- Research
- Open access
- Published:
Multiplicity of periodic bouncing solutions for generalized impact Hamiltonian systems
Boundary Value Problems volume 2019, Article number: 57 (2019)
Abstract
Applying the Generalized Nonsmooth Saddle Point Theorem, we obtain multiple nontrivial periodic bouncing solutions for systems \(\ddot{x}=f(t,x)\) with new conditions. In particular, we generalize the collision axis from \(x=0\) to the axis \(x=a\), where a is an arbitrary constant.
1 Introduction
Consider the following Hamiltonian system with an obstacle, that is,
associated with the conditions
where a is a constant, \(W=\{t\in\mathbf{R} \mid x(t)=a\}\), and \(f:\mathbf{R}\times[a,+\infty)\rightarrow\mathbf{R}\) is continuous and T-periodic in t.
Definition 1.1
(see [11])
Let \(x:\mathbf{R}\rightarrow\mathbf{R}\) be continuous map. Then x is a nonrivial T-periodic bouncing solution of system (1.1) with collision axis at \(x=a\) if it satisfies (1.1)–(1.2) and
(1) the set W is nonempty and discrete,
(2) there exists at least one \(t_{0} \in W\) such that \(\dot {x}(t_{0}^{-})\neq0\).
We call systems, having solutions as in Definition 1.1, impact Hamiltonian systems. When \(a=0\), the bouncing periodic solutions of (1.1) have been discussed by some scholars in recent years. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, Jiang (see [7]) first proposed a variational method to consider the bouncing periodic solutions of equation (1.1), and obtained the existence of bouncing solutions for impact Hamiltonian systems under a classical superquadratic condition. Then Ding (see [3]) considered the existence of subharmonic bouncing solutions for system (1.1) with sublinear conditions. In 2017, Nie (see [9]) first proved a Generalized Nonsmooth Saddle Point Theorem, which is applied to impact Hamiltonian systems, then obtained nontrivial kT-periodic bouncing solutions for system (1.1) with another sublinear condition.
Different from the papers [3, 7] and [9], we focus on the nontrivial kT-periodic bouncing solutions for system (1.1) with a new condition separating whether or not a is equal to 0. The idea comes from the papers [7] and [9].
In this paper, we suppose that \(\dot{x}(t_{i}^{-})\leq0\), furthermore, \(\dot{x}(t_{i}^{-})<0\) if \(t_{i}\) is a real impact time. To ensure that there exists at least one real impact time, paper [9] tells us that we must give the following condition:
-
(B)
The inequality \(f(t,x)\leq0\) holds for every \(t\in[0,T]\) and \(x\geq a\); moreover, \(\lim_{x\rightarrow+\infty}f(t,x)=-\infty\) or \(\limsup_{x \rightarrow +\infty}f(t,x)<0\) holds for every \(t\in[0,T]\).
Now, we list our main result of periodic bouncing solution as follows:
Set \(\varGamma=\{h\in C([0,+\infty);[0,+\infty)) \mid h \text{ satisfies (h1)--(h4)}\}\), where
-
(h1)
\(h(s)\leq h(t)+C\), for a certain constant \(C>0\) and \(s,t\in[0,+\infty)\) with \(s\leq t \),
-
(h2)
\(h(s+t)\leq C^{\ast} (h(s)+h(t) )\), for a certain constant \(C^{*}\geq0\) and \(\forall s, t \in[0,+\infty)\),
-
(h3)
\(th(t)-2H(t)\rightarrow-\infty\), as \(t\rightarrow+\infty\),
-
(h4)
\(\frac{H(t)}{t^{2}}\rightarrow0\), as \(t\rightarrow+\infty\),
and \(H(t):=\int_{0}^{t}h(s)\, \mathrm{d}s\). Since \(h(t)=\sqrt {t}\) can be in Γ, we get \(\varGamma\neq\emptyset\).
We suppose that function f satisfies the following conditions:
-
(f)
There exist T-periodic functions \(\gamma, g \in L^{1} ([0,T];(0,+\infty) )\) and function \(h\in\varGamma\) such that
$$ \bigl\vert f\bigl(t, \vert x \vert +a\bigr) \bigr\vert \leq \gamma(t)h\bigl( \vert x \vert \bigr)+g(t),\quad \forall x\in \mathbf{R} \text{ and } t\in[0,T]. $$(1.3) -
(F1)
Function \(h \in\varGamma\) in condition (f) satisfies
$$\begin{aligned} \limsup_{\vert x \vert\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{H(\vert x\vert)} \int ^{T}_{0}F\bigl(t, \vert x \vert +a\bigr)\, \mathrm{d}t< 0, \end{aligned}$$where \(F(t,x)=\int_{a}^{x}f(t,s)\,\mathrm{d}s\) (\(x\geq a\)).
-
(F2)
Function \(f(t,x)\) is differentiable for a.e. \(t\in[0,T]\) and there exists a constant \(\sigma>0\) such that
$$ \biggl\vert \frac{\partial F(t,x)}{\partial t} \biggr\vert \leq-\sigma F(t,x),\quad \text{a.e. } t \in[0,T] \text{ and } x\in[a,+\infty). $$
Theorem 1.1
Suppose function f satisfies conditions (B), (f), (F1) and (F2). Then system (1.1) possesses nontrivial kT-periodic bouncing solutions \(u_{k}\) for any sufficiently large integer k. Furthermore, \(\|u_{k}\|_{L^{\infty}}\rightarrow+\infty\) as \(k\rightarrow +\infty\).
In this paper, we generalize the collision axis from \(x=0\) to the axis \(x=a\), so our conditions generalize those in [9]. The main difficulty of this paper is checking whether the corresponding functional is locally Lipschitz and finding the range of the generalized gradients of the above functional. Therefore, we first prove Lemma 2.1 in Sect. 2.
System (1.1) with condition (1.2) is equivalent to the system
associated with the conditions
where \(W^{1}=\{t\in\mathbf{R} \mid x(t)=0\}\).
Based on similar proofs in paper [7], we can conclude that if \(x:\mathbf{R}\rightarrow\mathbf{R}\) is a T-periodic solution with isolated zeros of
then \(|x|\) is a nontrivial T-periodic bouncing solution of system (1.4) with collision axis \(x=0\), and vice versa.
2 Preliminaries
Some concepts and conclusions about the Clarke generalized gradient can be found in [2] and [1], so we omit them.
Definition 2.1
(see [5])
Function φ satisfies the nonsmooth (PS) condition if every sequence \(\{x_{n}\}\subset E\), such that \(\{\varphi(x_{n})\}\) is bounded and \(\lambda(x_{n})\rightarrow0\) for \(n\rightarrow\infty\), has a strongly convergent subsequence, where \(\lambda(x)=\inf_{x^{*}\in\partial\varphi(x)} \|x^{*}\|_{E^{\ast }}\), \(E^{\ast}\) is the dual space of E, and \(\partial\varphi(x)\) denotes the Clarke generalized gradient of φ.
Theorem 2.1
(Generalized Nonsmooth Saddle Point Theorem, see [9])
Let E be a real Banach space, and \(E=V\oplus X\) with \(V\neq\{ \mathbf{0}\}\) and \(\dim V<+\infty\). Suppose that functional φ satisfies the nonsmooth (PS) condition, and for some \(x_{0}\in X\), there exists a constant \(r>0\) such that \(\max_{v\in V\cap\partial B_{r}}\varphi(v+x_{0})<\inf_{x\in X}\varphi(x)\). If c can be characterized as \(c=\inf_{\chi\in\varGamma_{1}}\max_{v\in V\cap\bar{B}_{r}}\varphi(\chi(v+x_{0}))\), then c is a critical value of φ, where \(\varGamma_{1}=\{\chi\in C(V\cap\bar{B}_{r}+x_{0},E) \mid \chi(v +x_{0})=v +x_{0}, \textit{if } v\in V\cap\partial B_{r}\}\) and \(B_{r}=\{x\in E \mid \|x\|< r\}\). Furthermore, we have \(c\geq\inf_{x\in X}\varphi(x)\).
Set
in which \(k\in\mathbf{N^{*}}\), then \(H^{1}_{kT}\) is a Hilbert space with the norm defined by \(\|x\|=[\int^{kT}_{0}(|\dot{x}(t)|^{2}+|x(t)|^{2})\,\mathrm{d}t]^{\frac{1}{2}}\). For \(x\in H_{kT}^{1}\), let \(\bar{x}=\frac{1}{kT}\int_{0}^{kT}x(t)\, \mathrm {d}t\) and \(\tilde{x}(t)=x(t)-\bar{x}\). The book [8] tells us the following Wirtinger’s inequality:
and Sobolev’s inequality
Set \(\|x\|_{0}=(\vert\bar{x} \vert^{2}+\int_{0}^{kT}\vert\dot {x}(t)\vert^{2} \,\mathrm{d}t)^{\frac{1}{2}}\), then the norm \(\|\cdot\| _{0}\) is equivalent to \(\|\cdot\|\) (see [8]). Indeed, \(H_{kT}^{1}\) has the decomposition \(H_{kT}^{1}=\mathbf{R}\oplus\tilde {H}_{kT}^{1}\), where \(\tilde{H}_{kT}^{1}= \{x\in H_{kT}^{1} \mid \bar {x}=0 \}\). Let \(J_{k}(x)=\int_{0}^{kT}F(t,\vert x(t)\vert+a)\,\mathrm{d}t\), \(\forall x \in H_{kT}^{1}\), and let \(\varphi_{k}(x)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{kT}\vert\dot{x}(t)\vert^{2}\, \mathrm {d}t+J_{k}(x)\), \(\forall x \in H_{kT}^{1}\).
Lemma 2.1
If f satisfies condition (f), then functional \(J_{k}\) is locally Lipschitz on \(H_{kT}^{1}\) and
where
Proof
The main idea comes from [1]. Considering the functional
we have
where \(\widetilde{h}(t)=\max\{h(s)\mid s \text{ is between } |v(t)| \text{ and } |u(t)|\}\), \(K:= (\int_{0}^{kT}(\gamma(t)\widetilde {h}(t)+g(t))^{2}\,\mathrm{d}t )^{\frac{1}{2}}>0\), C is embedding constant, (2.4) means that \(J_{k}\) is locally Lipschitz continuous, so [1] tells us that the generalized gradients of F at \(x+a\) do exist. The generalized gradients of F at \(x+a\) (\(x>0\)) are denoted by \(\partial F(t,x+a)=\partial_{v}F^{0}(t,x+a;v)|_{v=0}\), where \(\partial_{v}F^{0}(t,x+a;v)\) denotes the subdifferential in v of \(F^{0}(t,x+a;v)\), and \(F^{0}(t,x+a;v)=\limsup_{h\rightarrow0,\mu\rightarrow0^{+}}\frac {1}{\mu}\int_{x+h}^{x+h+\mu v}f(t,s+a)\,\mathrm{d}s\). Then we have
By (2.5) and results in [1], we have \(\partial F(t,x+a)\subseteq[f^{-}(t,x+a),f^{+}(t,x+a)]\). By definition, \(\exists h_{i}\in H_{kT}^{1}\), \(h_{i} \to0\) (\(i \to+\infty \)) in \(H_{kT}^{1}\) such that
so using the results of [1], we have
If \(\omega_{0}\in\partial J_{k}(x)\), we are going to prove
Otherwise, there would be a set \(E_{0}\), for example, on which
Due to results in [1],
Let \(v_{0}(t)=-\chi_{{{E_{0}}}}(t)\), the characteristic function of \(E_{0}\). Then, from (2.8), we have
From the definition of \(v_{0}(t)\), we have
Equations (2.10), (2.6) and (2.9) imply that
which contradicts (2.7). Similarly, we can get \(\omega_{0}(t)\leq f^{+}(t,|x(t)|+a)\). □
Remark 2.1
For \(w\in\partial J_{k}(x)\), there is a function ϖ with \(\varpi (t)\in[f^{-}(t,\vert x(t)\vert+a),f^{+}(t,\vert x(t)\vert+a)]\) a.e. \(t\in[0,kT]\) such that \(\langle w,v\rangle=\int_{0}^{kT}\varpi(t)v(t)\,\mathrm{d}t\) holds for all \(v\in H_{kT}^{1}\).
Remark 2.2
When \(s\neq0\), we have \(f^{-}(t,|s|+a)=f^{+}(t,|s|+a)=f(t,|s|+a)\operatorname {sgn}(s)\). If \(s=0\) and f satisfies condition (B), then we have \(f^{-}(t,|s|+a)=f(t,|s|+a)\) and \(f^{+}(t,|s|+a)=-f(t,|s|+a)\).
Lemma 2.2
If \(x_{k}\in H_{kT}^{1}\) is a critical point of \(\varphi_{k}\) on \(H_{kT}^{1}\), then \(x_{k}\) is a periodic solution of equation (1.6), and vice versa.
Proof
The main idea comes from [7]. Lemma 2.1 means that \(\varphi_{k}\) is locally Lipschitz continuous, so \(\partial\varphi_{k}\) do exist. Let x be a critical point of \(\varphi_{k}\) in \(H_{kT}^{1}\), in other words, \(\mathbf{0}\in \partial\varphi_{k}\). By Remark 2.1, there is a function g with \(g(t)\in[f^{-}(t,\vert x(t)\vert+a),f^{+}(t,\vert x(t)\vert+a)]\) such that
which shows that the generalized second order derivative ẍ exists and x satisfies
that is,
We need to prove that \(g(t)=f(t,\vert x\vert+a)\operatorname{sgn}(x)\). Let \(T_{0}=\{t\in[0,kT]\mid x(t)=0\}\) and \(T_{1}=\{t\in[0,kT]\mid x(t)\neq0\}\). Remark 2.2 tells us that \(g(t)=f^{-}(t,|x|+a)=f^{+}(t,|x|+a)=f(t,\vert x\vert+a)\operatorname{sgn}(x)\) for \(t \in T_{1}\). Using [6, Lemma 7.7], we obtain \(\ddot{x}=\dot{x}=0\) for a.e. \(t\in T_{0}\), and draw a conclusion from (2.11) that \(g(t)=0=f(t,\vert x\vert+a)\operatorname{sgn}(x)\) holds for a.e. \(t\in T_{0}\). Thus we complete the proof. □
3 Bouncing solutions for second order Hamiltonian systems
Lemma 3.1
Functional \(\varphi_{k}\) satisfies the nonsmooth (PS) condition if f satisfies (f) and (F1).
Proof
The main idea comes from [9]. Let \(\{x_{n}\}\in H_{kT}^{1}\) be a nonsmooth (PS) sequence, that is, \(\{ \varphi(x_{n})\}\) is bounded and \(\lambda(x_{n})\rightarrow0\) as \(n\rightarrow\infty\). According to Remark 2.1 and the definition of \(\lambda(x_{n})\), for each \(n\in\mathbf{N}^{*}\), there exist functions \(\varpi_{n}\in \partial J_{k}(x_{n})\) and \(x_{n}^{*}\in\partial\varphi_{k}(x_{n})\) with \(\|x_{n}^{*}\|_{E^{*}}\rightarrow0\) as \(n\rightarrow\infty\) such that
For \(x_{n}\in H_{kT}^{1}=\mathbf{R}\oplus\tilde{H}_{kT}^{1}\), we write \(x_{n}\) as \(x_{n}(t)=\bar{x}_{n}+\tilde{x}_{n}(t)\) for all \(t \in[0,kT]\), where \(\bar{x}_{n} \in\mathbf{R}\), \(\tilde {x}_{n}(t) \in\tilde{H}_{kT}^{1}\). It follows from (2.3), (1.3), (h1), and (h2) that
Using (3.2), (h1), Young inequality, [9, (1) of Lemma 2.3] and (2.2), we have
where \(C_{1}=\frac{C^{*}kT}{12}\int_{0}^{kT}\gamma(t)\,\mathrm{d}t>0\), \(C_{2,\varepsilon}=\sqrt{\frac{kT}{12}}(C^{*}C_{\varepsilon }+C^{*}C+C)\int_{0}^{kT}\gamma(t)\,\mathrm{d}t +\sqrt{\frac{kT}{12}}\int_{0}^{kT}g(t)\,\mathrm{d}t>0\) and \(C_{3}=\frac{C^{*^{2}}kT}{3} (\int_{0}^{kT}\gamma(t)\, \mathrm {d}t )^{2}>0\). By (3.1) and (3.3), for n large enough, we have
On the other hand, (2.1) implies that
Let \(\varepsilon>0\) be small enough such that \(\frac{3}{4}-\varepsilon C_{1}>0\). Using the property of the parabola, then (3.4) and (3.5) mean that there exist two constants \(C_{4}, C_{5}>0\) such that
By the mean value theorem for a locally Lipschitz functional (see [5]), there exists \(z_{n}\in\{(1-s)x_{n}+s\bar{x}_{n} \mid 0\leq s\leq1\} \) and \(z_{n}^{*}\in\partial J_{k}(z_{n})\) such that
By Lemma 2.1, there exists a function \(\varpi_{z_{n}}(t)\in[f^{-}(t,|z_{n}(t)|+a),f^{+}(t,|z_{n}(t)|+a)]\) such that
In the same way as in the computation of (3.3) with \(\varepsilon=1\), together with (3.7) and (3.8), we have
which is similar to (3.3), and we have
By (3.9), (3.6), [9, Lemma 2.3] and (F1), one has
(where constants \(C_{6}>0\), \(C_{7}>0\), \(C_{8}>0\)) which contradicts the boundedness of \(\{\varphi_{k}(x_{n}) \} \), thus \(\{\bar{x}_{n} \}\) is bounded and, together with (3.6), one has that \(\{\|x_{n}\|_{0}\}\) is bounded. Then, by the equivalence of the two norms, \(\{\|x_{n}\|\}\) is bounded.
Next, we verify that \(\{x_{n}\}\) has a strongly convergent subsequence. The main idea comes from [9] and [10].
Suppose \(x_{n}\rightharpoonup x\) in \(H_{kT}^{1}\), then \(x_{n}\rightarrow x\) in \(C([0,kT];\mathbf{R})\). The results in [1] imply that \(\partial\varphi_{k}(x_{n})\) is weak∗-compact, and the set-valued mapping \(x\rightarrow\partial\varphi _{k}(x)\) is upper semicontinuous, so, according to [9], we get \(x_{n}\rightarrow x\) in \(H_{kT}^{1}\), and hence \(\varphi_{k}\) satisfies the nonsmooth (PS) condition. □
Lemma 3.2
For every \(k\in\mathbf{N}^{\ast}\), functional \(\varphi _{k}(x)\rightarrow+\infty\) as \(\|x\|\rightarrow+\infty\) in \(\tilde {H}_{kT}^{1}\), if f satisfies condition (f).
Proof
The main idea comes from [9].
For every \(x\in\tilde{H}_{kT}^{1}\), by (f), (h1), of [9, (1) of Lemma 2.3] and (2.2), we have
where \(C_{10,\varepsilon}, C_{12,\varepsilon}, C_{13,\varepsilon}>0\) hold for any \(\varepsilon>0\), and \(C_{9},C_{11}>0\). Then (3.10) implies
Choose \(\varepsilon>0\) small enough such that \(\frac{1}{2}-\varepsilon C_{11}>0\). In \(\tilde{H}_{kT}^{1}\), \(\|x\|\rightarrow+\infty\) if and only if \((\int_{0}^{kT}|\dot{x}(t)|^{2}\,\mathrm{d}t )^{\frac {1}{2}}\rightarrow+\infty\), and then (3.11) implies that \(\varphi_{k}(x)\rightarrow+\infty\) as \(\|x\|\rightarrow+\infty\). □
Lemma 3.3
For every \(k\in\mathbf{N}^{\ast}\), we have \(\varphi _{k}(x+e_{k})\rightarrow-\infty\) as \(|x|\rightarrow+\infty\) in \(\mathbf {R}\subseteq H_{kT}^{1}\), where \(e_{k}(t)=k\cos(\frac{2\pi t}{kT})\in \tilde{H}_{kT}^{1}\), if f satisfies conditions (f) and (F1).
Proof
The main idea comes from [9]. Using (3.9), (F1) and [9, Lemma 2.3], we have
□
Proposition 3.1
If conditions (f) and (F1) hold, then there exists a constant \(r_{0}>0\) large enough such that functional \(\varphi_{k}\) has at least one critical value \(c_{k}\) characterized by
where \(\mathbf{}\varGamma_{2}=\{\chi\in C([-r_{0},r_{0}]+e_{k},E) \mid \chi (e_{k}\pm r_{0})=e_{k}\pm r_{0}\}\). Furthermore, for \(\forall k\in\mathbf{N}^{\ast}\), then
Proof
Set \(V=\mathbf{R}\) and \(X=\tilde{H}_{kT}^{1}\), Lemmas 3.2 and 3.3 tell us that there exists a constant \(r_{0}>0\) large enough such that
Due to Lemma 3.1 and inequality (3.13), Theorem 2.1 tells us that \(c_{k}\) is a critical value of \(\varphi_{k}\) and \(c_{k}\geq\inf_{\tilde{H}_{kT}^{1}}{\varphi_{k}}\).
Inequality (3.11) tells us that \(\inf_{\tilde {H}_{kT}^{1}}{\varphi_{k}}>-\infty\). Moreover, the definition of \(c_{k}\) implies that \(c_{k}\leq\sup_{x\in\mathbf{R}}\varphi_{k}(x+e_{k})\). So, (3.12) holds. □
Lemma 3.4
Under condition (B), we have
Proof
The main idea comes from [9]. For \(|x|>0\), employing the mean value theorem for integrals, we have \(F(t,|x|+a)=\int_{0}^{|x|}f(t,s+a)\,\mathrm{d}s= \int_{0}^{\frac{|x|}{2}}f(t,s+a)\,\mathrm{d}s +\int_{\frac{|x|}{2}}^{|x|}f(t,s+a)\,\mathrm{d}s \leq\int_{\frac{|x|}{2}}^{|x|}f(t,s+a)\,\mathrm{d}s = f(t,\xi+a)\frac{|x|}{2}\), \(\xi\in(\frac{|x|}{2},|x|)\). Then
which implies that (3.14) holds. □
Lemma 3.5
If (3.14) holds, then for any constant \(\delta>0\) there is a measurable subset \(A_{\delta}\subset[0,T]\) with \(\operatorname {meas}([0,T]\setminus A_{\delta})<\delta\) such that
Proof
Set \(f_{n}(t)=\inf_{|x|>n}-F(t,|x|+a)\). Then (3.14) implies that \(f_{n}(t) \to+\infty\), as \(n \to\infty\), \(\forall t \in[0,T]\). By the continuity of \(F(t,x)\) in x and the measurability of \(F(t,x)\) in t, for any \(\delta>0\), by [12, Lemma 1], there exists a measurable subset \(A_{\delta}\subset[0,T]\) with \(\operatorname {meas}([0,T]\setminus A_{\delta})<\delta\) such that \(f_{n}(t) \to +\infty\) as \(n \to\infty\) uniformly for every \(t\in A_{\delta}\). Then we obtain that \(F(t,|x|+a)\rightarrow-\infty\), uniformly in \(t\in A_{\delta}\), as \(|x|\rightarrow+\infty\). □
Lemma 3.6
For every \(k\in\mathbf{N}^{\ast}\), let \(x_{k}\) be a critical point of functional \(\varphi_{k}\), then \(\|x_{k}\|_{L^{\infty}}\rightarrow+\infty\) as \(k\rightarrow+\infty\), if condition (f) holds.
Proof
From conditions (f), (h1) and [9, (1) of Lemma 2.3], we have
By (3.12), (3.15) and Lemma 3.5, the results in [9] and [12] imply that \(\|x_{k}\|_{L^{\infty}}\rightarrow+\infty\) as \(k\rightarrow+\infty\). □
Proposition 3.2
Suppose f satisfies conditions (B), (F2) and \(x_{k}\) is a kT-periodic solution of (1.6), where \(k\in\mathbf {N^{*}}\) is large enough, then \({W_{k}^{1}}=\{t\in\mathbf{R} \mid x_{k}(t)=0\}\) is nonempty and its points are isolated. Moreover, there exists at least one \(t_{0}\in W_{k}^{1}\) such that \(\dot{x}_{k}(t_{0}^{-})\neq0\).
Proof
The idea comes from [7, 9] and [11].
For every \(k\in\mathbf{N^{*}}\), let \(G_{k}(t)=\frac{1}{2}|\dot {x}_{k}(t)|^{2}-F(t,|x_{k}(t)|+a)\), then \(G_{k}(t)\) is well-defined for all \(t \in\mathbf{R}\) via (1.5), \(G_{k}(t) \geq0\) holds for all \(t\in\mathbf{R}\) via the nonpositivity of F and \(G(t)\) is kT-periodic, continuous, differentiable for \(t\in \mathbf{R}\setminus W_{k}^{1}\). By the definition of \(G_{k}\), we get
then by (F2) we have
If \(G_{k}(0)=0\), then by Gronwall’s inequality in [4], we have \(G_{k}(t)\equiv0\) on R. Then \(\dot{x}_{k}(t)\equiv0\) and \(F(t,|x_{k}(t)|+a) \equiv0\) on R, which means that \(x_{k}(t)\equiv a_{k}\in\mathbf{R}\) and \(f(t,|a_{k}|+a) = \ddot{x}_{k}(t)\equiv0\), and so we get \(\lim_{k\rightarrow+\infty}f(t,|a_{k}|+a)=0\). Lemma 3.6 implies that \(\lim_{k\rightarrow+\infty}|a_{k}|=+\infty\), so we have \(\lim_{|a_{k}|\rightarrow+\infty}f(t,|a_{k}|+a)=0\), which contradicts condition (B). Therefore we have \(G_{k}(0)>0\).
Using (3.16), we get
Note that \(G_{k}(t)\mathrm{e}^{\sigma t}\) is continuous and (3.17) implies that \(G_{k}(t)\mathrm{e}^{\sigma t}\geq G_{k}(0)\) holds for all \(t\in[0,kT]\), that is,
To prove that \({W_{k}^{1}}\) is nonempty and discrete, it is sufficient to prove that \({\widehat{W}_{k}^{1}}=\{t\in[0,kT] \mid x_{k}(t)=0\}\) is nonempty and finite.
First, we consider whether \(\widehat{W}_{k}^{1}\) is nonempty. If not, we have \(x_{k}\in C^{2}([0,kT],\mathbf{R})\), and, without loss of generality, we suppose that \(x_{k}(t)>0\) holds for all \(t\in[0,kT]\). From (1.6), we get
and \({x}_{k}(t+kT)={x}_{k}(t)\). By integrating the above equation on \([0,kT]\), we get
which implies that \(\ddot{x}_{k}(t)=f(t,x_{k}(t)+a)\equiv0\) holds for any \(t \in[0,kT]\) due to the nonpositivity of f. Since \(x_{k}(t)\) is kT-periodic and continuous on R, we have \(x_{k}(t)\equiv b_{k} > 0\) for all \(t\in[0,kT]\). Lemma 3.6 implies that \(\lim_{k\rightarrow+\infty} b_{k}=+\infty\). Then \(\lim_{b_{k}\rightarrow+\infty}f(t,b_{k}+a)=0\), which contradicts condition (B). So \(\widehat{W}_{k}^{1}\) is nonempty.
Next, we prove that the set \(\widehat{W}_{k}^{1}\) is finite. Otherwise, since \(\widehat{W}_{k}^{1}\) is compact, there would be a sequence \(\{t_{j}\} _{1}^{\infty}\subset\widehat{W}_{k}^{1}\) with \(0\leq t_{1}< t_{2}< \cdots <t_{j}<\cdots\leq kT\), which, passing to a subsequence, still denoted by \(\{t_{j}\}\), if necessary, we can take to be such that \(t_{j}\rightarrow\beta\in\widehat{W}_{k}^{1}\) as \(j\rightarrow+\infty\). Then
On the other hand, since \(\widehat{W}_{k}^{1}\) is nonempty, by (3.18), one has that \(\dot{x}_{k}(t^{-})\neq0\) holds for all \(t\in \widehat{W}_{k}^{1}\), which contradicts (3.19), so \(\widehat {W}_{k}^{1}\) is finite. □
Proof of Theorem 1.1
Proposition 3.1 tells us that \(\varphi_{k}\) has a critical point \(x_{k}\), and Lemma 2.2 implies that \(x_{k}\) is a solution of (1.6) for every \(k\in\mathbf{N^{*}}\). Proposition 3.2 implies that \(u_{k}:=|x_{k}|\) satisfies Definition 1.1 for \(k\in\mathbf{N^{*}}\) large enough, so \(u_{k}\) is a nontrivial kT-periodic bouncing solution of system (1.4). Furthermore, Lemma 3.6 implies that \(\|u_{k}\|_{L^{\infty}}\rightarrow+\infty\) as \(k\rightarrow+\infty \). Thus we complete the proof. □
4 Example
In this section, we present an example to demonstrate our Theorem 1.1.
Example 4.1
We define a T-periodic function \(\theta\in C (\mathbf{R},(-\infty ,0) )\) with
Function \(f:\mathbf{R}\times[a,+\infty)\rightarrow\mathbf{R}\) is defined as
Then \(f(t,x)\) is T-periodic in t, continuous for any t and x, differentiable at every \(t\in\mathbf{R}\) except at \(t=\frac{mT}{2}\) (\(m\in\mathbf{N^{*}}\)) and
The definition of function f implies
Let \(h(t)=\frac{t}{\ln(100+t^{2})}\), \(\gamma(t)=4|\theta(t)|\) and \(g(t)\equiv1\). Obviously, h satisfies conditions (h1), (h2) and (h4). The results of [9] imply that h satisfies condition (h3). So (4.1) implies that assumption (f) holds.
Note that \(f(t,x+a)\) is the same as \(f(t,x)\) in [9]. Similarly to paper [9], assumptions (F1), (F2) and (B) hold.
References
Chang, K.C.: Variational methods for non-differentiable functionals and their applications to partial differential equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 80, 102–129 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-247X(81)90095-0
Clarke, F.H.: A new approach to Lagrange multipliers. Math. Oper. Res. 1, 165–174 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.1.2.165
Ding, W.: Subharmonic solutions of sublinear second order systems with impacts. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 379, 538–548 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2011.01.036
Evans, L.C.: Partial Differential Equations. Grad. Stud. Math., vol. 19, pp. 624–625. Am. Math. Soc., Rhode Island (1998)
Gasinski, L., Papageorgiou, N.S.: Nonsmooth Critical Point Theory and Nonlinear Boundary Value Problems. Ser. Math. Anal. Appl., pp. 181–183. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (2005)
Gilbarg, D., Trudinger, N.S.: Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order. Springer, Berlin (2001)
Jiang, M.Y.: Periodic solutions of second order differential equations with an obstacle. Nonlinearity 19, 1165–1183 (2006) http://iopscience.iop.org/0951-7715/19/5/007
Mawhin, J., Willem, M.: Critical Point Theory and Hamiltonian Systems. Appl. Math. Sci., pp. 8–10. Springer, New York (1989)
Nie, Q.Q., Guo, F., Wang, M.W.: Generalized nonsmooth saddle point theorem and its applications on second order Hamiltonian systems. Chaos Solitons Fractals 104, 741–747 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2017.09.032
Ning, Y., An, T.Q.: Periodic solutions of a class of nonautonomous second-order Hamiltonian systems with nonsmooth potentials. Bound. Value Probl. 2015, 34 (2015). http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13661-015-0292-x
Qian, D.B., Torres, P.J.: Periodic motions of linear impact oscillators via the successor map. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 36, 1707–1725 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1137/S003614100343771X
Tang, C.L., Wu, X.P.: Periodic solutions for second order systems with not uniformly coercive potential. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 259, 386–397 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1006/jmaa.2000.7401
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Funding
This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China [11371276, 10901118] and Elite Scholar Program in Tianjin University, P.R. China.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The authors declare that the study was realized in collaboration with the same responsibility. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Huang, D., Guo, F. Multiplicity of periodic bouncing solutions for generalized impact Hamiltonian systems. Bound Value Probl 2019, 57 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13661-019-1169-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13661-019-1169-1