 Research
 Open access
 Published:
Solvability of a nonlinear second order mpoint boundary value problem with pLaplacian at resonance
Boundary Value Problems volume 2024, Article number: 46 (2024)
Abstract
We study the existence of solutions of the nonlinear second order mpoint boundary value problem with pLaplacian at resonance
where \(\phi _{p}(s)=s^{p2}s\), \(p>1\), \(f:[0,1]\times \mathbb{R}^{2}\to \mathbb{R}\) is a continuous function, \(a_{i}>0\) (\(i=1,2,\ldots ,m2\)) with \(\sum_{i=1}^{m2}a_{i}=1\), \(0<\xi _{1}<\xi _{2}<\cdots <\xi _{m2}<1\). Based on the topological transversality method together with the barrier strip technique and the cutoff technique, we obtain new existence results of solutions of the above problem. Meanwhile some examples are also given to illustrate our main results.
1 Introduction
In this paper, we consider the existence of solutions of the following mpoint boundary value problem with pLaplacian at resonance:
where \(\phi _{p}(s)=s^{p2}s\), \(p>1\), \(f:[0,1]\times \mathbb{R}^{2}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\) is a continuous function, \(a_{i}>0\) (\(i=1,2,\ldots ,m2\)) with \(\sum_{i=1}^{m2}a_{i}=1 \), and \(0<\xi _{1}<\xi _{2}<\cdots <\xi _{m2}<1\). By a solution to problem (1.1), we mean a function \(x\in C^{1}[0,1]\) with \(\phi _{p}(x')\in C^{1}[0,1]\) that satisfies problem (1.1).
It is well known that the research of mpoint boundary value problems is significant in the theory of ordinary differential equations and practical applications, see [4, 13].
We specifically mention that the existence of solutions of problem (1.1) with \(p=2\) has been studied by Gupta [12], Feng and Webb [3], Infante and Webb [14], Ma [20], Infante and Zima [15], Liang and Lin [18], in which the Leray–Schauder continuation theorem, the Mawhin’s continuation theorem, the theory of fixed point index, the nonlinear alternative of Leray–Schauder, the Leggett–Williams normtype theorem due to O’Regan and Zima [21], and the fixed point theorem in cones are used, respectively. In the case that \(p>1\), problem (1.1) has been studied by GarcíaHuidobro et al. [5–7] via some continuation lemma of Leray–Schauder type due to themselves, Zhu and Wang [24] via Mawhin’s continuation theorem. For other types of works regarding the second order nonlocal boundary value problems involving pLaplacian, we refer the reader to [1, 2, 8–10, 16, 23].
Inspired by the above works and [17, 22], the aim of this paper is to establish the new existence results of solutions to problem (1.1) by using the topological transversality method together with the barrier strip technique and the cutoff technique.
We would like to emphasize that the results of this paper are new even when \(p=2\), and the main research tool used is the topological transversality theorem, which is different from those in [5–7, 20, 24]. The advantage of the topological transversality theorem is that it can transform the resonance problem into a nonresonance problem by appropriately selecting a convex subset U of X. Besides, in [5–7], the order of growth of f with respect to the derivative term is less than or equal to p. However, in our results, we just impose some local sign conditions on the nonlinear term f and do not require the growth constraints, so the degree of the derivative term in f can exceed p.
This work is organized as follows: In Sect. 2, we first briefly introduce the topological transversality theory. And then, a modified boundary value problem is constructed by the cutoff technique. Finally, the barrier strip technique is used to estimate a prior bound of solutions of the modified boundary value problems in \(C^{1}[0,1]\). In Sect. 3, the topological transversality method is used to establish some existence theorems of solutions of problem (1.1). As applications of our main results, some examples are given in the last section.
Throughout this paper, the following local conditions on f will be used.
 (H_{1}):

There exists \(r_{1}\leq 0\leq r_{2}\) with \(r_{1}^{2}+r_{2}^{2}>0\) such that
$$ f(t,r_{1},0) \leq 0, \qquad f(t,r_{2},0) \geq 0, \quad \forall t\in [0,1]. $$  (H_{2}):

There exists \(R_{1}\leq 0\leq R_{2}\) with \(R_{1}^{2}+R_{2}^{2}>0\) such that
$$ f(t,x,R_{1})\geq 0, \qquad f(t,x,R_{2})\leq 0, \quad \forall (t,x)\in [0,1] \times [r_{1},r_{2}]. $$  (H_{3}):

There exists \(R_{1}\leq 0\leq R_{2}\) with \(R_{1}^{2}+R_{2}^{2}>0\) such that
$$ f(t,x,R_{1})\geq 0,\qquad f(t,x,R_{2})\ge 0, \quad \forall (t,x)\in [0,1] \times [r_{1},r_{2}], $$and
$$ f(t,x,y)\leq \frac{\phi _{p}(R_{2})}{1\xi _{1}},\quad \forall (t,x,y) \in [0,1]\times [r_{1},r_{2}]\times [R_{1},R_{2}]. $$  (H_{4}):

There exists \(R_{1}\leq 0 \leq R_{2}\) with \(R_{1}^{2}+R_{2}^{2}>0\) such that
$$ f(t,x,R_{1})\leq 0, \qquad f(t,x,R_{2})\leq 0, \quad \forall (t,x)\in [0,1] \times [r_{1},r_{2}], $$and
$$ f(t,x,y)\geq \frac{\phi _{p}(R_{1})}{1\xi _{1}}, \quad \forall (t,x,y) \in [0,1]\times [r_{1},r_{2}]\times [R_{1},R_{2}]. $$  (H_{5}):

There exists \(R_{1}\leq 0\leq R_{2}\) with \(R_{1}^{2}+R_{2}^{2}>0\) such that
$$ f(t,x,R_{1})\leq 0, \qquad f(t,x,R_{2})\geq 0, \quad \forall (t,x)\in [0,1] \times [r_{1},r_{2}], $$and
$$ \frac{\phi _{p}(R_{1})}{1\xi _{1}}\leq f(t,x,y)\leq \frac{\phi _{p}(R_{2})}{1\xi _{1}},\quad \forall (t,x,y)\in [0,1] \times [r_{1},r_{2}]\times [R_{1},R_{2}]. $$
Here, the constants \(r_{1}\) and \(r_{2}\) in (H_{2})–(H_{5}) are as in (H_{1}).
2 Preliminaries
Firstly, we briefly review some concepts and results of topological transversality theory. Let U be a convex subset of a Banach space X and \(\mathcal{D}\subset U\) be an open set. Denote by \(H_{\partial \mathcal{D}}(\overline{\mathcal{D}},U)\) the set of compact operators \(F:\overline{\mathcal{D}}\rightarrow U\) that are fixed point free on \(\partial \mathcal{D}\). We say that \(F\in H_{\partial \mathcal{D}}(\overline{ \mathcal{D}},U)\) is essential if every operator in \(H_{\partial \mathcal{D}}(\overline{\mathcal{D}},U)\) that agrees with F on \(\partial \mathcal{D}\) has a fixed point in \(\mathcal{D}\).
The next two lemmas can be found in [11].
Lemma 2.1
If \(q\in \mathcal{D}\) and \(F\in H_{\partial \mathcal{D}}(\overline{\mathcal{D}},U)\) is a constant operator, \(F(x)=q\) for \(x\in \overline{\mathcal{D}}\), then F is essential.
Lemma 2.2
Assume that

(i)
\(F\in H_{\partial \mathcal{D}}(\overline{\mathcal{D}},U)\) is essential;

(ii)
\(H:\overline{\mathcal{D}}\times [0,1]\rightarrow U\) is a compact homotopy, \(H(\cdot ,0)=F\) and \(H(x,\lambda )\neq x\) for \(x\in \partial \mathcal{D}\) and \(\lambda \in [0,1]\).
Then \(H(\cdot ,1)\) is essential and therefore it has a fixed point in \(\mathcal{D}\).
According to the intermediate value property of continuous functions, it is not difficult to obtain the following.
Lemma 2.3
Assume that

(i)
\(x \in C^{1}[0,1]\);

(ii)
\(x(1)=\sum_{i=1}^{m2}a_{i} x(\xi _{i})\), where \(a_{i}>0\) (\(i=1,2,\ldots ,m2\)) with \(\sum_{i=1}^{m2}a_{i}=1\), \(0<\xi _{1}<\xi _{2}<\cdots <\xi _{m2}<1\).
Then there exists \(\eta \in [\xi _{1},\xi _{m2}]\) such that \(x(1)=x(\eta )\).
Let the constants \(r_{1}\), \(r_{2}\), \(R_{1}\), \(R_{2}\) be such that
We define the modification g of f as follows:
and define the modification h of g by setting
Obviously, both \(g(t,x,y)\) and \(h(t,x,y)\) are continuous on \([0,1]\times \mathbb{R}^{2}\).
We note here that in the following discussion, we agree that when (H_{1}) is true, the constants \(r_{1}\) and \(r_{2}\) in function g are the ones in (H_{1}), while for \(i=2,3,4,5\), when (H_{i}) is true, the constants \(R_{1}\) and \(R_{2}\) in function h are the ones in (H_{i}).
Consider the family of the following modified boundary value problem:
where \(\lambda \in (0,1]\).
The following lemma is a prior estimate of the possible solutions of the modified problem (2.1), (2.2) in \(C^{1}[0,1]\).
Lemma 2.4
Assume that (H_{1}) and (H_{2}) hold. Let x be a solution of the modified problem (2.1), (2.2) for some \(\lambda \in (0,1]\). Then
Proof
We divided the proof into two steps.
Step 1. We prove that (2.3) holds.
Suppose on the contrary that there exists \(t_{0}\in [0,1]\) such that \(x(t_{0})< r_{1}\) or \(x(t_{0})>r_{2}\). Without loss of generality, we may assume that \(x(t_{0})< r_{1}\). Let \(t_{1}\in [0,1]\) be such that
By Lemma 2.3, we can assume that \(t_{1}\in [0,1)\), and then from (2.2) we have \(x'(t_{1})=0\). It follows from (H_{1}) and the definition of h that
and thus there exists \(\delta >0\) such that \(\phi _{p}(x'(t))\) is decreasing on \([t_{1},t_{1}+\delta )\subset [0,1)\). This together with the monotonicity of \(\phi _{p}^{1}(\cdot )\) implies that
which contradicts (2.5). Therefore \(x(t)\geq r_{1}\), \(t\in [0,1]\). Similarly, we can obtain \(x(t)\leq r_{2}\), \(t\in [0,1]\). This implies that (2.3) holds.
Step 2. We use the barrier strip technique to show that (2.4) holds.
Let
We now assert that the sets \(S_{1}\) and \(S_{2}\) are empty. We only prove that \(S_{1}=\emptyset \). Similarly, it can be shown that \(S_{2}=\emptyset \). Suppose on the contrary that \(S_{1}\neq \emptyset \). Choose \(t_{0}\in S_{1}\). Then \(R_{1}1\leq x'(t_{0})< R_{1}\), and so it follows from (2.2) that \(0< t_{0}\leq 1\). By the continuity of \(x'(t)\) on \([0,1]\) and the fact of \(x'(0)=0\), there exist \(0< t_{1}< t_{2}\leq t_{0}\) such that
and
Consequently, \([t_{1},t_{2}]\subset S_{1}\); whereas from (2.3) and \(({\mathrm{H}}_{2})\) we obtain
Hence \(\phi _{p}(x'(t))\) is nondecreasing on \([t_{1},t_{2}]\). Furthermore, by the monotonicity of \(\phi _{p}^{1}(\cdot )\), we have that \(x'(t)\) is nondecreasing on \([t_{1},t_{2}]\). Consequently,
which contradicts (2.7). This implies that \(S_{1}=\emptyset \). Notice that \(x'(0)=0\) and \(x'\in C[0,1]\), it follows that (2.4) holds. This completes the proof of the lemma. □
Lemma 2.5
Assume that (H_{1}) and \(({\mathrm{H}}_{3})\) hold. Let x be a solution of the modified problem (2.1), (2.2) for some \(\lambda \in (0,1]\). Then \(x(t)\) satisfies (2.3) and (2.4).
Proof
From the proof of Step 1 of Lemma 2.4, it is easy to see that \(x(t)\) satisfies (2.3). We now show that (2.4) holds. To do this, we let \(S_{i}\) (\(i=1,2\)) be as in (2.6). Then \(S_{1}=\emptyset \) by the proof of Step 2 of Lemma 2.4. Therefore, it follows from (2.2) that
We now prove that \(S_{2}=\emptyset \). Indeed, by contradiction, we assume that there exists \(t_{0}\in S_{2}\) such that \(R_{2}< x'(t_{0})\leq R_{2}+1\). According to (2.2), we have \(0< t_{0}\leq 1\). In view of Lemma 2.3 and the mean value theorem of differentials, there exists \(\zeta \in (\eta ,1)\subset [\xi _{1},1]\) such that \(x'(\zeta )=0\). Integrating (2.1) from ζ to 1, applying (2.3) and \(({\mathrm{H}}_{3})\), we obtain
where \(\theta (y):=\max \{R_{1},\min \{y,R_{2}\}\}\) for \(y\in \mathbb{R}\). Consequently, \(x'(1)< R_{2}\), and so \(0< t_{0}<1\). From the continuity of \(x'(t)\) on \([0,1]\), there exist \(t_{0}\leq t_{1}< t_{2}<1\) such that
and
Consequently, \([t_{1},t_{2}]\subset S_{2}\). It follows from the definition of h, (2.3), and \(({\mathrm{H}}_{3})\) that
This implies that
and thus, by the monotonicity of \(\phi _{p}^{1}(\cdot )\), we obtain
which contradicts (2.9). This shows that \(S_{2}=\emptyset \). Notice that \(x'(0)=0\) and \(x'\in C[0,1]\), we have
This together with (2.8) implies that (2.4) holds. This completes the proof of the lemma. □
Similar to the proof of Lemma 2.5, we can easily show the following two results.
Lemma 2.6
Assume that (H_{1}) and (H_{4}) hold. Let x be a solution of the modified problem (2.1), (2.2) for some \(\lambda \in (0,1]\). Then \(x(t)\) satisfies (2.3) and (2.4).
Lemma 2.7
Assume that (H_{1}) and (H_{5}) hold. Let x be a solution of the modified problem (2.1), (2.2) for some \(\lambda \in (0,1]\). Then \(x(t)\) satisfies (2.3) and (2.4).
Now, we denote by \(X=C^{1}[0,1]\times \mathbb{R}\) the Banach space equipped with the norm
Set
and
Obviously, U is a convex subset of X and \(\mathcal{D}\) is an open subset of U.
Lemma 2.8
Let the operator \(H:\overline{\mathcal{D}}\times [0,1]\rightarrow U\) be defined by
Then \(H(x,r,\lambda )\) is a compact operator.
Proof
Notice that to prove \(H(x,r,\lambda )\) is a compact operator, it is sufficient to show the second component of \(H(x,r,\lambda )\), that is,
is compact since the first component \(H_{1}(x,r,\lambda )\equiv 0\) of \(H(x,r,\lambda )\) is compact.
We now divided the proof into two steps.
Step 1. We prove that \(H_{2}(x,r,\lambda )\) is continuous. To do this, we let \(\{(x_{n},r_{n},\lambda _{n})\}_{n=1}^{\infty} \subset \overline{\mathcal{D}}\times [0,1]\) be such that \((x_{n},r_{n},\lambda _{n})\to (x_{0},r_{0},\lambda _{0})\in \overline{\mathcal{D}}\times [0,1](n\to \infty )\). Then
From the continuity of h and \(\phi _{p}^{1}\), we have
Hence \(H_{2}(x,r,\lambda )\) is continuous on \(\overline{\mathcal{D}}\times [0,1]\).
Step 2. We show that \(H_{2}(\overline{\mathcal{D}}\times [0,1])\) is a relatively compact set in \(\mathbb{R}\). Notice that for all \((x,r,\lambda )\in \overline{\mathcal{D}}\times [0,1]\), we have
where
Thus, \(H_{2}(\overline{\mathcal{D}}\times [0,1])\) is a relatively compact set in \(\mathbb{R}\). This completes the proof of the lemma. □
Lemma 2.9
Assume that (H_{1}) holds. Let the operator \(F:\overline{\mathcal{D}}\rightarrow U\) be defined by
Then F is essential.
Proof
It follows from (2.10) that \(H(\cdot ,\cdot ,1)=F(\cdot ,\cdot )\), \(H(x,r,0)=(0,0)\in \mathcal{D}\) for \((x,r)\in \overline{\mathcal{D}}\), and thus from Lemma 2.1 we know that \(H(x,r,0)\) is essential. Besides, \(H(x,r,\lambda )\) is compact by Lemma 2.8.
We now show that
Obviously, \(H(x,r,0)\neq (x,r)\) for all \((x,r)\in \partial \mathcal{D}\). Suppose that \(H(x_{0},r_{0},\lambda _{0})=(x_{0},r_{0})\) for some \((x_{0},r_{0})\in \partial \mathcal{D}\) and \(\lambda _{0}\in (0,1]\). Then \(x_{0}=0\) and
Consequently,
If \(r_{0}>r_{2}\), from (H_{1}) we have
The monotonicity of \(\phi _{p}^{1}(\cdot )\) and \(\phi _{p}^{1}(0)=0\) imply that
which contradicts \(r_{0}(11/\lambda _{0})\leq 0\). Hence, \(r_{0}\leq r_{2}\). Similarly, we can obtain \(r_{0}\geq r_{1}\). Consequently, \((0,r_{0})\in \mathcal{D}\), which contradicts \((0,r_{0})\in \partial \mathcal{D}\). This shows that (2.12) holds. Therefore, according to Lemma 2.2, \(F(\cdot ,\cdot )=H(\cdot ,\cdot ,1)\) is essential. This completes the proof of the lemma. □
Lemma 2.10
Let the operator \(G:\overline{\mathcal{D}}\times [0,1]\rightarrow U\) be defined by
where the symbol “∗” denotes the transpose of vector. Then G is a compact operator.
Proof
Firstly, we define operators \(G_{1}:\overline{\mathcal{D}}\times [0,1]\rightarrow C^{1}[0,1]\) and \(G_{2}:\overline{\mathcal{D}}\times [0,1]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\) by
and
Next, we divided the proof into three steps.
Step 1. We prove that \(G_{1}:\overline{\mathcal{D}}\times [0,1]\rightarrow C^{1}[0,1]\) is continuous.
Let \(\{(x_{n},r_{n},\lambda _{n})\}_{n=1}^{\infty}\subset \overline{\mathcal{D}}\times [0,1]\) be such that \((x_{n},r_{n},\lambda _{n})\to (x_{0},r_{0},\lambda _{0})\in \overline{\mathcal{D}}\times [0,1](n\to \infty )\). Then
The continuity of h and \(\phi _{p}^{1}\) imply that
uniformly on \([0,1]\) as \(n\to \infty \), and
uniformly on \([0,1]\) as \(n\to \infty \). That is,
and
This shows that \(G_{1}:\overline{\mathcal{D}}\times [0,1]\rightarrow C^{1}[0,1]\) is continuous.
Step 2. We show that the set \(G_{1}(\overline{\mathcal{D}}\times [0,1])\) is relatively compact in \(C^{1}[0,1]\). Obviously, for all \((x,r)\in \overline{\mathcal{D}}\), \(\lambda \in [0,1]\), we have
where M is defined by (2.11). Since \(\phi _{p}^{1}(\cdot )\) is uniformly continuous on \([M,M]\), for any \(\varepsilon >0\), there exists \(\mu >0\) such that when \(s_{2}s_{1}<\mu\) (\(\forall s_{1},s_{2}\in [M,M]\)),
Now, we choose \(\delta =\mu /M\). Then, for all \(t_{1},t_{2}\in [0,1]\) with \(t_{2}t_{1}<\delta \) and for all \((x,r)\in \overline{\mathcal{D}}\), we have
Thus, when \(t_{2}t_{1}<\delta\) (\(t_{1},t_{2}\in [0,1]\)), we have for all \((x,r,\lambda ) \in \overline{\mathcal{D}}\times [0,1]\),
This shows that \(\{\frac{\mathrm{d}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}G_{1} (x,r,\lambda ): (x,r,\lambda ) \in \overline{\mathcal{D}} \times [0,1] \}\) is equicontinuous on \([0,1]\). Therefore, \(G_{1}(\overline{\mathcal{D}}\times [0,1])\) is a relatively compact set in \(C^{1}[0,1]\) by ArzelàAscoli theorem.
Step 3. We prove that \(G_{2}:\overline{\mathcal{D}}\times [0,1]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\) is a compact operator.
The compactness of the operator \(G_{2}\) is clear, the proof is similar to the one of \(H_{2}\) in Lemma 2.8.
In summary, \(G:\overline{\mathcal{D}}\times [0,1]\rightarrow U\) is a compact operator. This completes the proof of the lemma. □
3 Main results
With the preparatory work in Sect. 2, we can now establish the existence results of solutions of problem (1.1).
Theorem 3.1
Assume that (H_{1}) and (H_{2}) hold. Then boundary value problem (1.1) has at least one solution \(x=x(t)\) satisfying (2.3) and (2.4).
Proof
We note that to obtain the existence of solutions satisfying (2.3) and (2.4) of problem (1.1), it is sufficient to prove that the modified problem (2.1), (2.2) has a solution \(x=x(t)\) satisfying (2.3) and (2.4).
Below, we will prove in two steps.
Step 1. We prove that if the operator \(G(\cdot ,\cdot ,1)\), which is defined in Lemma 2.10, has a fixed point, then the modified problem (2.1), (2.2) has a solution satisfying (2.3) and (2.4).
Suppose that \((x_{1},r_{1})\) is a fixed point of \(G(\cdot ,\cdot ,1)\). It follows from the definition of the operator G that
and
Furthermore, we have
and thus
Setting \(x_{2}(t)=x_{1}(t)+r_{1}\) for \(t\in [0,1]\), it is easy to see that \(x_{2}\) is a solution of the modified problem (2.1), (2.2) with \(\lambda =1\), and the validity of (2.3) and (2.4) follows from Lemma 2.4.
Step 2. We show that the operator \(G(\cdot ,\cdot ,1)\) has a fixed point.
Notice that \(G(\cdot ,\cdot ,0)=F(\cdot ,\cdot )\), F is essential by Lemma 2.9, and G is a compact operator by Lemma 2.10. For the existence of a fixed point of \(G(\cdot ,\cdot ,1)\), it is sufficient to verify that
Suppose on the contrary that \(G(x_{0},r_{0},\lambda _{0})=(x_{0},r_{0})\) for some \((x_{0},r_{0})\in \partial \mathcal{D}\) and \(\lambda _{0}\in [0,1]\). If \(\lambda _{0}=0\), then from the proof of Lemma 2.10, we have \((x_{0},r_{0})\notin \partial \mathcal{D}\), which contradicts \((x_{0},r_{0})\in \partial \mathcal{D}\). If \(\lambda _{0}\in (0,1]\), then we have
and
Hence
In particular,
Notice that \(\phi _{p}^{1}(s_{1}s_{2})=\phi _{p}^{1}(s_{1})\phi _{p}^{1}(s_{2})\) for all \(s_{1},s_{2}\in \mathbb{R}\) and (3.1), we have
that is,
Setting \(x(t)=x_{0}(t)+r_{0}\) for \(t\in [0,1]\). Then we can see that x is a solution of the modified problem (2.1), (2.2) with \(\lambda =\lambda _{0}\). It follows from Lemma 2.4 that
and
Notice that \(x_{0}(0)=0\), and so (3.2) yields \(r_{1}1< r_{1}\leq r_{0}\leq r_{2}< r_{2}+1\). Thus
Consequently, \((x_{0},r_{0})\in \mathcal{D}\), which contradicts \((x_{0},r_{0})\in \partial \mathcal{D}\).
In summary, the conclusion of Theorem 3.1 holds. This completes the proof of the theorem. □
The following conclusion can be obtained by Theorem 3.1 immediately.
Corollary 3.1
Assume that all the conditions of Theorem 3.1with \(r_{1}=0\) hold. Then problem (1.1) has at least one nonnegative solution \(x=x(t)\) satisfying (2.3) and (2.4). Furthermore, the solution \(x=x(t)\) is nondecreasing on \([0,1]\) provided \(R_{1}=0\).
The following theorems can be proved by using similar arguments to those of Theorem 3.1.
Theorem 3.2
Assume that \(({\mathrm{H}}_{1})\) and \(({\mathrm{H}}_{3})\) hold. Then the boundary value problem (1.1) has at least one solution \(x=x(t)\) satisfying (2.3) and (2.4).
Corollary 3.2
Assume that all the conditions of Theorem 3.2with \(r_{1}=0\) hold. Then problem (1.1) has at least one nonnegative solution \(x=x(t)\) satisfying (2.3) and (2.4). Furthermore, the solution \(x=x(t)\) is nondecreasing on \([0,1]\) provided \(R_{1}=0\).
Theorem 3.3
Assume that \(({\mathrm{H}}_{1})\) and \(({\mathrm{H}}_{4})\) hold. Then the boundary value problem (1.1) has at least one solution \(x=x(t)\) satisfying (2.3) and (2.4).
Corollary 3.3
Assume that all the conditions of Theorem 3.3with \(r_{1}=0\) hold. Then problem (1.1) has at least one nonnegative solution \(x=x(t)\) satisfying (2.3) and (2.4). Furthermore, the solution \(x=x(t)\) is nondecreasing on \([0,1]\) provided \(R_{1}=0\).
Theorem 3.4
Assume that \(({\mathrm{H}}_{1})\) and \(({\mathrm{H}}_{5})\) hold. Then the boundary value problem (1.1) has at least one solution \(x=x(t)\) satisfying (2.3) and (2.4).
Remark 3.1
Theorem 3.4 takes Theorem 2.1 of [19, 20] as a special case.
Corollary 3.4
Assume that all the conditions of Theorem 3.4with \(r_{1}=0\) hold. Then problem (1.1) has at least one nonnegative solution \(x=x(t)\) satisfying (2.3) and (2.4). Furthermore, the solution \(x=x(t)\) is nondecreasing on \([0,1]\) provided \(R_{1}=0\).
Remark 3.2
If the \(\phi _{p}\) in problem (1.1) is replaced by ϕ, which is an increasing homeomorphism from \(\mathbb{R}\) onto \(\mathbb{R}\) and satisfies \(\phi (s_{1}s_{2})=\phi (s_{1})\phi (s_{2})\) for all \(s_{1},s_{2}\in \mathbb{R}\), Theorems \(3.13.4\) and Corollaries \(3.13.4\) are still true.
4 Some examples
As applications of our results, this section will provide four illustrative examples.
Example 4.1
Consider the mpoint boundary value problem with pLaplacian at resonance
where \(\phi _{p}(s)=s^{p2}s\), \(p>1\); n is an even number, \(c_{i}\in \mathbb{R}\) (\(i=0,1,\ldots ,n\)); the polynomial \(\sum_{i=0}^{n} c_{i} x^{i}\) has at least two distinct real roots with different signs; \(P_{l}(y)\) is a polynomial of degree \(l\in \mathbb{N}\), \(P_{l}(0)=0\); and \(a_{i}>0\) (\(i=1,2,\ldots ,m2\)) with \(\sum_{i=1}^{m2}a_{i}=1\), \(0<\xi _{1}<\xi _{2}<\cdots <\xi _{m2}<1\).
Let
Obviously, \(f\in C([0,1]\times \mathbb{R}^{2})\). Let \(r_{1}\) and \(r_{2}\) be the minimum and maximum real root of the polynomial \(\sum_{i=0}^{n} c_{i}x^{i}\), respectively. Then from the assumption it follows that \(r_{1}\leq 0\leq r_{2}\), \(r_{1}^{2}+r_{2}^{2}>0\) and
Hence, condition \(({\mathrm{H}}_{1})\) of Theorem 3.1 is satisfied.
Let
Then, for \(x\in [r_{1},r_{2}]\), \(y\in \mathbb{R}\), we have
Thus, if there exists \(y_{1}<0\) such that \(P_{l}(y_{1})F>0\) and there exists \(y_{2}>0\) such that \(P_{l}(y_{2})+F<0\), then condition \(({\mathrm{H}}_{2})\) of Theorem 3.1 is satisfied.
In summary, problem (4.1) has at least one solution \(x=x(t)\) provided
Note that if l is an odd number and the coefficient of \(y^{l}\) in \(P_{l}(y)\) is negative, then the above inequality holds.
Example 4.2
Consider the mpoint boundary value problem with pLaplacian at resonance
where \(\phi _{p}(s)=s^{p2}s\), \(p>1\), n is an even number, \(a_{i}>0\) (\(i=1,2,\ldots ,m2\)) with \(\sum_{i=1}^{m2}a_{i}=1\), and \(0<\xi _{1}<\xi _{2}<\cdots <\xi _{m2}<1\).
Let
Obviously, \(f\in C([0,1]\times{\mathbb{R}^{2}})\). We choose \(r_{1}=1/2\), \(r_{2}=1/2\), \(R_{1}=2\), \(R_{2}=2\). Then
This implies that (H_{1}) holds. On the other hand, we have
Moreover, we have
Hence, (H_{3}) holds. From Theorem 3.2, problem (4.2) has at least one solution.
Example 4.3
Consider the mpoint boundary value problem with pLaplacian at resonance
where \(\phi _{p}(s)=s^{p2}s\), \(p>1\), \(a_{i}>0\) (\(i=1,2,\ldots ,m2\)) with \(\sum_{i=1}^{m2}a_{i}=1\), and \(0<\xi _{1}<\xi _{2}<\cdots <\xi _{m2}<1\).
Let
Clearly, \(f\in C([0,1]\times{\mathbb{R}^{2}})\). We select \(r_{1}=1/2\), \(r_{2}=1/2\), \(R_{1}=2\), \(R_{2}=2\). Then
This implies that (H_{1}) holds. On the other hand, we have
and
Hence, (H_{4}) is also true. From Theorem 3.3, problem (4.3) has at least one solution.
Example 4.4
Consider the mpoint boundary value problem with pLaplacian at resonance
where \(\phi _{p}(s)=s^{p2}s\), \(p>1\), n is an even number, \(a_{i}>0\) (\(i=1,2,\ldots ,m2\)) with \(\sum_{i=1}^{m2}a_{i}=1\), and \(0<\xi _{1}<\xi _{2}<\cdots <\xi _{m2}<1\).
Let
Evidently, \(f\in C([0,1]\times {\mathbb{R}^{2}})\). We choose \(r_{1}=1/2\), \(r_{2}=1/2\), \(R_{1}=2\), \(R_{2}=2\). Then, for all \(t\in [0,1]\), we have
This implies that (H_{1}) holds. On the other hand, for all \((t,x)\in [0,1]\times [r_{1},r_{2}]\), it follows that
Moreover, when \((t,x,y)\in [0,1]\times [1/2,1/2]\times [2,2]\), we have
This shows that (H_{5}) is satisfied. From Theorem 3.4, problem (4.4) has at least one solution.
Data Availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Feng, H., Lian, H., Ge, W.: A symmetric solution of a multipoint boundary value problems with onedimensional pLaplacian at resonance. Nonlinear Anal. 69, 3964–3972 (2008)
Feng, M., Zhang, X., Ge, W.: Exact number of pseudosymmetric positive solutions for a pLaplacian threepoint boundary value problems and their applications. J. Appl. Math. Comput. 33, 437–448 (2010)
Feng, W., Webb, J.R.L.: Solvability of mpoint boundary value problems with nonlinear growth. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 212, 467–480 (1997)
Franco, D., Infante, G., Minhós, F.M.: Nonlocal boundary value problems. Bound. Value Probl. 2012, 23 (2012)
GarcíaHuidobro, M., Gupta, C.P., Manásevich, R.: Solvability for a nonlinear threepoint boundary value problem with pLaplacianlike operator at resonance. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 6, 191–213 (2001)
GarciaHuidobro, M., Gupta, C.P., Manasevich, R.: Some multipoint boundary value problems of NeumannDirichlet type involving a multipoint pLaplace like operator. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 333, 247–264 (2007)
GarcíaHuidobro, M., Manásevich, R.: A three point boundary value problem containing the operator \((\phi (u'))'\). In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Dynamical Systems and Differential Equations, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst, pp. 313–319 (2002)
GarciaHuidobro, M., Manasevich, R., Yan, P., Zhang, M.: A pLaplacian problem with a multipoint boundary condition. Nonlinear Anal. 59, 319–333 (2004)
Ge, W., Ren, J.: An extension of Mawhin’s continuation theorem and its application to boundary value problems with a pLaplacian. Nonlinear Anal. 58, 477–488 (2004)
Graef, J.R., Heidarkhani, S., Kong, L.: A critical points approach to multiplicity results for multipoint boundary value problems. Appl. Anal. 90, 1909–1925 (2001)
Granas, A., Guenther, R., Lee, J.: Nonlinear boundary value problems for ordinary differential equations. Dissertationes Math. (Rozprawy Mat.) 244, Warsaw (1985)
Gupta, C.P.: Existence theorems for a second order mpoint boundary value problem at resonance. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 18, 705–710 (1995)
Infante, G., Ma, T.F., Minhós, F.M.: New trends on nonlocal and functional boundary value problems. J. Funct. Spaces Appl. 2013, Article ID 643492 (2013)
Infante, G., Webb, J.R.L.: Three point boundary value problems with solutions that change sign. J. Integral Equ. Appl. 15, 37–57 (2003)
Infante, G., Zima, M.: Positive solutions of multipoint boundary value problems at resonance. Nonlinear Anal. 69, 2458–2465 (2008)
Jiang, W.: Solvability for pLaplacian boundary value problem at resonance on the halfline. Bound. Value Probl. 2013, 207 (2013)
Kelevedjiev, P.: Existence of solutions for twopoint boundary value problems. Nonlinear Anal. 22, 217–224 (1994)
Liang, S., Lin, M.: Multiplicity of positive solutions for singular threepoint boundary value problems at resonance. Nonlinear Anal. 71, 2497–2505 (2009)
Ma, R.: Existence theorems for a second order mpoint boundary value problem. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 211, 545–555 (1997)
Ma, R.: Existence results of a mpoint boundary value problem at resonance. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 294, 147–157 (2004)
O’Regan, D., Zima, M.: LeggettWilliams normtype theorems for coincidences. Arch. Math. 87, 233–244 (2006)
Pei, M., Wang, L., Lv, X.: Radial solutions for pLaplacian Neumann problems with gradient dependence. Math. Nachr. 295, 2422–2435 (2022)
Wang, Y., Zhang, G., Ge, W.: Multipoint boundary value problems for onedimensional pLaplacian at resonance. J. Appl. Math. Comput. 22, 361–372 (2006)
Zhu, Y., Wang, K.: On the existence of solutions of pLaplacian mpoint boundary value problem at resonance. Nonlinear Anal. 70, 1557–1564 (2009)
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the referees for their comments and suggestions.
Authors’ information
The three authors of this paper come from School of Mathematics and Statistics in Beihua University.
Funding
This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Jilin Province (Grant No. 20210101156JC).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
This work was carried out in collaboration between the three authors. MP designed the study and guided the research. ML and LW performed the analysis and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. ML, MP, and LW managed the analysis of the study. The three authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
We certify that this manuscript is original and has not been published and has not been submitted elsewhere for publication while being considered by Boundary Value Problems. In addition, the study is not split up into several parts to increase the number of submissions and to be submitted to various journals or to one journal over time.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Abbreviations
Not applicable.
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 licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, M., Pei, M. & Wang, L. Solvability of a nonlinear second order mpoint boundary value problem with pLaplacian at resonance. Bound Value Probl 2024, 46 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13661024018560
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13661024018560