Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Abstract and Applied Analysis
Volume 2010 (2010), Article ID 562634, 20 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2010/562634
Research Article

Asymptotic Dichotomyin a Class of Third-Order Nonlinear Differential Equations with Impulses

1Department of Computer Science, Guangdong Polytechnic Normal University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510665, China
2Department of Mathematics, Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu 30043, Taiwan

Received 15 November 2009; Revised 26 January 2010; Accepted 25 February 2010

Academic Editor: Ağacik Zafer

Copyright © 2010 Kun-Wen Wen 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

Solutions of quite a few higher-order delay functional differential equations oscillate or converge to zero. In this paper, we obtain several such dichotomous criteria for a class of third-order nonlinear differential equation with impulses.

1. Introduction

It has been observed that the solutions of quite a few higher-order delay functional differential equations oscillate or converge to zero (see, e.g., the recent paper [1] in which a third order nonlinear delay differential equation with damping is considered). Such a dichotomy may yield useful information in real problems (see, e.g., [2] in which implications of this dichotomy are applied to the deflection of an elastic beam). Thus it is of interest to see whether similar dichotomies occur in different types of functional differential equations.

One such type consists of impulsive differential equations which are important in simulation of processes with jump conditions (see, e.g., [322]). But papers devoted to the study of asymptotic behaviors of third-order equations with impulses are quite rare. For this reason, we study here the third-order nonlinear differential equation with impulses of the form 𝑟 ( 𝑡 ) 𝑥 ( 𝑡 ) + 𝑓 ( 𝑡 , 𝑥 ) = 0 , 𝑡 𝑡 0 , 𝑡 𝑡 𝑘 , 𝑥 ( 𝑖 ) 𝑡 + 𝑘 = 𝑔 𝑘 [ 𝑖 ] 𝑥 ( 𝑖 ) 𝑡 𝑘 𝑥 , 𝑖 = 0 , 1 , 2 ; 𝑘 = 1 , 2 , , ( 𝑖 ) 𝑡 + 0 = 𝑥 0 [ 𝑖 ] , 𝑖 = 0 , 1 , 2 , ( 1 . 1 ) where , such that ,

for Here and are real functions and 𝑖 = 0 , 1 , 2 , are real numbers.

By a solution of (1.1), we mean a real function defined on such that

(i) for (ii) and are continuous on for and exist, and for any (iii) satisfies at each point

A solution of (1.1) is said to be nonoscillatory if it is eventually positive or eventually negative. Otherwise, it is said to be oscillatory.

We will establish dichotomous criteria that guarantee solutions of (1.1) that are either oscillatory or zero convergent based on combinations of the following conditions.

(A) is positive and continuous on is continuous on for , and , where is positive and continuous on and is differentiable in such that for .(B)For each is continuous in and there exist positive numbers such that for and (C)One has

In the next section, we state four theorems to ensure that every solution of (1.1) either oscillates or tends to zero. Examples will also be given. Then in Section 3, we prove several preparatory lemmas. In the final section, proofs of our main theorems will be given.

2. Main Results

The main results of the paper are as follows.

Theorem 2.1. Assume that the conditions (A)–(C) hold. Suppose further that there exists a positive integer such that for Then every solution of (1.1) either oscillates or tends to zero.

Theorem 2.2. Assume that the conditions (A)–(C) hold. Suppose further that there exists a positive integer such that for , Then every solution of (1.1) either oscillates or tends to zero.

Theorem 2.3. Assume that the conditions (A)–(C) hold and that for any . Suppose further that there exists a positive integer such that for Then every solution of (1.1) either oscillates or tends to zero.

Theorem 2.4. Assume that the conditions (A)–(C) hold and that for any . Suppose further that , is bounded, that Then every solution of (1.1) either oscillates or tends to zero.

Before giving proofs, we first illustrate our theorems by several examples.

Example 2.5. Consider the equation where for ; , , , . It is not difficult to see that conditions (A)–(C) are satisfied. Furthermore, Thus by Theorem 2.1, every solution of (2.9) either oscillates or tends to zero.

Example 2.6. Consider the equation where , for ; , , and Here, we do not assume that is bounded, monotonic, or differential. It is not difficult to see that conditions (A)–(C) are satisfied. Furthermore, Thus by Theorem 2.2, every solution of (2.11) either oscillates or tends to zero.

Example 2.7. Consider the equation where for ; , , ; It is not difficult to see that conditions (A)–(C) are satisfied. Furthermore, Thus, by Theorem 2.2, every solution of (2.14) either oscillates or tends to zero.

Note that the ordinary differential equation

has a nonnegative solution as . This example shows that impulses play an important role in oscillatory and asymptotic behaviors of equations under perturbing impulses.

3. Preparatory Lemmas

To prove our theorems, we need the following lemmas.

Lemma 3.1 (Lakshmikantham et al. [3]). Assume the following. () and is left-continuous at .()For and , where and are real constants. Then for ,

Lemma 3.2. Suppose that conditions (A)–(C) hold and is a solution of (1.1). One has the following statements. (a)If there exists some such that and for , then there exists some such that for .(b)If there exists some such that and for , then there exists some such that for .

Proof. First of all, we will prove that (a) is true. Without loss of generality, we may assume that and for . We assert that there exists some such that for . If this is not true, then for any we have . Since is increasing on intervals of the form , we see that for . Since is increasing on intervals of the form , we see that for that is, In particular, Similarly, for , we have By induction, we know that for From condition (B), we have Set . Then from (3.7) and (3.8), we see that for It follows from Lemma 3.1 that That is, Note that , and the second equality of condition (C) holds. Thus we get for all sufficiently large . The relation leads to a contradiction. Thus, there exists some such that and . Since is increasing on intervals of the form for thus for , we have Similarly, for , We can easily prove that, for any positive integer and Therefore, for . Thus, (a) is true.
Next, we will prove that (b) is true. Without loss of generality, we may assume that and for We assert that there exists some such that for . If this is not true, then for any we have . Since is increasing on intervals of the form , we see that for . By , , we have that is nondecreasing on . For , we have
In particular, Similarly, for , we have By induction, we know that for From condition (B), we have Set . Then from (3.18) and (3.19), we see that for It follows from Lemma 3.1 that That is, Note that , and the first equality of condition (C) holds. Thus we get for all sufficiently large . The relation leads to a contradiction. So there exists some such that and . Then Since we see that is strictly monotonically increasing on for For , we have In particular, Similarly, for , we have By induction, we have for . Thus, we know that for . The proof of Lemma 3.2 is complete.

Remark 3.3. We may prove in similar manners the following statements.()If we replace the condition (a) in Lemma 3.2 and for ” with “ and for ”, then there exists some such that for .()If we replace the condition (b) in Lemma 3.2 and for ” with “ and for ”, then there exists some such that for

Lemma 3.4. Suppose that conditions (A)–(C) hold and is a solution of (1.1) such that for where . Then there exists such that either (a) , for or (b) , for

Proof. Without loss of generality, we may assume that for . By (1.1) and condition (A), we have for We assert that for any . If this is not true, then there exists some such that , so . Since is decreasing on for , we see that for In particular, Similarly, for , we have In particular, By induction, for any for we have Hence, for By Remark 3.3(), there exists such that for by Remark 3.3(), we get for which is contrary to for . Hence, for any since is decreasing on for , therefore for It follows that is strictly increasing on for . Furthermore, note that , we see that if for any , then for . If there exists some such that , then for . The proof of Lemma 3.4 is complete.

Lemma 3.5 (see [12]). Suppose that is continuous at and , it is left-continuous at and exists for Further assume that ()there exists such that for () is nonincreasing (resp., nondecreasing) on for () is convergent.Then exists and (resp., ).

4. Proofs of Main Theorems

We now turn to the proof of Theorem 2.1. Without loss of generality, we may assume that . If (1.1) has a nonoscillatory solution , we first assume that for . By (1.1) and the condition (A), for , we get

From the condition (B), we know that

By Lemma 3.4, there exists a such that either (a) , for or (b) , for

Suppose that (a) holds. Then we see that the conditions () and () of Lemma 3.5 are satisfied. Furthermore, note that and . Then we have

Since we obtain for any

By (4.3) and (4.4), we know that the sequence is bounded. Thus there exists such that It follows from the condition (B) that

From (4.5) and the fact that is convergent, we know that is convergent. Therefore, the condition () of Lemma 3.5 is also satisfied. By Lemma 3.5, we know that We assert that If then there exists such that for any . Note further that so we obtain for Let for By (4.1) and (4.2), we have

where From (4.6), (4.7), and Lemma 3.1, we get for

It is easy to see from (2.2) and (4.8) that for sufficiently large This is contrary to for Thus that is,

Suppose that (b) holds. Let for Then for . By (1.1) and the condition (A), we get, for

From the conditions (A), (B) and , we know that

From (4.9), (4.10), and Lemma 3.1, we get, for

It is easy to see from (2.2) and (4.11) that for sufficiently large This is contrary to for and hence we obtain a contradiction. Thus in case (b) must be oscillatory. The proof of Theorem 2.1 is complete.

Next, we give the proof of Theorem 2.2. Without loss of generality, we may assume that . If (1.1) has an eventually positive solution for By (1.1) and conditions (A) and (B), we have that (4.1) and (4.2) hold. By Lemma 3.4, there exists a such that either (a) , for or (b) , for

Suppose that (a) holds. Note that and for and each , is decreasing on ; we have for

Similarly, for we have

By induction, for each , we have

so that is decreasing on We know that is convergent as Let Then We assert that If then there exists such that for . Since then Let for Then By (4.1) and (4.2), we have that (4.6) and (4.7) hold. From (4.6), (4.7), and Lemma 3.1, we get for

That is,

It is easy to see from (4.16) that the following inequality holds:

Note that ; it follows from integrating (4.17) from to and by using the condition (B) that

It is easy to see from (2.4) and (4.18) that for sufficiently large This is contrary to for Thus that is,

Suppose (b) holds. Without loss of generality, we may assume that Then we see that . Since is nondecreasing on , for , we have

In particular,

Similarly, for , we have

By induction, we know that

That is, for Note that and From the condition (B), we have Since we have Let by (4.1) and (4.2), we have, for that

Similar to the proof of (4.17), we obtain

Let for Then . By (4.24) and the condition (B), and noting that , we have for

By Lemma 3.1, we get

It follows that

In view of (4.27), we have, for ,

It is easy to see from (2.4) and (4.28) that This is contrary to for Thus in case (b) must be oscillatory. The proof of Theorem 2.2 is complete.

We now give the proof of Theorem 2.3. Without loss of generality, we may assume that . If (1.1) has an eventually positive solution, for . By Lemma 3.4, there exists a such that either (a) , , or (b) , , holds.

Suppose that (a) holds. Note that since for and each is decreasing on then for we have

Similarly, for we have

By induction, for any for we have

So is decreasing and bounded on we know that is convergent as Let then We assert that If then there exists such that for . Since then By (1.1) and condition (A), we have for

From condition (B), and noting that we have

Let Then for By (4.32) and (4.33), we have for that

From (4.34), (4.35), and Lemma 3.1, we get, for that

It is easy to see from (2.6) and (4.36) that for sufficiently large This is contrary to for Thus that is,

If (b) holds, let for We see that for . By (1.1) and the condition (A), we get for

From the conditions (A) and (B), we know that

From (4.37), (4.38), and Lemma 3.1, we get for

It is easy to see from (2.6) and (4.39) that for sufficiently large This is contrary to for Thus in case (b) must be oscillatory. The proof of Theorem 2.3 is complete.

Finally, we give the proof of Theorem 2.4. Without loss of generality, we may assume that . If (1.1) has an eventually positive solution, for . By Lemma 3.4, there exists a such that either (a) , , or (b) , , holds.

Suppose that (a) holds. We may easily see that the conditions (), () of Lemma 3.5 are satisfied. Furthermore, since , then there exists some , such that for

In particular,

Similarly, we have for

In particular,

By induction, we obtain for any

Since is bounded and (4.44) holds, we know that is bounded. Thus there exists such that It follows from the condition (B) that

By (4.45), we know that is convergent. Therefore, the condition () of Lemma 3.5 is also satisfied. By Lemma 3.5, we know that We assert that If then there exists such that for . Since we have Since , , there exists some such that for

In particular,

Similarly, we have for

In particular,

By induction, we obtain for any

By and the condition (B), we know that is bounded, and from (4.50), we see that is bounded. There then exists such that Therefore, we have

By (1.1) and the condition (A), we have that (4.1) holds. Integrating (4.1) from to , it follows from (4.51) and for that

Note that is convergent. Thus it is easy to see from (2.8) and (4.52) that for sufficiently large This is contrary to for Thus that is,

Suppose that (b) holds. Let for We see that for . Similar to the proof of (4.39), we also obtain

It is easy to see from (2.8) and (4.53) that for sufficiently large This is contrary to for . Thus in case (b) must be oscillatory. The proof of Theorem 2.4 is complete.

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Guang Dong of China under Grant 9151008002000012. The authors would also like to thank the reviewers for their comments and corrections of their mistakes in the original version of this paper.

References

  1. A. Tiryaki and M. F. Aktas, “Oscillation criteria of a certain class of third order nonlinear delay differential equations with damping,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 325, no. 1, pp. 54–68, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  2. C. M. Hou and S. S. Cheng, “Asymptotic dichotomy in a class of fourth-order nonlinear delay differential equations with damping,” Abstract and Applied Analysis, vol. 2009, Article ID 484158, 7 pages, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  3. V. Lakshmikantham, D. D. Bainov, and P. S. Simeonov, Theory of Impulsive Differential Equations, vol. 6 of Series in Modern Applied Mathematics, World Scientific, Teaneck, NJ, USA, 1989. View at MathSciNet
  4. D. D. Bainov and M. B. Dimitrova, “Sufficient conditions for oscillations of all solutions of a class of impulsive differential equations with deviating argument,” Journal of Applied Mathematics and Stochastic Analysis, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 33–42, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  5. D. D. Bainov, M. B. Dimitrova, and P. S. Simeonov, “Sufficient conditions for oscillation of the solutions of a class of impulsive differential equations with advanced argument,” Note di Matematica, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 139–145, 1994. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  6. D. D. Bainov, M. B. Dimitrova, and A. B. Dishliev, “Oscillation of the solutions of impulsive differential equations and inequalities with a retarded argument,” The Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 25–40, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  7. D. D. Bainov and M. B. Dimitrova, “Oscillatory properties of the solutions of impulsive differential equations with a deviating argument and nonconstant coefficients,” The Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 1027–1040, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  8. D. D. Bainov, M. B. Dimitrova, and V. A. Peter, “Oscillation properities of solutions of impulsive differential equations and inequalities with several retarded arguments,” The Georgian Mathematical Journal, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 201–212, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  9. D. Bainov, I. Domshlak Yu., and P. S. Simeonov, “On the oscillation properties of first-order impulsive differential equations with a deviating argument,” Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 98, pp. 167–187, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  10. D. D. Bainov and M. B. Dimitrova, “Oscillation of nonlinear impulsive differential equations with deviating argument,” Boletim da Sociedade Paranaense de Matemática, vol. 16, no. 1-2, pp. 9–21, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  11. D. D. Bainov, M. B. Dimitrova, and A. B. Dishliev, “Oscillating solutions of nonlinear impulsive differential equations with a deviating argument,” Note di Matematica, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 45–54, 1995. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  12. J. H. Shen and J. S. Yu, “Nonlinear delay differential equations with impulsive perturbations,” Mathematica Applicata, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 272–277, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  13. Y. S. Chen and W. Z. Feng, “Oscillations of second order nonlinear ODE with impulses,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 210, no. 1, pp. 150–169, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  14. G. Q. Wang, “Oscillations of second order differential equations with impulses,” Annals of Differential Equations, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 295–306, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  15. J .W. Luo and L. Debnath, “Oscillations of second-order nonlinear ordinary differential equations with impulses,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 240, no. 1, pp. 105–114, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  16. H. J. Li and C. C. Yeh, “Oscillation and nonoscillation criteria for second order linear differential equations,” Mathematische Nachrichten, vol. 194, pp. 171–184, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  17. M. S. Peng and W. G. Ge, “Oscillation criteria for second-order nonlinear differential equations with impulses,” Computers & Mathematics with Applications, vol. 39, no. 5-6, pp. 217–225, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  18. Z. M. He and W. G. Ge, “Oscillations of second-order nonlinear impulsive ordinary differential equations,” Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 158, no. 2, pp. 397–406, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  19. X. L. Wu, S. Y. Chen, and H. Ji, “Oscillation of a class of second-order nonlinear ODE with impulses,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 138, no. 2-3, pp. 181–188, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  20. Z. G. Luo and J. H. Shen, “Oscillation of second order linear differential equations with impulses,” Applied Mathematics Letters, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 75–81, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  21. X. X. Liu and Z. T. Xu, “Oscillation of a forced super-linear second order differential equation with impulses,” Computers & Mathematics with Applications, vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 1740–1749, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  22. J. J. Jiao, L. S. Chen, and L. M. Li, “Asymptotic behavior of solutions of second-order nonlinear impulsive differential equations,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 337, no. 1, pp. 458–463, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet