (\mathfrak{B}_{s_{1}} ,\ldots,\mathfrak{B} _{s_{n}}):\forall n \ge 1, s_{1},\ldots, s_{n} \in [0,S ], \forall \phi \in C_{b,L_{ip}} \bigl(R^{n}\bigr)\bigr\} , $$

where $C_{b,L_{ip}}(R^{n})$ denotes the set of bounded Lipschitz functions in $R^{n}$ (see [21]).

In the sequel, we will work under the following assumptions.

• (H1) For $u\in R^{3}$, $\varepsilon >0$, $\Phi (x)\in L_{G}^{2}(\Gamma _{S})$, $f(\cdot,u)$, $g(\cdot,u)$, $b(\cdot ,u)$, $h(\cdot ,u)$, $\sigma (\cdot ,u)\in M _{G}^{2}(0,S)$;

• (H2) For $u^{1},u^{2}\in R^{3}$, there exists a positive constant $C_{1}$ such that

  $$ \bigl\Vert f\bigl(s,u^{1}\bigr)-f\bigl(s,u^{2}\bigr) \bigr\Vert \lor \bigl\Vert b\bigl(s,u^{1}\bigr)-f\bigl(s,u^{2} \bigr) \bigr\Vert \lor \bigl\Vert A\bigl(s,u ^{1}\bigr)-A \bigl(s,u^{2}\bigr) \bigr\Vert \le C_{1} \bigl\Vert u^{1}-u^{2} \bigr\Vert $$

  and

  $$ \bigl\Vert \Phi \bigl(x^{1}\bigr)-\Phi \bigl(x^{2}\bigr) \bigr\Vert \le C_{1} \bigl\Vert x^{1}-x^{2} \bigr\Vert ; $$

• (H3) For $u^{1},u^{2}\in R^{3}$, there exists a positive constant $C_{2}$ such that

  $$ \bigl[ A\bigl(s,u^{1}\bigr)-A\bigl(s,u^{2} \bigr),u^{1}-u^{2}\bigr] \le -C_{2} \bigl\Vert u^{1}-u^{2} \bigr\Vert ^{2} . $$

A sublinear functional on $L_{ip}(\Gamma_{S} )$ satisfies: for all $\mathfrak{X},\mathfrak{Y}\in L_{ip}(\Gamma_{S})$,

• (I) monotonicity: $\mathfrak{E}[\mathfrak{X}]\ge \mathfrak{E}[ \mathfrak{Y}]$ if $\mathfrak{X}\le \mathfrak{Y}$;

• (II) constant preserving: $\mathfrak{E}[C]=C$ for $C\in R$;

• (III) sub-additivity: $\mathfrak{E}[\mathfrak{X}+\mathfrak{Y}]\le \mathfrak{E}[\mathfrak{X}]+\mathfrak{E}[\mathfrak{Y}]$;

• (IV) positive homogeneity: $\mathfrak{E}[\lambda \mathfrak{X}]=\lambda \mathfrak{E}[\mathfrak{X}]$ for $\lambda \geq 0$.

The tripe $(\Gamma ,L_{ip}(\Gamma_{S}), \mathfrak{E})$ is called a sublinear expectation space and E is called a sublinear expectation.

Definition 2.1

(see [22])

A random variable $\mathfrak{X}\in L_{ip}(\Gamma_{S})$ is the Schrödinger normal distributed with parameters $(0,[\underline{ \sigma }^{2},\overline{\sigma }^{2}])$, i.e., $\mathfrak{X}\sim N(0,[\underline{ \sigma }^{2},\overline{\sigma }^{2}])$ if for each $\phi \in C_{b,L _{ip}}(R)$,

$$ u(s,x):=\mathfrak{E}\bigl[\phi (x+\sqrt{t}\mathfrak{X})\bigr] $$

is a viscosity solution to the following PDE:

$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} \frac{\partial u}{\partial s}+G\frac{\partial^{2} u}{\partial x^{2}}=0, \\ u_{s_{0}}=\phi (x), \end{cases} $$

on $R^{+}\times R$, where

$$ G(a):= \frac{a^{+}\overline{\sigma }^{2}-a^{-}\underline{\sigma }^{2}}{2} $$

and $a\in R$.

Definition 2.2

(see [23])

We call a sublinear expectation $\hat{\mathfrak{E}}:L _{ip}(\Gamma_{S})\to R$ a Schrödinger expectation if the canonical process $\mathfrak{B}$ is a Schrödinger Brownian motion under $\hat{\mathfrak{E}}[\cdot]$, that is, for each $0 \le s \le t \le S$, the increment $\mathfrak{B}_{s}-\mathfrak{B}_{s}\sim N(0,[\underline{ \sigma }^{2}(s-s),\overline{\sigma }^{2}])(s-s)$ and for all $n > 0$, $0 \le s_{1}\le \cdots \le s_{n}\le S$ and $\varphi \in L_{ip}( \Gamma_{S})$

$$ \hat{\mathfrak{E}}\bigl[\varphi (\mathfrak{B}_{s_{1}},\ldots,\mathfrak{B} _{s_{n-1}},\mathfrak{B}_{s_{n}}-\mathfrak{B}_{s_{n-1}})\bigr]= \hat{\mathfrak{E}}\bigl[\psi (\mathfrak{B}_{s_{1}},\ldots,\mathfrak{B} _{s_{n-1}})\bigr], $$

where

$$ \psi (x_{1},\ldots,x_{n-1}):=\hat{\mathfrak{E}}\bigl[\varphi (x_{1},\ldots,x_{n-1},\sqrt{s_{n}-s_{n-1}} \mathfrak{B}_{1})\bigr]. $$

We can also define the conditional Schrödinger expectation $\hat{\mathfrak{E}}_{s}$ of $\xi \in L_{ip}(\Gamma_{S} )$ knowing $L_{ip}(\Gamma {t})$ for $t \in [0,S]$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that ξ has the representation

$$ \xi =\varphi \bigl(\mathfrak{B}(s_{1}),\mathfrak{B}(s_{2})- \mathfrak{B}(s _{1}),\ldots,\mathfrak{B}(s_{n})- \mathfrak{B}(s_{n_{1}})\bigr) $$

with $t = s_{i}$, for some $1 \le i \le n$, and we put

$$ \begin{gathered} \hat{\mathfrak{E}}_{s_{i}}\bigl[\varphi \bigl(\mathfrak{B}(s_{1}), \mathfrak{B}(s _{2})-\mathfrak{B}(s_{1}),\ldots, \mathfrak{B}(s_{n})-\mathfrak{B}(s _{n-1})\bigr)\bigr] \\ \quad = \tilde{\varphi }\bigl(\mathfrak{B}(s_{1}),\mathfrak{B}(s_{2})- \mathfrak{B}(s_{1}),\ldots,\mathfrak{B}(s_{i})- \mathfrak{B}(s_{i-1})\bigr), \end{gathered} $$

where

$$ \tilde{\varphi }(x_{1},\ldots,x_{i})=\hat{\mathfrak{E}} \bigl[\varphi \bigl(x _{1},\ldots,x_{i},\mathfrak{B}(s_{i+1})- \mathfrak{B}(s_{i}),\ldots, \mathfrak{B}(s_{n})- \mathfrak{B}(s_{n-1})\bigr)\bigr]. $$

For $p\ge 1$, we denote by $L_{G}^{p}(\Gamma_{S})$ the completion of $L_{ip}(\Gamma_{S})$ under the natural norm

$$ \Vert \mathfrak{X} \Vert _{p,G}:=\bigl(\hat{\mathfrak{E}}\bigl[ \vert \mathfrak{X} \vert ^{p}\bigr]\bigr)^{ \frac{1}{p}}. $$

$\hat{\mathfrak{E}}$ is a continuous mapping on $L_{ip}(\Gamma_{S} )$ endowed with the norm $\Vert \cdot \Vert _{1,G}$. Therefore, it can be extended continuously to $L_{G}^{1}(\Gamma_{S} )$ under the norm $\Vert X \Vert _{1,G}$.

Next, we introduce the Itô integral of Schrödinger Brownian motion.

Let $M_{G}^{0} (0,S )$ be the collection of processes in the following form: for a given partition $\pi_{S} = \{s_{0}, s_{1},\ldots, s_{N}\}$ of $[0,S ]$, set

$$ \eta_{s}(w)=\sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \xi_{k}(w)I_{[s_{k},s_{k+1})}(s), $$

where $\xi_{k}\in L_{ip}(\Gamma_{tk})$ and $k=0,1,\ldots,N-1$ are given.

For $p\ge 1$, we denote by $H_{G}^{p}(0,S)$, $M_{G}^{p}(0,S)$ the completion of $M_{G}^{0}(0,S)$ under the norm

$$ \Vert \eta \Vert _{H_{G}^{p}(0,S)}=\biggl\{ \hat{\mathfrak{E}}\biggl[\biggl( \int_{0} ^{S} \vert \eta_{s} \vert ^{2}\,ds\biggr)^{\frac{p}{2}}\biggr]\biggr\} ^{\frac{1}{p}} $$

and

$$ \Vert \eta \Vert _{M_{G}^{p}(0,S)}=\biggl\{ \hat{\mathfrak{E}}\biggl[\biggl( \int_{0} ^{S} \vert \eta_{s} \vert ^{p}\,ds\biggr)\biggr]\biggr\} ^{\frac{1}{p}}, $$

respectively. It is easy to see that

$$ H_{G}^{2}(0,S)=M_{G}^{2}(0,S). $$

As in [24], for each $\eta \in H_{G}^{p}(0,S)$ with $p\ge 1$, we can define Itô integral $\int_{0}^{S}\eta_{s}\,d\mathfrak{B}_{s}$. Moreover, the following $B-D-G$ inequality holds.

Let $\mathfrak{G}_{G}^{\alpha }(0,S)$ denote the collection of processes $(\mathfrak{Y},\mathfrak{Z},\mathfrak{K})$ such that $\mathfrak{Y} \in S_{G}^{\alpha }(0, S )$, $\mathfrak{Z} \in H_{G}^{\alpha }(0,S )$, K is a decreasing Schrödinger martingale with $\mathfrak{K}_{0} = 0$ and $\mathfrak{K}_{S} \in L_{G}^{\alpha }(\Gamma )$.

Lemma 2.1

(see [25])

Assume that $\xi \in L_{G}^{\beta }(\Gamma_{S} )$, $f,g \in M_{G}^{\beta }(0,S)$and satisfy the Lipschitz condition for some $\beta > 1$. Then Eq. (2) has a unique solution $(\mathfrak{Y},\mathfrak{Z},\mathfrak{K}) \in \mathfrak{G}_{G}^{ \alpha }(0, S )$for any $1 < \alpha < \beta$.

In [26], the authors also got the explicit solution of the following special type of NSD equation.

Lemma 2.2

Assume that $\{a_{s}\}_{s\in [0,S]}$, $\{c_{s} \}_{s\in [0,S]}$are bounded processes in $M_{G}^{1}(0,S)$and $\xi \in L_{G}^{1}(\Gamma _{S})$, $\{m_{s} \}_{s\in [0,S]}$, $\{n_{s}\}_{s\in [0,S]}\in M_{G} ^{1}(0,S)$. Then the NSD equation

$$ \mathfrak{Y}_{s}=\hat{\mathfrak{E}}_{s}\biggl[\xi + \int^{S}_{s}(a_{s} \mathfrak{Y}_{s}+m_{s}) \,ds+ \int^{S}_{s}(c_{s}\mathfrak{Y}_{s}+n_{s})d \langle \mathfrak{B} \rangle _{s}\biggr] $$

has an explicit solution,

$$ \mathfrak{Y}_{s}=(\mathfrak{X}_{s})^{-1}\hat{ \mathfrak{E}}_{s}\biggl[ \mathfrak{X}_{S}\xi + \int^{S}_{s}(m_{s})\,ds+ \int^{S}_{s}(n_{s})\,d \langle \mathfrak{B} \rangle _{s}\biggr], $$

where

$$ \mathfrak{X}_{s}=\exp\biggl( \int_{0}^{s} a_{s}\,ds+ \int_{0}^{s}c_{s} \,d \langle \mathfrak{B} \rangle _{s} \biggr). $$

Lemma 2.3

(see [27])

Suppose that a nonnegative real sequence $\{a_{i}\} _{i=1}^{\infty }=1$satisfying

$$ 8a_{i+1}\le 2a_{i}+a_{i-1} $$

for any $i\ge 1$. Then there exists a positive constantc, such that $2^{i}a_{i}\leq c$for any $i\geq 0$.

3 Main results and their proofs

In this section, we introduce the main results and their proofs.

Let $u:=(x,y,z)$, $A(s,u):=(-g(s,u),h(s,u),\sigma (s,u))$. $[\cdot,\cdot]$ denotes the usual inner product in real number space and $\vert \cdot \vert$ denotes the Euclidean norm.

Our first main result can be summarized as follows.

Theorem 3.1

Suppose that (H1)–(H3) are satisfied. Then there exists $s\in [0,S]$such that (1) has a nontrivial and nonnegative solution.

Proof

Let a nonnegative real sequence $\{u^{(k)}\}_{k\in \mathbb{N}}\subset \mathbb{F}$ such that $\{A(s,u^{(k)})\}_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded Lipschitz functions in $R^{n}$ and

$$ \lim_{k\to \infty }\bigl(1+ \bigl\Vert u^{(k)} \bigr\Vert \bigr) \bigl\Vert A'\bigl(s,u^{(k)}\bigr) \bigr\Vert = 0. $$

So there exists a positive constant $C_{3}$ such that $\vert A(s,u^{(k)}) \vert \leq C_{3}$ (see [28]), which concludes that

$$ \begin{aligned}[b] 2C_{3} &\geq 2A\bigl(s,u^{(k)} \bigr)-\bigl\langle A'\bigl(s,u^{(k)}\bigr),u^{(k)} \bigr\rangle \\ & = \sum^{+\infty }_{n=-\infty }\gamma_{n} \bigl[g\bigl(s,u_{n}^{(k)}\bigr)u_{n}^{(k)}-2h \bigl(s,u _{n}^{(k)}\bigr) \bigr]. \end{aligned} $$

(4)

It follows from (H1) and (4) that

$$ \bigl\vert F(u_{n}) \bigr\vert \leq \frac{\underline{v}-\omega }{4\bar{\gamma }}u_{n}^{2} $$

(5)

for any $\vert u_{n} \vert \leq \eta$, where $n\in \mathbb{Z}$ and η is a positive real number satisfying $\eta \in (0,1)$.

Then (H2) and (5) immediately give

$$\begin{aligned}& g\bigl(s,u_{n}^{(k)}\bigr)u_{n}^{(k)}>2h \bigl(s,u_{n}^{(k)}\bigr)\geq 0, \end{aligned}$$

(6)

$$\begin{aligned}& h\bigl(s,u_{n}^{(k)}\bigr) \leq \bigl[p+q \bigl\vert u_{n}^{(k)} \bigr\vert ^{\mu /2} \bigr] \bigl[g\bigl(s,u _{n}^{(k)}\bigr)u_{n}^{(k)} -2h\bigl(s,u_{n}^{(k)}\bigr) \bigr]. \end{aligned}$$

(7)

By Lemma 2.3, (6) and (7), we have

$$\begin{aligned} &\frac{1}{2} \bigl\Vert u^{(k)} \bigr\Vert ^{2} \\ &\quad =A\bigl(s,u^{(k)}\bigr)+\frac{\tau }{2} \bigl\Vert u^{(k)} \bigr\Vert _{l^{2}}^{2} + \sum _{n\in \mathbb{Z}( \vert u_{n}^{(k)} \vert \leq \eta )}\varrho_{n}h\bigl(s,u_{n} ^{(k)}\bigr) +\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}( \vert u_{n}^{(k)} \vert \geq \eta )} \varrho_{n}h\bigl(s,u _{n}^{(k)}\bigr) \\ &\quad \leq A\bigl(s,u^{(k)}\bigr)+\frac{\tau }{2\underline{v}} \bigl\Vert u^{(k)} \bigr\Vert ^{2} +\frac{ \underline{v}-\tau }{4}\sum _{n\in \mathbb{Z}( \vert u_{n}^{(k)} \vert \leq \eta )} \bigl(u_{n}^{(k)} \bigr)^{2} \\ &\quad \quad{} +\bar{\varrho }\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}( \vert u_{n}^{(k)} \vert \geq \eta )} \bigl[p+q \bigl\vert u_{n}^{(k)} \bigr\vert ^{\mu /2} \bigr] \bigl[g\bigl(s,u_{n}^{(k)}\bigr)u_{n}^{(k)}-2h \bigl(s,u _{n}^{(k)}\bigr) \bigr] \\ &\quad \leq c+\frac{\tau }{2\underline{v}} \bigl\Vert u^{(k)} \bigr\Vert ^{2} +\frac{ \underline{v}-\tau }{4\underline{v}} \bigl\Vert u^{(k)} \bigr\Vert ^{2} +2c\bar{\varrho } \bigl(p+q\underline{v}^{\mu /2} \bigl\Vert u^{(k)} \bigr\Vert ^{\mu } \bigr), \end{aligned}$$

which gives

$$ \frac{\underline{v}-\tau }{4\underline{v}} \bigl\Vert u^{(k)} \bigr\Vert ^{2} \leq c+2c\bar{ \varrho } \bigl(p+q\underline{v}^{\mu /2} \bigl\Vert u^{(k)} \bigr\Vert ^{\mu } \bigr). $$

It is obvious that the nonnegative real sequence $\{u^{(k)}\}_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded in E, so there exists a positive constant $C_{4}$ such that (see [29])

$$ \bigl\Vert u^{(k)} \bigr\Vert \leq C_{4} $$

(8)

for any $k\in \mathbb{N}$, which gives $u^{(k)}\rightharpoonup u^{(0)}$ in E as $k\to \infty$.

Let ε be a given number. Then there exists a positive number ζ such that

$$ \bigl\vert g(s,u) \bigr\vert \leq \varepsilon \vert u \vert $$

(9)

for any $u\in \mathbb{R}$ from (H3), where $\vert u \vert \leq \zeta$.

It follows from (H1) that there exists a positive integer $C_{5}$ satisfying

$$ \zeta^{2}v_{n}\geq C_{5}^{2} $$

(10)

for any $\vert n \vert \geq C_{5}$.

By (8), (9) and (10), we obtain

$$ C_{5}^{2}\bigl(u^{(k)}_{n} \bigr)^{2}=C_{5}^{2}v_{n} \bigl(u^{(k)}_{n}\bigr)^{2} \leq v_{n} \zeta^{2} \bigl\Vert u^{(k)} \bigr\Vert ^{2}\leq C_{5}^{2}v_{n}\zeta^{2} $$

(11)

for any $\vert n \vert \geq C_{5}$.

Since $u^{(k)}\rightharpoonup u^{(0)}$ in E as $k\to \infty$, it is obvious that $u^{(k)}_{n}$ converges to $u^{(0)}_{n}$ pointwise for all $n\in \mathbb{Z}$, that is,

$$ \lim_{k\to \infty } u^{(k)}_{n}=u^{(0)}_{n} $$

(12)

for any $n\in \mathbb{Z}$, which together with (11) gives

$$ \bigl(u^{(0)}_{n}\bigr)^{2}\leq \zeta^{2} $$

(13)

for any $\vert n \vert \geq C_{5}$.

It follows from (12), (13) and the continuity of $g(s,u)$ on u that there exists a positive integer $C_{6}$ such that

$$ \sum^{D}_{n=-D} \varrho_{n} \bigl\vert f\bigl(u^{(k)}_{n}\bigr)-f \bigl(u^{(0)}_{n}\bigr) \bigr\vert < \varepsilon $$

(14)

for any $k\geq C_{6}$.

Meanwhile, we have

$$ \begin{aligned}[b] &\sum_{ \vert n \vert \geq D} \varrho_{n} \bigl\vert f\bigl(u^{(k)}_{n}\bigr)-g \bigl(s,u^{(0)}_{n}\bigr) \bigr\vert \bigl\vert u^{(k)} _{n}-u^{(0)}_{n} \bigr\vert \\ &\quad \leq \sum_{ \vert n \vert \geq D}\bar{\varrho } \bigl( \bigl\vert f \bigl(u^{(k)} _{n}\bigr) \bigr\vert + \bigl\vert g \bigl(s,u^{(0)}_{n}\bigr) \bigr\vert \bigr) \bigl( \bigl\vert u^{(k)}_{n} \bigr\vert + \bigl\vert u^{(0)}_{n} \bigr\vert \bigr) \\ & \quad \leq \bar{\varrho }\varepsilon \sum_{ \vert n \vert \geq D} \bigl[ \bigl\vert u^{(k)}_{n} \bigr\vert + \bigl\vert u ^{(0)}_{n} \bigr\vert \bigr] \bigl( \bigl\vert u^{(k)}_{n} \bigr\vert + \bigl\vert u^{(0)}_{n} \bigr\vert \bigr) \\ &\quad \leq 2\bar{ \varrho }\varepsilon \sum_{n=-\infty }^{+\infty } \bigl( \bigl\vert u^{(k)}_{n} \bigr\vert ^{2}+ \bigl\vert u ^{(0)}_{n} \bigr\vert ^{2} \bigr) \\ &\quad \leq \frac{2\bar{\varrho }\varepsilon }{ \underline{v}} \bigl(K_{1}^{2}+ \bigl\Vert u^{(0)} \bigr\Vert ^{2} \bigr) \end{aligned} $$

(15)

from (H3), (8), (9) and the Hölder inequality.

Since ε is arbitrary, we obtain

$$ \sum^{+\infty }_{n=-\infty } \varrho_{n} \bigl\vert g\bigl(s,u^{(k)}_{n} \bigr)-g\bigl(s,u ^{(0)}_{n}\bigr) \bigr\vert \to 0 $$

(16)

as $k\to \infty$.

It follows that

$$\begin{aligned} &\bigl\langle A'\bigl(s,u^{(k)}\bigr)-A' \bigl(s,u^{(0)}\bigr),u^{(k)}-u^{(0)}\bigr\rangle \\ &\quad = \bigl\Vert u^{(k)}-u^{(0)} \bigr\Vert ^{2} - \tau \bigl\Vert u^{(k)}-u^{(0)} \bigr\Vert _{l^{2}}^{2} - \sum^{+\infty }_{n=-\infty } \varrho_{n}\bigl(g\bigl(s,u^{(k)}_{n}\bigr) -g \bigl(s,u^{(0)} _{n}\bigr)\bigr) \bigl(u^{(k)}-u^{(0)} \bigr) \\ &\quad \geq \frac{\underline{v}-\tau }{\underline{v}} \bigl\Vert u^{(k)}-u^{(0)} \bigr\Vert ^{2} -\sum^{+\infty }_{n=-\infty } \varrho_{n} \bigl(g\bigl(s,u^{(k)}_{n}\bigr) -g \bigl(s,u ^{(0)}_{n}\bigr) \bigr) \bigl(u^{(k)}-u^{(0)} \bigr) \end{aligned}$$

from (14), (15) and (16), which gives

$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\underline{v}-\tau }{\underline{v}} \bigl\Vert u^{(k)}-u^{(0)} \bigr\Vert ^{2} & \leq \bigl\langle A'\bigl(s,u^{(k)} \bigr)-A'\bigl(s,u^{(0)}\bigr),u^{(k)}-u^{(0)} \bigr\rangle \\ &\quad {}+\sum^{+\infty }_{n=-\infty } \varrho_{n} \bigl(g\bigl(s,u^{(k)}_{n}\bigr) -g \bigl(s,u^{(0)}_{n}\bigr) \bigr) \bigl(u^{(k)}-u^{(0)} \bigr). \end{aligned}$$

Since $\langle A'(s,u^{(k)})-A'(s,u^{(0)}),u^{(k)}-u^{(0)}\rangle \to 0$ as $k\to \infty$ and $\underline{v}>\tau >0$, $u^{(k)}\to u ^{(0)}$ in E.

So the proof is complete. □

The following lemma provides the main mathematical result in the sequel.

Lemma 3.1

Let $E\subset L^{0}(\Gamma_{S} )$and $\mathcal{L}_{E}$be a mapping from $L^{0}(\Gamma_{S} )$onto E. If

$$ \mathcal{L}_{E}(x)=\operatorname{arg} \min_{y\in c} \Vert x-y \Vert $$

for any $x\in L^{0}(\Gamma_{S} )$, then $\mathcal{L}_{E}$is called the orthogonal projection from $L^{0}(\Gamma_{S} )$onto E. Furthermore, we have the following properties:

• (I) $\langle x-\mathcal{L}_{E}x,z-\mathcal{L}_{E}x \rangle \le 0$;

• (II) $\Vert \mathcal{L}_{E}x-\mathcal{L}_{E}y \Vert ^{2}\le \langle \mathcal{L} _{E}x-\mathcal{L}_{E}y,x-y \rangle$;

• (III) $\Vert \mathcal{L}_{E}x-z \Vert ^{2}\le \Vert x-z \Vert ^{2}+ \Vert \mathcal{L}_{E}x-x \Vert ^{2}$

for any $x, y \in L^{0}(\Gamma_{S} )$and $z\in E$.

Our main result reads as follows.

Theorem 3.2

Let assumptions (H1)–(H3) hold. Then there exists a unique solution $(\mathfrak{X}, \mathfrak{Y}, \mathfrak{Z}, \mathfrak{K})$for the NSD equation (1).

Proof

Existence. By Lemma 2.1, when $\alpha =0$, for $\forall \beta ., \varrho ., \lambda ., \varphi ., \psi . \in M_{G}^{2}(0, S)$, $\xi \in L_{G}^{2}(\Gamma )$, (1) has a solution. Moreover, by Lemma 2.2, we can solve (2) successively for the case $\alpha \in \lfloor \mathrm{0}, \delta_{0}], [\delta_{0},2\delta_{0}],\ldots$ . It turns out that, when $\alpha =1$, for $\forall \beta ., \varrho ., \lambda ., \varphi ., \psi . \in M_{G}^{2}(\mathrm{0}, S)$, $\xi \in L_{G}^{2}(\Gamma )$, the solution of (1) exists, then we deduce that the solution of the NSD equation (1) exists.

Now, we prove the uniqueness.

Let $(u, \mathfrak{K})=(\mathfrak{X}, \mathfrak{Y}, \mathfrak{Z}, \mathfrak{K})$ and $(u^{\prime }, \mathfrak{K}^{\prime })=( \mathfrak{X}^{\prime }, \mathfrak{Y}^{\prime }, \mathfrak{Z}^{ \prime }, \mathfrak{K}^{\prime })$ be two solutions of the NSD equation (1). We set

$$ (\hat{\mathfrak{X}}_{s},\hat{\mathfrak{Y}}_{s},\hat{ \mathfrak{Z}}_{s}, \hat{\mathfrak{K}}_{s}) :=\bigl( \mathfrak{X}_{s}-\mathfrak{X}_{s}', \mathfrak{Y}_{s}-\mathfrak{Y}_{s}', \mathfrak{Z}_{s}-\mathfrak{Z} _{s}', \mathfrak{K}_{s}-\mathfrak{K}_{s}'\bigr). $$

From (H1)–(H2), it is easy to see that

$$\begin{aligned} \hat{\mathrm{\mathfrak{E}}}\Bigl[\sup_{0\leq s\leq S} \vert \hat{\mathfrak{X}} _{s} \vert ^{2}\Bigr]+\hat{ \mathrm{\mathfrak{E}}}\Bigl[\sup_{0\leq s\leq S} \vert \hat{ \mathfrak{Y}}_{s}\vert ^{2}\Bigr]< \infty . \end{aligned}$$

(17)

In view of the property of the projection (see [30]), we infer that $\hat{u}=\mathcal{L}_{S_{i}}(\hat{u}-t\mathfrak{X}^{*} \mathfrak{X}\hat{u})$ for any $s>0$. Further, we get from condition in (17) that

$$ \mu_{n}\le \frac{2}{\rho (\mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X})}\mathfrak{Z} _{n}. $$

It follows that $I-\frac{\mu_{n}}{\mathfrak{Z}_{n}}\mathfrak{X}^{*} \mathfrak{X}$ is nonexpansive. Hence,

$$ \begin{aligned}[b] \Vert u_{n+1}-\hat{u} \Vert = {}& \bigl\Vert \mathcal{L}_{S_{i}} \bigl\{ u _{n}- \mu_{n}\mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X}v_{n}+ \mathfrak{Z}_{n}(v_{n}-u _{n}) \bigr\} - \mathcal{L}_{S_{i}} \bigl\{ \hat{u}-t\mathfrak{X}^{*} \mathfrak{X}\hat{u} \bigr\} \bigr\Vert \\ = {}& \biggl\Vert \mathcal{L}_{S_{i}} \biggl\{ (1-\mathfrak{Z}_{n})u_{n}+ \mathfrak{Z}_{n}\biggl(I-\frac{\mu_{n}}{\mathfrak{Z}_{n}}\mathfrak{X}^{*} \mathfrak{X}\biggr)v_{n} \biggr\} \\ {}&{} -\mathcal{L}_{S_{i}} \biggl\{ (1-\mathfrak{Z} _{n})\hat{u}+\mathfrak{Z}_{n}\biggl(I- \frac{\mu_{n}}{\mathfrak{Z}_{n}} \mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X}\biggr)\hat{u} \biggr\} \biggr\Vert \\ \le {}&(1-\mathfrak{Z}_{n}) \Vert u_{n}-\hat{u} \Vert + \mathfrak{Z} _{n} \biggl\Vert \biggl(I-\frac{\mu_{n}}{\mathfrak{Z}_{n}} \mathfrak{X}^{*} \mathfrak{X}\biggr)v_{n}-\biggl(I- \frac{\mu_{n}}{\mathfrak{Z}_{n}}\mathfrak{X} ^{*}\mathfrak{X}\biggr)\hat{u} \biggr\Vert \\ \le {}&(1-\mathfrak{Z}_{n}) \Vert u_{n}-\hat{u} \Vert + \mathfrak{Z} _{n} \Vert v_{n}-\hat{u} \Vert . \end{aligned} $$

(18)

Since $\alpha \rightarrow 0$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$ and $\mathfrak{K}_{n}\in (0,\frac{2}{\rho (\mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X})})$, it follows from (18) that

$$ \alpha \le 1- \frac{\mathfrak{K}_{n}\rho (\mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X})}{2} $$

as $n\rightarrow \infty$, that is,

$$ \frac{\mathfrak{K}_{n}}{1-\mathfrak{Y}_{n}}\in \biggl(0,\frac{\rho ( \mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X})}{2}\biggr). $$

We deduce from (18) that

$$ \begin{aligned} \Vert v_{n}-\hat{u} \Vert = {}& \bigl\Vert \mathcal{L}_{S_{i}} \bigl\{ (1- \mathfrak{Y}_{n})u_{n}- \mathfrak{K}_{n}\mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X}u _{n} \bigr\} -\mathcal{L}_{S_{i}} \bigl\{ \hat{u}-t \mathfrak{X}^{*} \mathfrak{X}\hat{u} \bigr\} \bigr\Vert \\ \le {}&(1-\mathfrak{Y}_{n}) \biggl(u_{n}-\frac{\mathfrak{K}_{n}}{1- \mathfrak{Y}_{n}} \mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X}u_{n}\biggr) + \biggl\{ \mathfrak{Y} _{n}\hat{u}+(1-\mathfrak{Y}_{n}) (\hat{u}- \frac{\mathfrak{K}_{n}}{1- \mathfrak{Y}_{n}}\mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X}\hat{u} \biggr\} \\ \le{} & \biggl\Vert -\mathfrak{Y}_{n}\hat{u}+(1-\mathfrak{Y}_{n}) \biggl[u_{n}-\frac{ \mathfrak{K}_{n}}{1-\mathfrak{Y}_{n}}\mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X}u _{n}-\hat{u} +\frac{\mathfrak{K}_{n}}{1-\mathfrak{Y}_{n}}\mathfrak{X} ^{*} \mathfrak{X}\hat{u}\biggr] \biggr\Vert , \end{aligned} $$

which is equivalent to

$$ \Vert v_{n}-\hat{u} \Vert \le \mathfrak{Y}_{n} \Vert -\hat{u} \Vert +(1- \mathfrak{Y}_{n}) \Vert u_{n}-\hat{u} \Vert . $$

(19)

We obtain from (19)

$$\begin{aligned} \Vert u_{n}-\hat{u} \Vert \le &(1-\mathfrak{Z}_{n}) \Vert u_{n}- \hat{u} \Vert +\mathfrak{Z}_{n}\bigl( \mathfrak{Y}_{n} \Vert -\hat{u} \Vert +(1- \mathfrak{Y}_{n}) \Vert u_{n}-\hat{u} \Vert \bigr) \\ \le &(1-\mathfrak{Z}_{n}\mathfrak{Y}_{n}) \Vert u_{n}-\hat{u} \Vert + \mathfrak{Z}_{n} \mathfrak{Y}_{n} \Vert -\hat{u} \Vert \\ \le &\max \bigl\{ \Vert u_{n}-\hat{u} \Vert , \Vert -\hat{u} \Vert \bigr\} . \end{aligned}$$

So

$$\begin{aligned} \Vert u_{n}-\hat{u} \Vert \le \max \bigl\{ \Vert u_{n}-\hat{u} \Vert , \Vert -\hat{u} \Vert \bigr\} . \end{aligned}$$

Consequently, ${u_{n}}$ is bounded, and so is ${v_{n}}$. Let $T=2\mathcal{L}_{S_{i}}-I$. From Lemma 2.1, one can know that the projection operator $\mathcal{L}_{S_{i}}$ is monotone and nonexpansive, and $2\mathcal{L}_{S_{i}}-I$ is nonexpansive.

So

$$\begin{aligned} u_{n+1} =&\frac{I+T}{2} \biggl[ (1-\mathfrak{Z}_{n})u_{n}+ \mathfrak{Z} _{n}\biggl(1-\frac{\mu_{n}}{\mathfrak{Z}_{n}}\mathfrak{X}^{*} \mathfrak{X}\biggr)v _{n} \biggr] \\ =&\frac{I-\mathfrak{Z}_{n}}{2}u_{n}+\frac{\mathfrak{Z}_{n}}{2}\biggl(I- \frac{ \mu_{n}}{\mathfrak{Z}_{n}}\mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X}\biggr)v_{n} + \frac{T}{2}\biggl[(1-\mathfrak{Z}_{n})u_{n}+ \mathfrak{Z}_{n}\biggl(I-\frac{\mu _{n}}{\mathfrak{Z}_{n}}\mathfrak{X}^{*} \mathfrak{X}\biggr)v_{n}\biggr], \end{aligned}$$

which yields

$$ u_{n+1}=\frac{1-\mathfrak{Z}_{n}}{2}u_{n}+ \frac{1+\mathfrak{Z}_{n}}{2}b_{n}, $$

where

$$ b_{n}=\frac{\mathfrak{Z}_{n}(I-\frac{\mu_{n}}{\mathfrak{Z}_{n}} \mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X})v_{n}+T[(1-\mathfrak{Z}_{n})u_{n} + \mathfrak{Z}_{n}(I-\frac{\mu_{n}}{\mathfrak{Z}_{n}}\mathfrak{X}^{*} \mathfrak{X})v_{n}]}{1+\mathfrak{Z}_{n}}. $$

On the other hand, we have (see [31])

$$ \begin{aligned} \Vert b_{n+1}-b_{n} \Vert &\le \frac{\lambda_{n+1}}{1+\lambda_{n+1}} \biggl\Vert \biggl(I-\frac{\mu_{n+1}}{ \lambda_{n+1}}\mathfrak{X}^{*} \mathfrak{X}\biggr)v_{n+1}-\biggl(I-\frac{\mu_{n}}{ \mathfrak{Z}_{n}} \mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X}\biggr)v_{n} \biggr\Vert \\ &\quad{} + \biggl\vert \frac{\lambda_{n+1}}{1+\lambda_{n+1}}-\frac{\lambda_{n}}{1+ \lambda_{n}} \biggr\vert \biggl\Vert \biggl(I-\frac{\mu_{n}}{\mathfrak{Z}_{n}} \mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X} \biggr)v_{n} \biggr\Vert \\ &\quad{}+ \frac{T}{1+\lambda_{n+1}} \biggl\{ (1-\lambda_{n+1})u_{n+1}+ \lambda _{n+1}\biggl(I-\frac{\mu_{n+1}}{\lambda_{n+1}}\mathfrak{X}^{*} \mathfrak{X}\biggr)v _{n+1} \biggr\} \\ &\quad{}- \frac{T}{1+\lambda_{n+1}} \biggl\{ \biggl[(1-\lambda_{n})u_{n}+ \lambda_{n}\biggl(I-\frac{ \mu_{n}}{\lambda_{n}}\mathfrak{X}^{*} \mathfrak{X}\biggr)v_{n}\biggr] \biggr\} \\ &\quad{}+ \biggl\vert \frac{1}{1+\lambda_{n+1}}-\frac{1}{1+\lambda_{n}} \biggr\vert \biggl\Vert T\biggl[(1-\lambda_{n})u_{n}+\lambda_{n} \biggl(I-\frac{\mu_{n}}{\lambda _{n}}\mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X} \biggr)v_{n}\biggr] \biggr\Vert . \end{aligned} $$

For convenience, let $c_{n}=(I-\frac{\mu_{n}}{\lambda_{n}} \mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X})v_{n}$. Using Lemma 2.2, it follows that

$$ I-\frac{\mu_{n}}{\lambda_{n}}\mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X} $$

is nonexpansive and averaged.

Hence,

$$ \begin{aligned} \Vert b_{n+1}-b_{n} \Vert &\le \frac{\lambda_{n+1}}{1+\lambda_{n+1}} \Vert c_{n+1}-c_{n} \Vert + \biggl\vert \frac{\lambda_{n+1}}{1+\lambda_{n+1}}-\frac{\lambda_{n}}{1+ \lambda_{n}} \biggr\vert \Vert c_{n} \Vert \\ &\quad{} + \frac{T}{1+\lambda_{n+1}} \bigl\{ (1-\lambda_{n+1})u_{n+1}+\lambda _{n+1}c_{n+1}- \bigl[(1-\lambda_{n})u_{n}+ \lambda_{n}c_{n}\bigr] \bigr\} \\ &\quad{}+ \biggl\vert \frac{1}{1+\lambda_{n+1}}-\frac{1}{1+\lambda_{n}} \biggr\vert \bigl\Vert T\bigl[(1-\lambda_{n})u_{n}+\lambda_{n}c_{n} \bigr] \bigr\Vert \\ &\le \frac{\lambda_{n+1}}{1+\lambda_{n+1}} \Vert c_{n+1}-c_{n} \Vert + \biggl\vert \frac{\lambda_{n+1}}{1+\lambda_{n+1}}-\frac{\lambda_{n}}{1+ \lambda_{n}} \biggr\vert \Vert c_{n} \Vert \\ &\quad{}+ \frac{1-\lambda_{n+1}}{1+\lambda_{n+1}} \Vert u_{n+1}-u_{n} \Vert + \frac{ \lambda_{n+1}}{1+\lambda_{n+1}} \Vert c_{n+1}-c_{n} \Vert + \frac{ \lambda_{n}-\lambda_{n+1}}{1+\lambda_{n+1}} \Vert u_{n} \Vert \\ &\quad{}+ \frac{\lambda_{n+1}-\lambda_{n}}{1+\lambda_{n+1}} \Vert c_{n} \Vert + \biggl\vert \frac{1}{1+\lambda_{n+1}}-\frac{1}{1+\lambda_{n}} \biggr\vert \bigl\Vert T\bigl[(1- \lambda_{n})u_{n}+\lambda_{n}c_{n} \bigr] \bigr\Vert , \end{aligned} $$

which yields

$$\begin{aligned} \Vert c_{n+1}-c_{n} \Vert &= \biggl\Vert \biggl(I-\frac{\mu_{n+1}}{\lambda _{n+1}}\mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X} \biggr)v_{n+1}-\biggl(I-\frac{\mu_{n}}{\lambda _{n}}\mathfrak{X}^{*} \mathfrak{X}\biggr)v_{n} \biggr\Vert \\ &\le \Vert v_{n+1}-v_{n} \Vert \\ &= \bigl\Vert \mathcal{L}_{S_{i}}\bigl[(1-\alpha_{n+1})u_{n+1}- \mathfrak{K} _{n}\mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X}u_{n+1} \bigr]-\mathcal{L}_{S_{i}}\bigl[(1-\alpha _{n})u_{n}- \mathfrak{K}_{n}\mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X}u_{n} \bigr] \bigr\Vert \\ &\le \bigl\Vert \bigl(I-\varrho_{n+1}\mathfrak{X}^{*} \mathfrak{X}\bigr) u_{n+1}-\bigl(I- \varrho_{n+1} \mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X}\bigr) u_{n}+( \varrho_{n}- \varrho_{n+1})\mathfrak{X}^{*} \mathfrak{X} u_{n} \bigr\Vert \\ &\quad{}+ \alpha_{n+1} \Vert -u_{n+1} \Vert + \alpha_{n} \Vert u_{n} \Vert \\ &\le \Vert u_{n+1}-u_{n} \Vert + \vert \varrho_{n}-\varrho_{n+1} \vert \bigl\Vert \mathfrak{X}^{*}\mathfrak{X}u_{n} \bigr\Vert + \alpha_{n+1} \Vert -u _{n+1} \Vert +\alpha_{n} \Vert u_{n} \Vert . \end{aligned}$$

So we infer that

$$ \begin{aligned}[b] \Vert b_{n+1}-b_{n} \Vert &\le \biggl\vert \frac{\lambda_{n+1}}{1+ \lambda_{n+1}}-\frac{\lambda_{n}}{1+\lambda_{n}} \biggr\vert \Vert c_{n} \Vert + \frac{\lambda_{n}-\lambda_{n+1}}{1+\lambda_{n+1}} \Vert u _{n} \Vert +\frac{\lambda_{n+1}-\lambda_{n}}{1+\lambda_{n+1}} \Vert c _{n} \Vert \\ &\quad{}+ \Vert u_{n+1}-u_{n} \Vert + \biggl\vert \frac{1}{1+\lambda_{n+1}}-\frac{1}{1+ \lambda_{n}} \biggr\vert \bigl\Vert T\bigl[(1- \lambda_{n})u_{n}+\lambda_{n}c_{n} \bigr] \bigr\Vert \\ &\quad{}+ \vert \varrho_{n}-\varrho_{n+1} \vert \Vert u_{n} \Vert + \alpha_{n+1} \Vert -u_{n+1} \Vert +\alpha_{n} \Vert u_{n} \Vert . \end{aligned} $$

(20)

By virtue of $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }(\lambda_{n+1}- \mathfrak{Z}_{n})=0$ (see [28]), it follows that

$$ \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }\biggl( \biggl\vert \frac{\lambda_{n+1}}{1+ \lambda_{n+1}}- \frac{\lambda_{n}}{1+\lambda_{n}} \biggr\vert \biggr)=0. $$

Moreover, $\{ u_{n} \}$ and $\{ v_{n} \}$ are bounded, and so is $\{ c_{n} \}$. Therefore, (20) reduces to

$$ \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }\sup \bigl( \Vert b_{n+1}-b_{n} \Vert - \Vert u_{n+1}-u_{n} \Vert \bigr)\le 0. $$

(21)

Applying (21) and Lemma 2.3, we get

$$ \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty } \Vert b_{n}-u_{n} \Vert =0. $$

(22)

Combining (21) with (22), we obtain

$$ \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty } \Vert x_{n+1}-x_{n} \Vert =0. $$

(23)

Applying the G-Itô formula to $\hat{\mathfrak{X}}_{s} \hat{\mathfrak{Y}}_{s}$, then we obtain

$$\begin{aligned}& N_{S}+\hat{\mathfrak{X}}_{S}\bigl[\Phi ( \mathfrak{X}_{S})-\Phi \bigl( \mathfrak{X}_{S}' \bigr)\bigr]- \int_{0}^{S}\bigl[A(s, u_{s})-A\bigl(s, u_{s}'\bigr)_{)}u_{s}-u _{s}'\bigr]\,d \langle B \rangle _{s} \\& \quad = \int_{0}^{S}\hat{\mathfrak{X}}_{s} \bigl[(-f) (s, u_{s})-(-f) (s, u_{s})\bigr] + \hat{ \mathfrak{Y}}_{s}\bigl[b(s, u_{s})-b\bigl(s, u_{s}'\bigr)\bigr]\,ds+M_{S} \end{aligned}$$

(24)

from (23), where

$$ M_{s}= \int_{0}^{t}\bigl[\hat{\mathfrak{Y}}_{s} \bigl(\sigma (s, u_{s})-\sigma \bigl(s, u_{s}' \bigr)\bigr)+\hat{\mathfrak{X}}_{s}\hat{\mathfrak{Z}}_{s} \bigr]\,d\mathfrak{B} _{s}+ \int_{0}^{t}(\hat{\mathfrak{X}}_{s})^{+} \,d\mathfrak{K}_{s}+ \int _{0}^{t}(\hat{\mathfrak{X}}_{s})^{-} \,d\mathfrak{K}_{s}' $$

and

$$ N_{s}= \int_{0}^{t}(\hat{\mathfrak{X}}_{s})^{+} \,d\mathfrak{K}_{s}'+ \int _{0}^{t}(\hat{\mathfrak{X}}_{s})^{-} \,d\mathfrak{K}_{s}. $$

By Lemma 2.3 and (24), we know that both $M_{s}$ and $N_{s}$ are Schrödinger martingale. Moreover, we know that (see [32])

$$\begin{aligned}& \begin{aligned}[b] &N_{S}-(-C) \int_{0}^{S} \bigl\vert u_{s}-u_{s}' \bigr\vert ^{2}\,d \langle B \rangle _{s} \\ & \quad \leq N_{S}+C \vert \hat{\mathfrak{X}}_{S} \vert ^{2}+C \int_{0}^{S} \bigl\vert u_{s}-u_{s}' \bigr\vert ^{2}d \langle B \rangle _{s} \\ & \quad \leq - \int_{0}^{S} \vert \hat{\mathfrak{X}}_{s} \vert ^{2}+ \vert \hat{\mathfrak{Y}} _{s} \vert ^{2}\,ds+M_{S} \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$

(25)

from (H3).

Taking the Schrödinger expectation on both sides of (25), together with Lemma 2.2 and the property of the Schrödinger expectation, we know that

$$\begin{aligned} 0 \leq -\underline{\sigma }^{2}\hat{\mathrm{ \mathfrak{E}}}\biggl[-C \int_{0} ^{S} \vert u_{s}-u_{s} \vert ^{2}\,ds\biggr]/\leq \hat{\mathrm{\mathfrak{E}}}\biggl\{ - \int_{0} ^{S}\bigl[ \vert \hat{ \mathfrak{X}}_{s} \vert ^{2}+ \vert \hat{ \mathfrak{Y}}_{s} \vert ^{2}\bigr]\,ds\biggr\} \leq 0, \end{aligned}$$

(26)

which implies $u=u'$ in the space of $M_{G}^{2}(0, S)$. It follows from Lemma 2.2 that the NSD equation has a unique solution, then $K=K'$. Thus (1) has a unique solution. □

4 Conclusions

This paper was mainly devoted to the study of one kind of nonlinear Schrödinger differential equations. Under the integrable boundary value condition, the existence and uniqueness of the solutions of this equation were discussed by using new Riesz representations of linear maps and the Schrödinger fixed point theorem.