- About this Journal ·
- Abstracting and Indexing ·
- Advance Access ·
- Aims and Scope ·
- Annual Issues ·
- Article Processing Charges ·
- Articles in Press ·
- Author Guidelines ·
- Bibliographic Information ·
- Citations to this Journal ·
- Contact Information ·
- Editorial Board ·
- Editorial Workflow ·
- Free eTOC Alerts ·
- Publication Ethics ·
- Reviewers Acknowledgment ·
- Submit a Manuscript ·
- Subscription Information ·
- Table of Contents

Abstract and Applied Analysis

VolumeΒ 2011Β (2011), Article IDΒ 638271, 15 pages

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/638271

## On Constants in Nonoscillation Criteria for Half-Linear Differential Equations

Department of Mathematics, Mendel University in Brno, ZemΔdΔlskΓ‘ 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic

Received 15 June 2011; Accepted 22 August 2011

Academic Editor: Victor M.Β Perez Garcia

Copyright Β© 2011 Simona FiΕ‘narovΓ‘ and Robert MaΕΓk. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

#### Abstract

We study the half-linear differential equation , where , . Using the modified Riccati technique, we derive new nonoscillation criteria for this equation. The results are closely related to the classical Hille-Nehari criteria and allow to replace the fixed constants in known nonoscillation criteria by a certain one-parametric expression.

#### 1. Introduction

In this paper we consider the equation where , , , for some . Under a solution of this equation, we understand every continuously differentiable function such that is differentiable and (1.1) holds on . This equation is called half-linear, since a constant multiple of any solution is also a solution of (1.1).

If , then (1.1) reduces to the linear equation

For detailed discussion related to general theory as well as applications, we refer to [1]. According to [1], the classical linear Sturmian comparison theory extends to (1.1) and hence, if a solution has infinitely many zeros in a neighborhood of infinity, then the same is true for every solution. In this case, we say that (1.1) is oscillatory. In the opposite case, we say that (1.1) is nonoscillatory, as the following definition shows. Note that due to homogeneity of the set of all solutions, we can restrict ourselves to solutions which are positive in a neighborhood of infinity.

*Definition 1 (nonoscillatory equation). *Equation (1.1) is said to be nonoscillatory if there exist number and solution of (1.1) which satisfies for every .

DoΕ‘lΓ½ and ΕeznΓΔkovΓ‘ [2] viewed (1.1) as a perturbation of another nonoscillatory half-linear differential equation and proved the following result. Note that denotes the conjugate number to in Theorem A and in the whole paper, that is, holds.

Theorem A (see [2, Theoremββ2]). *Let be a positive function such that for large , say , , and denote
**
Suppose that
**
If
**
for some sufficiently large, then (1.1) is nonoscillatory.*

Theorem A is sharp in the sense that a convenient choice of the function allows to prove explicit sharp nonoscillation criteria. As a particular example, choosing and , DoΕ‘lΓ½ and ΕeznΓΔkovΓ‘ derived the following result for the perturbed Euler differential equation

Theorem B (see [2, Corollaryββ1]). *If
**
then (1.8) is nonoscillatory.*

The constants in this criterion are optimal in some sense. Really, guarantees oscillation of (1.8) (see [2, Theoremββ1]).

A variant of Theorem A without convergent integral of is the following.

Theorem C (see [3, Theoremββ2]). *Let be a positive function such that for large , say ,
**
Suppose that (1.5) and (1.6) with replaced by hold. If the integral is convergent, and
**
then (1.1) is nonoscillatory.*

If we take and , then Theorem C can be applied to the perturbed Riemann-Weber equation and we obtain the following statement.

Theorem D (see [3, Corollaryββ2]). *If converges and
**
then (1.13) is nonoscillatory.*

The aim of this paper is to improve Theorems A, B, C, and D and show that the constants in the inequalities involving and can be replaced by a certain one-parametric expression. Roughly speaking, these theorems claim that the nonoscillation is preserved if the perturbation which is measured by the expressions is bounded in a strip between and for large . We show that there is a possibility to shift this strip down. In other words, we show that if the inequality involving limes inferior is not satisfied, it can be relaxed provided the condition involving limes superior is strengthened properly. Together with these results, we prove also similar results of a different type, where (1.1) is viewed as a standalone equation and not as a perturbation of another equation (Theorems 3.1 and 3.2).

#### 2. Preliminary Results

The main tool used in the paper is the method based on the Riccati equation which can be obtained from (1.1) by substitution . Our results are obtained from the following necessary and sufficient condition for nonoscillation of (1.1) which can be found, for example, in [1, Theoremβ2.2.1].

Lemma 2.1. *Equation (1.1) is nonoscillatory if and only if there exists a differentiable function which satisfies the Riccati type inequality
**
for large .*

Our results heavily depend on the following relationship between the Riccati type differential operator and the so-called modified Riccati operator (the operator on the right-hand side of (2.3)).

Lemma 2.2 ([4, Lemmaββ2.2]). *Let and be differentiable functions and , then one has the identity
**
where .*

#### 3. Main Results

In contrast to Theorems A and C in the first pair of theorems, we do not consider (1.1) as a perturbation of a nonoscillatory equation, but we consider this equation as a standalone problem.

Theorem 3.1. *Let be a function such that and , both for large . Suppose that the following conditions hold:
**
If
**
for some , then (1.1) is nonoscillatory.*

*Proof. *Denote , and
We have

Consider the function . This function satisfies and . Hence, by the Taylor formula, the function can be approximated by in a neighborhood of .

Conditions of the theorem imply that
hence, for every , there exists such that
holds for . At the same time can be taken so small (will be specified later how) and so large that for we have
Consequently,
Let . By Lemma 2.2, we have
Consider the function in the numerator of the last fraction
We have and by a direct computation
and hence . This means that can be taken so small that
Combining (3.9) and (3.12) we have
for and (1.1) is nonoscillatory by Lemma 2.1.

Theorem 3.2. *Let be a function such that and , both for large . Suppose that
**
If
**
for some , then (1.1) is nonoscillatory.*

*Proof. *With we take
and the proof is the same as the proof of Theorem 3.1.

The following theorems are variants of Theorems 3.1 and 3.2. In these theorems we view (1.1) as a perturbation of another (nonoscillatory) equation (1.3).

Theorem 3.3. *Let be a function such that and , both for large . Suppose that (3.1) and
**
hold. If
**
for some , then (1.1) is nonoscillatory.*

*Proof. *Denote , as in Theorem 3.1. Further
Similarly as in the proof of Theorem 3.1 we get (3.4),
and for sufficiently small , there exists such that
holds for . Using this estimate and Lemma 2.2, we see that the function satisfies
for . From (3.17) it follows that
for large . Using this and (3.12) we get
for large . Hence (1.1) is nonoscillatory by Lemma 2.1.

Corollary 3.4. *If there exists such that
**
then (1.8) is nonoscillatory.*

*Proof. *Choose and . The fact that (3.1) and (3.17) hold has been proved in [2, Corollaryββ1]. Further,
as shown also in [2] and the statement follows from Theorem 3.3.

Theorem 3.5. *Let be a function such that and , both for large . Suppose that the following conditions hold:
**
If
**
for some , then (1.1) is nonoscillatory.*

*Proof. *Denote as in the proof of Theorem 3.1. We take
and the proof is the same as the proof of Theorem 3.3.

Corollary 3.6. *If converges and there exists such that
**
then (1.13) is nonoscillatory.*

*Proof. *We take and . Then, as shown in the proof of [3, Corollaryββ2], all assumptions of Theorem 3.5 hold and
Hence, the statement follows from Theorem 3.5.

In the following theorem we employ the technique used in previous results directly for Riccati operator from (2.1) rather than for modified Riccati operator from (2.3). This method yields a result which is (as far as we know) new even in the linear case (Theorem 3.7) and offers also a simple and alternative proof of known results (see Remark 6).

Theorem 3.7. *Let the following conditions hold:
**
and for some **
Then (1.1) is nonoscillatory.*

*Proof. *From the assumptions of the theorem it follows that there exist and such that and
for every . Define . Direct computation shows
for every . The nonoscillation of (1.1) follows from Lemma 2.1.

Corollary 3.8. *For denote by the positive root of the equation . Denote
**
If (3.32) holds and
**
then (1.1) is nonoscillatory.*

*Proof. *It follows from the fact that is for explicit formula for the curve given parametrically by , for . This curve is increasing for and (3.33) means that the point is below this curve. The same is ensured by inequalities (3.37).

#### 4. Concluding Remarks and Comments

*Remark 1. *If we put in Theorems 3.3 and 3.5, we get Theorems A and C. The constant from the condition with limes superior is maximal with this choice. As far as we know, Theorems 3.3 and 3.5 are new if and Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 are new for every . Similarly, if we put in Theorem 3.7, then we get [1, Theoremββ3.1.5].

*Remark 2. *If , then both are decreasing functions of the variable and thus the bounds for and which guarantee nonoscillation in Theorems 3.3 and 3.5 also decrease. Closer investigation shows that the bound for limes inferior decreases faster and thus the maximal allowed difference between limes superior and inferior is allowed to be bigger if both are small. A similar remark applies also to the results from Theorems 3.1 and 3.2.

*Remark 3. *The nonoscillation criteria in the previous theorems are written in the form
where the definition of varies for each particular theorem. Note that if inequalities (4.1) hold for some which satisfies , then they hold also for . In view of this fact it is reasonable to suppose .

*Remark 4. *Denote
It is easy to show that the parametric curve ,ββ,ββ, is an increasing function with nonparametric equation . Since (4.1) expresses the fact that the point is below this curve, inequalities (4.1) are satisfied if

*Remark 5. *Let us compare our results with known results on a particular example of perturbed Euler equation (1.8). Let us denote
and rewrite the conditions from Corollary 3.4 into
It is easy to see that every equation in the form (1.8) can be associated with some point in the plane and . On the other hand, for every point in this plane which satisfies , we can construct an equation in the form (1.8) which is associated with this point.

As mentioned before, DoΕ‘lΓ½ and ΕeznΓΔkovΓ‘ [2] proved that (1.8) is oscillatory if and nonoscillatory if and . This gives two regions in plane with resolved oscillation properties of (1.8): the unbounded region of oscillation has the form of the angle with vertex , rays and , open up and the bounded region of nonoscillation has the form of triangle with vertexes , , and . Corollary 3.4 allows us to extend the region of nonoscillation by the unbounded region which is between the line and the curve given for parametrically by , or, equivalently, given by for . All these regions are shown on Figure 1.

In particular, if , then and (1.8) is oscillatory if and nonoscillatory if . This observation has been made already by Elbert and Schneider in [5] and has a close connection with the so-called conditional oscillation, see [6] for more details related to conditional oscillation.

*Remark 6. *If the integral is convergent and if we use the method from Theorem 3.7 and Corollary 3.8 with , we get the second part of [1, Theoremββ3.3.6], which is originally due for to Kandelaki et al. ([7, Theoremββ1.6]).

*Remark 7. *If and , then Theorem 3.7 reduces to well-known Hille-Nehari nonoscillation criteria. In this case the constants from (3.33) reduce to and .

*Remark 8. *If we use the additional condition
then the conclusion related to that of Theorems 3.2 and 3.5 can be derived from known results. Really, denote and , where is a positive function such that and suppose that and is convergent. Under these conditions, an alternative version of Theorem 3.2 can be derived using the so-called linearization technique. This technique is based on comparison of the (non)oscillation of (1.1) with that of a certain linear equation. The relation between these equations is hidden in identity (2.3) which (after the quadratization of the last term on the right-hand side) relates the associated Riccati operators. More precisely, nonoscillation of (1.1) is implied by nonoscillation of the linear equation
where is arbitrary. Applying the linear version () of the criteria discussed in Remark 6 to the above linear equation, we obtain the conditions for limes inferior and superior from Theorem 3.2. Similarly if , where is a positive solution of (1.3), then we get the conditions for limes inferior and superior from Theorem 3.5. Note that if , then and are the coefficients of the equation which results from (1.2) (the special case of (1.1) for ) upon the transformation . We refer to [8β10] for results concerning the linearization technique and for the half-linear Hille-Nehari type criteria derived using this technique from the classical criteria mentioned in Remark 7.

#### Acknowledgment

Research supported by the Grant P201/10/1032 of the Czech Science Foundation.

#### References

- O. Došlý and P. Řehák,
*Half-Linear Differential Equations*, vol. 202 of*North-Holland Mathematics Studies*, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005. - O. Došlý and J. Řezníčková, βOscillation and nonoscillation of perturbed half-linear Euler differential equations,β
*Publicationes Mathematicae Debrecen*, vol. 71, no. 3-4, pp. 479β488, 2007. View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH - O. Došlý, βPerturbations of the half-linear Euler-Weber type differential equation,β
*Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*, vol. 323, no. 1, pp. 426β440, 2006. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH - S. Fišnarová and R. Mařík, βHalf-linear ODE and modified Riccati equation: comparison theorems, integral characterization of principal solution,β
*Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods and Applications*, vol. 74, no. 17, pp. 6427β6433, 2011. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar - Á. Elbert and A. Schneider, βPerturbations of the half-linear Euler differential equation,β
*Results in Mathematics*, vol. 37, no. 1-2, pp. 56β83, 2000. View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH - O. Došlý and M. Ünal, βConditionally oscillatory half-linear differential equations,β
*Acta Mathematica Hungarica*, vol. 120, no. 1-2, pp. 147β163, 2008. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH - N. Kandelaki, A. Lomtatidze, and D. Ugulava, βOn oscillation and nonoscillation of a second order half-linear equation,β
*Georgian Mathematical Journal*, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 329β346, 2000. View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH - O. Došlý, βA remark on the linearization technique in half-linear oscillation theory,β
*Opuscula Mathematica*, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 305β315, 2006. View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH - O. Došlý and S. Fišnarová, βHalf-linear oscillation criteria: perturbation in term involving derivative,β
*Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications*, vol. 73, no. 12, pp. 3756β3766, 2010. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH - O. Došlý and M. Ünal, βHalf-linear differential equations: linearization technique and its application,β
*Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*, vol. 335, no. 1, pp. 450β460, 2007. View at Publisher Β· View at Google Scholar Β· View at Zentralblatt MATH