Abstract and Applied Analysis

Volume 2009, Article ID 897058, 12 pages

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2009/897058

## Oscillation Criteria for a Class of Second-Order Nonlinear Differential Equations with Damping Term

^{1}Center of Nuclear Energy Economy and Management, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China^{2}School of Mathematics and Physics, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China

Received 31 August 2009; Accepted 29 September 2009

Academic Editor: Yong Zhou

Copyright © 2009 Zigen Ouyang et al. 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

A class of second-order nonlinear differential equations with damping term are investigated in this paper. By using a new method, we obtain some new sufficient conditions for the oscillation of the above equation, and some references are extended in this paper. Examples are inserted to illustrate this result.

#### 1. Introduction

Consider the following second-order nonlinear differential equations with damping term: where , , is a positive constant, and is a continuous real-valued function on the real line and satisfies for . We restrict our attention to those solutions of (1.1) which exist on some half line and satisfy for any .

Recently, there are many authors who have investigated the oscillation for second-order differential equations [1–9], Li [10] and Zhao investigated oscillation criteria for the following equation: where is a quotient of odd positive integer. It is obvious that (1.2) is a special case of (1.1). In fact, the conditions of Theorem in [10] are too complex.

More recently, Rogovchenko and Tuncay [11] have obtained oscillation criteria of the following:

Motivated by the above discussions, we investigate the oscillation of (1.1) in this paper; our oscillatory conditions and the proof of the main results are more simple than those of Theorem in [10].

A solution of (1.1) is oscillatory if and only if it has arbitrarily large zeros; otherwise, it is nonoscillatory. Equation (1.1) is oscillatory if and only if every solution of (1.1) is oscillatory.

The paper is arranged as follows. In Section 2, we will establish our main results. Finally, examples are given to illustrate our results.

#### 2. Main Results

To obtain our results, we introduce a lemma as follows.

Lemma 2.1 (see [2, 3]). *Let the function be such that for each fixed , , the function is nondecreasing. Further, let be a given function and satisfies that
**
and is the minimal (maximal) solution of
**
Then for all .*

Now, we give our main results.

Theorem 2.2. *Assume that , , and hold. Suppose that there exists a positive function such that
**
Then every solution of (1.1) is oscillatory.*

*Proof. *Assume that (1.1) has a nonoscillatory solution . Without loss of generality, suppose that it is an eventually positive solution (if it is an eventually negative solution, the proof is similar), that is, for all .

We consider the following three cases.*Case 1. *Suppose that is oscillatory. Then there exists such that . From (1.1), we have
which means that
it follows that for all , which contradicts to the assumption that is oscillatory.*Case 2. *Suppose that . From (1.1), we obtain
then there exists an and a , such that
it follows
which means that , this contradicts the assumption that .*Case 3. *Suppose that . Let , then
in view of (1.1), we obtain
noticing that
integrating the above from to , we get
Using (2.3), (2.4), and , we have
this is a contradiction, the proof is complete.

*Remark 2.3. *If we replace , by , , , Theorem 2.2 holds also.

Theorem 2.4. *Assume that holds. Suppose also that
**
and such that (2.3) holds. Then every solution of (1.1) is oscillatory.*

*Proof. *To the contrary, (1.1) has a nonoscillatory solution . Without loss of generality, we assume that is an eventually positive solution. Let , then for and
in view of (1.1) and (2.15), we obtain
since
integrating the above from to , we have
In view of (2.3), there exists a constant and such that
which means that
Because that is positive, then (2.22) implies , or equivalently . Let
thus (2.22) can be changed as
Define
Then, for any fixed and , is nondecreasing in . Let be the minimal solution of the equation
Applying Lemma 2.1, we obtain
Dividing both sides of (2.26) by and deriving both sides of (2.26), it follows
On the other hand,
Combining (2.28) and (2.29), it means
So , . From (2.27), we obtain
Integrating both sides of the above from to , we have
Letting in (2.32), and using (2.16), it follows that , which contradicts to that is eventually positive. The proof is complete.

In the following, we always suppose that and it satisfies the following two conditions:

() for , is a bounded function;(), is a bounded function.Theorem 2.5. *Assume that , hold, and
**
or
**
Suppose further that there exists a function that satisfies (), (), and such that
**
where
**
Then every solution of (1.1) is oscillatory.*

*Proof. *For the sake of contradiction, (1.1) has a nonoscillatory solution . Without loss of generality, we may assume that for all .

Define
Deriving (2.39), we get
Multiplying (2.40) by , it follows
We consider the following three cases.*Case 1 ( is oscillatory). *Then there exists a sequence , as and such that , Integrating both sides of (2.41) from to , we obtain
that is
which contradicts (2.35).*Case 2 ( is eventually positive). *Integrating both sides of (2.41) from to , we obtain
which also contradicts to (2.35).*Case 3 ( is eventually negative). *If , then there exists a sequence , , that satisfies as and such that . Because is a bounded function, then there exists a such that , According to (2.41), we obtain
Using (2.35) and taking limit as , it is easy to show that
which is obviously a contradiction.

If , . From the definition of , combining (2.36) and (2.39), it follows that and , which means that . Owing to , , or , and , using the similar method of the proof of Case 2 in Theorem 2.2, we will derive a contradiction. Then the proof is complete.

Theorem 2.6. *Assume that (2.36) holds, , , and
**
or
**
Suppose further that there exists a function that satisfies (), () and such that
**
where
**
and is defined in (2.38). Then every solution of (1.1) is oscillatory.*

*Proof. *For the sake of contradiction, (1.1) has a nonoscillatory solution. Without loss of generality, we may assume that (1.1) has an eventually positive solution (if it has an eventually negative solution, the proof is similar), then there exists a such that for all . Define
The rest of the proof is similar to Theorem 2.5. The proof is complete.

Theorem 2.7. *Assume that (2.36) holds, , and
**
or
**
Suppose further that there exists a function that satisfies (), () and such that
**
where
**
where is defined in (2.38). Then every solution of (1.1) is oscillatory.*

*Proof. *For the sake of contradiction, (1.1) has a nonoscillatory solution . Without loss of generality, we may assume that for all .

Define
Noting that for , so for . Deriving (2.56), we obtain
Multiplying (2.57) by , we get
The rest of the proof is similar to Theorem 2.5; the proof is complete.

Theorem 2.8. *Assume that (2.36) holds, , and
**
or
**
Suppose further that there exists a function satisfies (), () and such that
**
where
**
where is defined in (2.38). Then every solution of (1.1) is oscillatory.*

*Proof. *For the sake of contradiction, (1.1) has a nonoscillatory solution . Without loss of generality, we may assume that for all .

Define
The rest of the proof is similar to Theorem 2.5; the proof is complete.

#### 3. Examples

*Example 3.1. *Consider the following delay differential equation:
It is obvious that , , , , and . It is difficult to distinguish whether every solution of (3.1) is oscillatory by Theorem 3.2 of [10].

By taking , then
From Theorem 2.2 or Theorem 2.4, it is easy to show that (3.1) is oscillatory.

In fact, is such an oscillatory solution.

*Example 3.2. *Consider the following differential equation:
It is obvious that , , , , and .

We are taking , . By a simple calculation, it is easy to show that , , , and .

From Theorem 2.5 or Theorem 2.6, it follows that (3.3) is oscillatory.

In fact, is such an oscillatory solution.

#### Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province under Grant no. 07JJ3130, the Doctor Foundation of University of South China under Grant no. 5-XQD-2006-9, and the Subject Lead Foundation of University of South China under Grant no. 2007XQD13.

#### References

- H. J. Li, “Oscillation criteria for second order linear differential equations,”
*Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*, vol. 194, no. 1, pp. 217–234, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - W.-T. Li, “Oscillation of certain second-order nonlinear differential equations,”
*Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*, vol. 217, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - P. J. Y. Wong and R. P. Agarwal, “Oscillatory behavior of solutions of certain second order nonlinear differential equations,”
*Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*, vol. 198, no. 2, pp. 337–354, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - P. J. Y. Wong and R. P. Agarwal, “The oscillation and asymptotically monotone solutions of second-order quasilinear differential equations,”
*Applied Mathematics and Computation*, vol. 79, no. 2-3, pp. 207–237, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet - W. Li and J. R. Yan, “Oscillation criteria for second order superlinear differential equations,”
*Indian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics*, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 735–740, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - A. Tiryaki and A. Zafer, “Oscillation criteria for second order nonlinear differential equations with damping,”
*Turkish Journal of Mathematics*, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 185–196, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - J. S. W. Wong, “On Kamenev-type oscillation theorems for second-order differential equations with damping,”
*Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*, vol. 258, no. 1, pp. 244–257, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - X. Yang, “Oscillation criteria for nonlinear differential equations with damping,”
*Applied Mathematics and Computation*, vol. 136, no. 2-3, pp. 549–557, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - O. G. Mustafa, S. P. Rogovchenko, and Yu. V. Rogovchenko, “On oscillation of nonlinear second-order differential equations with damping term,”
*Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*, vol. 298, no. 2, pp. 604–620, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - W.-T. Li and P. Zhao, “Oscillation theorems for second-order nonlinear differential equations with damped term,”
*Mathematical and Computer Modelling*, vol. 39, no. 4-5, pp. 457–471, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet - Yu. V. Rogovchenko and F. Tuncay, “Oscillation criteria for second-order nonlinear differential equations with damping,”
*Nonlinear Analysis*, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 208–221, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet