Using inequality techniques and fixed point theories, several new and more general existence and multiplicity results are derived in terms of different values of \(\lambda>0\) and \(\mu>0\) for a fourth order impulsive integral boundary value problem with one-dimensional m-Laplacian and deviating arguments. We discuss our problems under two cases when the deviating arguments are delayed and advanced. Moreover, the nonexistence of a positive solution is also studied. In this paper, our results cover fourth order boundary value problems without deviating arguments and impulsive effect and are compared with some recent results by Jankowski.
Hinweise
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
MF checked the proofs and verified the calculation. JQ completed the main study and carried out the results of this article. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.
1 Introduction
Functional differential equations with impulse effect occur in many applications, such as population dynamics, biology, biotechnology, industrial robotic, pharmacokinetics, optimal control, etc., and can be expressed by functional differential equations with impulses, see [1‐5]. Functional differential equations with impulses are characterized by sudden changing of their state and by the fact that the processes under consideration depend on their prehistory at each moment of time. Therefore, the study of impulsive functional differential equations has gained prominence and it is a rapidly growing field, see Zhang and Feng [6], Nieto and Rodríguez-López [7], Yan and Shen [8], Li and Shen [9], Yang and Shen [10], YS Liu [11], YJ Liu [12], He and Yu [13] and Ding et al. [14] and the references therein. We note that the difficulties dealing with such problems are that they have deviating arguments and their states are discontinuous. Therefore, the results of impulsive functional differential equations, especially for higher order impulsive functional differential equations, are fewer than those of differential equations without impulses and deviating arguments.
Moreover, owing to its importance in modeling the stationary states of the deflection of an elastic beam, fourth order boundary value problems have attracted much attention from many authors; for example, see Sun and Wang [15], Yao [16], O’Regan [17], Yang [18], Zhang [19], Gupta [20], Agarwal [21], Bonanno and Bella [22] and Han and Xu [23]. In particular, we would like to mention some results of Zhang and Liu [24] and Feng [25]. In [24], Zhang and Liu studied the following fourth order four-point boundary value problem without impulsive effect:
where \(0<\xi,\eta<1\), \(0\leq a< b<1\). By using the upper and lower solution method, fixed point theorems and the properties of Green’s function \(G(t,s)\) and \(H(t,s)\), the authors give sufficient conditions for the existence of one positive solution.
Anzeige
Recently, Feng [25] studied a fourth order boundary value problem with impulses and integral boundary conditions
Using a suitably constructed cone and fixed point theory for cones, the existence of multiple positive solutions was established. Furthermore, upper and lower bounds for these positive solutions were given.
However, to the best of our knowledge, no paper has considered the existence, multiplicity and nonexistence of positive solutions for fourth order impulsive differential equations with one-dimensional m-Laplacian, multiple parameters and deviating arguments till now; for example, see [26‐30] and the references therein.
In this paper, we investigate a fourth order impulsive integral boundary value problem with one-dimensional m-Laplacian and deviating arguments
where \(\lambda>0\) and \(\mu>0\) are two parameters, \(a, b>0\), \(J=[0,1]\), \(\phi_{m}(s)\) is an m-Laplace operator, i.e., \(\phi_{m}(s)=|s|^{m-2}s\), \(m>1\), \((\phi_{m})^{-1}=\phi_{m^{*}}\), \(\frac{1}{m}+\frac{1}{m^{*}}=1\), \(t_{k}\) (\(k=1,2,\ldots,n\)) (where n is a fixed positive integer) are fixed points with \(0=t_{0}< t_{1}<t_{2}<\cdots <t_{k}<\cdots <t_{n}<t_{n+1}=1\), \(\Delta y' |_{t=t_{k}}=y'(t_{k}^{+})-x'(t_{k}^{-})\), where \(y'(t_{k}^{+})\) and \(y'(t_{k}^{-})\) represent the right-hand limit and the left-hand limit of \(y'(t)\) at \({t=t_{k}}\), respectively. In addition, ω, f, \(I_{k}\), g and h satisfy
(H1)
\(\omega\in L^{p}[0,1]\) for some \(1\leq p \leq+\infty\), and there exists \(\eta>0\) such that \(\omega(t)\geq\eta\) a.e. on J;
(H2)
\(f:J\times R_{+}\rightarrow R_{+}\) is continuous with \(f(t,y)>0\) for all \(t\in J\) and \(y>0, \alpha\in C(J,J)\) with \(R_{+}=[0,+\infty)\);
(H3)
\(I_{k}:J\times R_{+}\rightarrow R_{+}\) is continuous with \(I_{k}(t,y)>0\) (\(k=1,2,\ldots,n\)) for all t and \(y>0\);
(H4)
\(g,h\in L^{1}[0,1]\) are nonnegative and \(\xi\in[0,a)\), \(\nu \in[0,1)\), where
Some special cases of (1.1) have been investigated. For example, Jankowski [31] considered problem (1.1) with \(\lambda=1\), \(I_{k}=0\) and \(\omega\in C[0,1]\), not \(\omega\in L^{p}[0,1]\) for some \(1\leq p \leq+\infty\). By using a fixed point theorem for cones due to Avery and Peterson, the author proved the existence results of positive solutions for problem (1.1).
Anzeige
Motivated by the results mentioned above, in this paper we study the existence, multiplicity and nonexistence of positive solutions for problem (1.1) by using different methods from that of the proof of Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 2.2 in [30] to overcome difficulties arising from the appearances of \(\alpha(t)\not\equiv t\) and \(\omega(t)\) is \(L^{p}\)-integrable. The arguments are based upon a fixed point theorem due to Krasnoselskii which deals with fixed points of a cone-preserving operator defined on an ordered Banach space.
The organization of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, we present the expression and properties of Green’s function associated with problem (1.1). In Section 3, we present some definitions and lemmas which are needed throughout this paper. In Section 4, we use a fixed point theorem to obtain the existence, multiplicity and nonexistence of positive solutions for problem (1.1) with advanced argument α. In Section 5, we formulate sufficient conditions under which delayed problem (1.1) has positive solutions. In particular, our results in these sections are new when \(\alpha(t)\equiv t\) on \(t\in J\). Finally, in Section 6, we offer some remarks and comments of the associated problem (1.1).
2 Expression and properties of Green’s function
We shall reduce problem (1.1) to an integral equation. To this goal, firstly by means of the transformation
LetPbe a cone in a real Banach spaceE. Assume that\(\Omega_{1}\)and\(\Omega_{2}\)are bounded open sets inEwith\(0 \in\Omega_{1}\), \(\bar{\Omega}_{1}\subset\Omega_{2}\). If
$$A:P\cap(\bar{\Omega}_{2}\backslash\Omega_{1})\rightarrow P $$
is completely continuous such that either
(i)
\(\|Ax\|\leq\|x\|\), \(\forall x\in P\cap\partial \Omega_{1}\)and\(\|Ax\|\geq\|x\|\), \(\forall x\in P\cap\partial\Omega_{2}\), or
Finally, similar to the proof of Lemma 2.10 in [25], one can prove that \(T_{\lambda}^{\mu}: K \rightarrow K\) is completely continuous. This gives the proof of Lemma 3.4. □
To obtain some of the norm inequalities in Lemma 3.6 and Lemma 3.8, we employ Hölder’s inequality.
Next, we consider the following cases for \(\omega\in L^{p}[0,1]\): \(p>1\), \(p=1\), \(p=\infty\). Case \(p>1\) is treated in Lemma 3.6 and Lemma 3.8.
Lemma 3.6
Assume that (H1)-(H4) hold, \(\alpha(t)\geq t\)onJand let\(r>0\)be given. If there exist\(\varepsilon_{1} >0\)and\(\varepsilon_{2} >0\)such that\(f^{*}(r)\leq\varepsilon_{1}\phi _{m}(r) \)and\(I_{k}^{*}(r)\leq\varepsilon_{2} r\) (\(k=1,2,\ldots,n\)), then
By the definition of \(f^{*}(r)\) and \(I_{k}^{*}\), if \(f^{*}(r)\leq\varepsilon_{1} \phi_{m}(r)\) and \(I_{k}^{*}(r)\leq \varepsilon_{2} r\) (\(k=1,2,\ldots,n\)), then
$$f(t,y)\leq\varepsilon_{1} \phi_{m}(r), \qquad I_{k}(t,y)\leq\varepsilon_{2} r \quad \mbox{for }t\in J \mbox{ and }0\leq y\leq r. $$
Since \(0\leq t\leq\alpha(t)\leq1\) on J, it follows from \(0\leq y(t)\leq r\) on J that \(0\leq y(\alpha(t))\leq r\).
Therefore, we have \(f(t,y(\alpha(t)))\leq\varepsilon_{1} \phi_{m}(r)\) for \(t\in J\), and it follows from (3.7) that
Since \(0\leq t\leq\alpha(t)\leq1\) on J, it follows from \(y(t)\geq0\) on J that \(y(\alpha(t))\geq0\).
Similarly, since \(\zeta\leq t\leq\alpha(t)\leq1\) on \([\zeta,1]\), it follows from \(\min_{t\in[\zeta,1]}y(t)\geq\delta\frac{\rho _{1}}{\rho_{4}}\|y\|_{PC^{1}}\) that
4 Main results for the case \(\alpha(t)\geq t\) on J
In this section, we apply Lemma 3.2 to establish the existence, multiplicity and nonexistence of positive solutions for problem (1.1). We consider the following three cases for \(\omega\in L^{p}[0,1]\): \(p> 1\), \(p=1\) and \(p=\infty\). Case \(p>1\) is treated in the following theorem.
Theorem 4.1
Assume that (H1)-(H4) hold and\(\alpha (t)\geq t\)onJ. Then:
(a)
If\(f^{0}=0\)and\(I^{0}(k)=0\)or\(f^{\infty}=0\)and\(I^{\infty }(k)=0\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has a positive solution for\(\lambda>\lambda_{0}\)and\(\mu >\mu_{0}\).
(b)
If\(f_{0}=\infty\)and\(I_{0}(k)=\infty\)or\(f_{\infty}=\infty\)and\(I_{\infty}(k)=\infty\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu _{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has a positive solution for\(0<\lambda <\lambda_{0}\)and\(0<\mu<\mu_{0}\).
(c)
If\(f^{0}=f^{\infty}=0\)and\(I^{0}(k)=I^{\infty}(k)=0\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has at least two positive solutions for\(\lambda> \lambda_{0}\)and\(\mu>\mu _{0}\).
(d)
If\(f_{0}=f_{\infty}=\infty\)and\(I_{\infty}(k)=I_{\infty }(k)=\infty\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has at least two positive solutions for\(0<\lambda <\lambda_{0}\)and\(0<\mu<\mu_{0}\).
(e)
If\(f^{0}<\infty\), \(I^{0}(k)<\infty\), \(f^{\infty}<\infty\)and\(I^{\infty}<\infty\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has no positive solution for\(0<\lambda<\lambda _{0}\)and\(0<\mu<\mu_{0}\).
(f)
If\(f_{0}>0\), \(I_{0}(k)>0\), \(I_{\infty}>0\)and\(f_{\infty}>0\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has no positive solution for\(\lambda> \lambda_{0}\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\).
Proof
Part (a). Choose a number \(r_{1}>0\). By Lemma 3.9, we have \(\|T_{\lambda}^{\mu}y\|_{PC^{1}}>\|y\|_{PC^{1}}\) for \(y\in\partial \Omega_{r_{1}}\), \(\lambda> \lambda_{0}\) and \(\mu>\mu_{0}\), where
If \(f^{0}=0\) and \(I^{0}(k)=0\), then from Lemma 3.1 we have \(f_{0}^{*}=0\) and \(I_{0}^{*}(k)=0\), and so we can choose \(r_{2}\in(0, r_{1})\) so that \(f^{*}(r_{2})\leq\varepsilon_{1} r_{2}\) and \(I_{k}^{*}(r_{2})\leq \varepsilon_{2} r_{2}\), where \(\varepsilon_{1} >0\) and \(\varepsilon_{2} >0\) respectively satisfy
If \(f^{\infty}=0\) and \(I^{\infty}(k)=0\), then from Lemma 3.1, \(f_{\infty }^{*}=0\) and \(I_{\infty}^{*}(k)=0\). Hence, there exists \(r_{3}\in (2r_{1},\infty)\) such that \(f^{*}(r_{3})\leq\varepsilon_{1} r_{3}\) and \(I_{k}^{*}(r_{3})\leq\varepsilon_{2} r_{4}\), where \(\varepsilon_{1} >0\) and \(\varepsilon_{2} >0\) satisfies (4.1). Thus
Therefore, it follows from Lemma 3.2 that \(T_{\lambda}^{\mu}\) has a fixed point in \(\bar{\Omega}_{r_{1}}\backslash\Omega_{r_{2}} \) or \(\bar {\Omega}_{r_{3}}\backslash\Omega_{r_{1}}\), according to whether \(f^{0}=0\) and \(I^{0}(k)=0\) or \(f^{\infty}=0\) and \(I^{\infty}(k)=0\), respectively. Consequently, problem (1.1) has a positive solution for \(\lambda> \lambda_{0}\) and \(\mu>\mu_{0}\).
Part (b). Choose a number \(r_{1}>0\). By Lemma 3.8, there exists \(\lambda _{0}>0 \) such that
If \(f_{0}=\infty\) and \(I_{0}(k)=\infty\), there exists \(r_{2} \in (0,r_{1})\) such that \(f(t,y)\geq l_{1}\phi_{m}(y)\) and \(I_{k}(t,y)\geq l_{2} y\) for \(t\in J\) and \(0\leq y \leq r_{2}\), where \(l_{1}>0\) and \(l_{2}>0\) are chosen so that
If \(f_{\infty}=\infty\) and \(I_{\infty}(k)=\infty\), then there exists \(\hat{N}>0\) such that \(f(t,y)\geq l_{1}\phi_{m}(y)\), \(I_{k}(t,y)\geq l_{2} y\) (\(k=1,2,\ldots,n\)) for \(t\in J\) and \(y\geq\hat{N}\), and \(l_{1} >0\) and \(l_{2}>0\) satisfy (4.2).
Let \(r_{3}=\max\{2r_{1},\hat{N}\rho_{4}/ \delta\rho_{1}\}\). If \(y\in \partial\Omega_{r_{3}}\), then
Therefore, it follows from Lemma 3.2 that \(T_{\lambda}^{\mu}\) has a fixed point in \(\bar{\Omega}_{r_{1}}\backslash\Omega_{r_{2}} \) or \(\bar{\Omega}_{r_{3}}\backslash\Omega_{r_{1}}\), according to whether \(f_{0}=\infty\) and \(I_{0}(k)=\infty\) or \(f_{\infty}=\infty\) and \(I_{\infty}(k)=\infty\), respectively. Consequently, problem (1.1) has a positive solution for \(0<\lambda<\lambda_{0}\) and \(0<\mu<\mu_{0}\).
Part (c). Choose two numbers \(0< r_{3}<r_{4}\). By Lemma 3.9, there exist \(\lambda_{0}>0\) and \(\mu_{0}>0\) such that
Since \(f^{0}=f^{\infty}=0\) and \(I^{0}(k)=I^{\infty}(k)=0\), from the proof of part (a), it follows that we can choose \(r_{1}\in(0,r_{3}/2)\) and \(r_{2}\in(2r_{4},\infty)\) such that
It follows from Lemma 3.2 that \(T_{\lambda}^{\mu}\) has two fixed points \(y_{1}\) and \(y_{2}\) such that \(y_{1}\in\bar{\Omega}_{r_{3}}\backslash \Omega_{r_{1}}\) and \(y_{2}\in\bar{\Omega}_{r_{2}}\backslash\Omega _{r_{4}}\). These are the desired distinct positive solutions of problem (1.1) for \(\lambda> \lambda_{0}\) and \(\mu>\mu_{0}\) satisfying
Since \(f_{0}=\infty\) and \(f_{\infty}=\infty\) and \(I_{\infty}(k)=I_{\infty }(k)=\infty\), from the proof of part (b), we know that we can choose \(r_{1}\in(0,r_{3}/2)\) and \(r_{2}\in(2r_{4},\infty)\) such that
It follows from Lemma 3.2 that \(T_{\lambda}^{\mu}\) has two fixed points \(y_{1}\) and \(y_{2}\) such that \(y_{1}\in\bar{\Omega}_{r_{3}}\backslash \Omega_{r_{1}}\) and \(y_{2}\in\bar{\Omega}_{r_{2}}\backslash\Omega _{r_{4}}\). These are the desired distinct positive solutions of problem (1.1) for \(0<\lambda< \lambda_{0}\) and \(0<\mu<\mu_{0}\) satisfying (4.3).
Part (e). Since \(f^{0}<\infty\), \(I^{0}(k)<\infty\), \(f^{\infty}<\infty\) and \(I^{\infty}(k)<\infty\), there exist positive numbers \(l_{i}>0\) (\(i=1,2,3,4\)), \(h_{1}>0\) and \(h_{2}>0\) such that \(h_{1}< h_{2}\) and for \(t \in J\), \(0< y\leq h_{1}\), we have
$$f(t,y)\leq l \phi_{m}(y), \qquad I_{k}(t,y)\leq l^{*}y \quad \mbox{for } t \in J\mbox{ and }y \in[0,\infty). $$
Since \(0\leq t\leq\alpha(t)\leq1\) on J, it follows from \(0\leq y(t)\leq h_{1}\), \(y(t)\geq h_{2}\) and \(h_{1}\leq y(t)\leq h_{2}\) on J that \(0\leq y(\alpha(t))\leq h_{1}\), \(y(\alpha(t))\geq h_{2}\) and \(h_{1}\leq y(\alpha(t))\leq h_{2}\) on J, respectively.
Assume that y is a positive solution of problem (1.1). We will show that this leads to a contradiction for
Part (f). Since \(f_{0}>0\), \(I_{0}(k)>0\), \(I_{\infty}>0\) and \(f_{\infty }>0\), there exist positive numbers \(l_{i}>0\) (\(i=5,6,7,8\)), \(h_{3}>0\) and \(h_{4}>0\) such that \(h_{3}< h_{4}\) and for \(t \in J\), \(0\leq y\leq h_{3}\), we have
$$f(t,y)\geq l_{5}\phi_{m}(y), \qquad I_{k}(t,y) \geq l_{6} y, $$
and for \(t \in J\), \(y\geq h_{4}\), we have
$$f(t,y)\geq l_{7}\phi_{m}(y), \qquad I_{k}(t,y) \geq l_{8} y. $$
The results of the following theorem deal with the case \(p=1\).
Corollary 4.1
Assume that (H1)-(H4) hold and\(\alpha (t)\geq t\)onJ. Then:
(a)
If\(f^{0}=0\)and\(I^{0}(k)=0\)or\(f^{\infty}=0\)and\(I^{\infty }(k)=0\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has a positive solution for\(\lambda>\lambda_{0}\)and\(\mu >\mu_{0}\).
(b)
If\(f_{0}=\infty\)and\(I_{0}(k)=\infty\)or\(f_{\infty}=\infty\)and\(I_{\infty}(k)=\infty\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu _{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has a positive solution for\(0<\lambda <\lambda_{0}\)and\(0<\mu<\mu_{0}\).
(c)
If\(f^{0}=f^{\infty}=0\)and\(I^{0}(k)=I^{\infty}(k)=0\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has at least two positive solutions for\(\lambda> \lambda_{0}\)and\(\mu>\mu _{0}\).
(d)
If\(f_{0}=f_{\infty}=\infty\)and\(I_{\infty}(k)=I_{\infty }(k)=\infty\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has at least two positive solutions for\(0<\lambda <\lambda_{0}\)and\(0<\mu<\mu_{0}\).
(e)
If\(f^{0}<\infty\), \(I^{0}(k)<\infty\), \(f^{\infty}<\infty\)and\(I^{\infty}<\infty\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has no positive solution for\(0<\lambda<\lambda _{0}\)and\(0<\mu<\mu_{0}\).
(f)
If\(f_{0}>0\), \(I_{0}(k)>0\), \(I_{\infty}>0\)and\(f_{\infty}>0\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has no positive solution for\(\lambda> \lambda_{0}\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\).
Proof
It follows from the proofs of Corollary 3.1 and Corollary 3.3 that Corollary 4.1 holds. □
Finally we consider the case of \(p=\infty\).
Corollary 4.2
Assume that (H1)-(H4) hold and\(\alpha (t)\geq t\)onJ. Then:
(a)
If\(f^{0}=0\)and\(I^{0}(k)=0\)or\(f^{\infty}=0\)and\(I^{\infty }(k)=0\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has a positive solution for\(\lambda>\lambda_{0}\)and\(\mu >\mu_{0}\).
(b)
If\(f_{0}=\infty\)and\(I_{0}(k)=\infty\)or\(f_{\infty}=\infty\)and\(I_{\infty}(k)=\infty\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu _{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has a positive solution for\(0<\lambda <\lambda_{0}\)and\(0<\mu<\mu_{0}\).
(c)
If\(f^{0}=f^{\infty}=0\)and\(I^{0}(k)=I^{\infty}(k)=0\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has at least two positive solutions for\(\lambda> \lambda_{0}\)and\(\mu>\mu _{0}\).
(d)
If\(f_{0}=f_{\infty}=\infty\)and\(I_{\infty}(k)=I_{\infty }(k)=\infty\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has at least two positive solutions for\(0<\lambda <\lambda_{0}\)and\(0<\mu<\mu_{0}\).
(e)
If\(f^{0}<\infty\), \(I^{0}(k)<\infty\), \(f^{\infty}<\infty\)and\(I^{\infty}<\infty\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has no positive solution for\(0<\lambda<\lambda _{0}\)and\(0<\mu<\mu_{0}\).
(f)
If\(f_{0}>0\), \(I_{0}(k)>0\), \(I_{\infty}>0\)and\(f_{\infty}>0\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has no positive solution for\(\lambda> \lambda_{0}\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\).
Proof
It follows from the proofs of Corollary 3.2 and Corollary 3.4 that Corollary 4.2 holds. □
5 Positive solutions of problem (1.1) for the case of \(\alpha (t)\leq t\) on J
Now we deal with problem (1.1) for the case of \(\alpha(t)\leq t\) on J. Similarly as Theorem 2.4 and Lemmas 3.3-3.9, we can prove the following results.
Lemma 5.1
Let\(\zeta^{*}\in(t_{n},1)\), \(G_{1}\)and\(H_{1}\)be given as in Theorem 2.3. If (H4) holds, then we have
This together with (2.13) and (2.15) finishes the proof of (5.1). □
Let \(PC^{1}[0,1]\) be as defined in Section 3. We define a cone \(K^{*}\) in \(PC^{1}[0,1]\) by
$$K^{*}= \biggl\{ y\in PC^{1}[0,1]\Big|y(t)\geq0\mbox{ on }J \mbox{ and }\min_{t\in [0,\zeta^{*}]}\geq\delta\frac{\rho_{1}}{\rho_{4}} \|y \|_{PC^{1}} \biggr\} , $$
where δ, \(\rho_{1}\) and \(\rho_{4}\) are defined in (2.18) and (3.8), respectively. It is easy to see that \(K^{*}\) is a closed convex cone of \(PC^{1}[0,1]\).
Define \({}^{*}T_{\lambda}^{\mu}: K^{*}\rightarrow PC^{1}[0,1]\) by
It is clear that y is a positive solution of problem (1.1) if and only of y is a fixed point of \({}^{*}T_{\lambda}^{\mu}\).
Lemma 5.2
Assume that (H1)-(H4) hold. Then\(y\in K^{*}\)is a positive fixed point of\({}^{*}T_{\lambda}^{\mu}\)if and only ifyis a positive solution of problem (1.1).
Lemma 5.3
Assume that (H1)-(H4) hold. Then\({}^{*}T_{\lambda}^{\mu}(K^{*})\subset K^{*}\)and\({}^{*}T_{\lambda}^{\mu }:K^{*}\rightarrow K^{*}\)is completely continuous.
Let \(f^{*}\) and \(I_{k}^{*}\) be defined as in Section 3. Similar to the proof of that in Lemmas 3.6-3.9, we have the following results. Here, we only consider the case \(m>1\) and only give the proof of Lemma 5.4.
Lemma 5.4
Assume that (H1)-(H4) hold, \(\alpha(t)\leq t\)onJand let\(r>0\)be given. If there exist\(\varepsilon_{1} >0\)and\(\varepsilon_{2} >0\)such that\(f^{*}(r)\leq\varepsilon_{1}\phi _{m}(r) \)and\(I_{k}^{*}(r)\leq\varepsilon_{2} r\) (\(k=1,2,\ldots,n\)), then
By the definition of \(f^{*}(r)\) and \(I_{k}^{*}\), if \(f^{*}(r)\leq\varepsilon_{1} \phi_{m}(r)\) and \(I_{k}^{*}(r)\leq \varepsilon_{2} r\) (\(k=1,2,\ldots,n\)), then
$$f(t,y)\leq\varepsilon_{1} \phi_{m}(r),\qquad I_{k}(t,y)\leq\varepsilon_{2} r\quad \mbox{for }t\in J \mbox{ and }0\leq y\leq r. $$
Since \(0\leq\alpha(t)\leq t\leq1\) on J, it follows from \(0\leq y(t)\leq r\) on J that \(0\leq y(\alpha(t))\leq r\).
Therefore, we have \(f(t,y(\alpha(t)))\leq\varepsilon_{1} \phi_{m}(r)\) for \(t\in J\), and it follows from (3.7) and (5.2) that
where\(\sigma_{r}\)and\(\sigma^{*}\)are defined in Lemma 3.9.
Let \(f^{0}\), \(f^{\infty}\), \(f_{0}\), \(f_{\infty}\), \(I^{0}(k)\), \(I^{\infty }(k)\), \(I_{0}(k)\) and \(I_{\infty}(k)\) be defined as in Section 3. Similar to the proof of Theorem 4.1, we have the following results.
Theorem 5.1
Assume that (H1)-(H4) hold and\(\alpha (t)\leq t\)onJ. Then:
(a)
If\(f^{0}=0\)and\(I^{0}(k)=0\)or\(f^{\infty}=0\)and\(I^{\infty }(k)=0\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has a positive solution for\(\lambda>\lambda_{0}\)and\(\mu >\mu_{0}\).
(b)
If\(f_{0}=\infty\)and\(I_{0}(k)=\infty\)or\(f_{\infty}=\infty\)and\(I_{\infty}(k)=\infty\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu _{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has a positive solution for\(0<\lambda <\lambda_{0}\)and\(0<\mu<\mu_{0}\).
(c)
If\(f^{0}=f^{\infty}=0\)and\(I^{0}(k)=I^{\infty}(k)=0\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has at least two positive solutions for\(\lambda> \lambda_{0}\)and\(\mu>\mu _{0}\).
(d)
If\(f_{0}=f_{\infty}=\infty\)and\(I_{\infty}(k)=I_{\infty }(k)=\infty\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has at least two positive solutions for\(0<\lambda <\lambda_{0}\)and\(0<\mu<\mu_{0}\).
(e)
If\(f^{0}<\infty\), \(I^{0}(k)<\infty\), \(f^{\infty}<\infty\)and\(I^{\infty}<\infty\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has no positive solution for\(0<\lambda<\lambda _{0}\)and\(0<\mu<\mu_{0}\).
(f)
If\(f_{0}>0\), \(I_{0}(k)>0\), \(I_{\infty}>0\)and\(f_{\infty}>0\), then there exist\(\lambda_{0}>0\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\)such that problem (1.1) has no positive solution for\(\lambda> \lambda_{0}\)and\(\mu_{0}>0\).
6 Remarks and comments
In this section, we offer some remarks and comments of the associated problem (1.1).
Remark 6.1
The idea of deviating arguments for problem (1.1) is from Jankowski [34], but the method and conclusion are quite different, and Jankowski only considered the case \(\lambda=1\), \(\mu=1\) and \(\omega \in C[0,1]\), not \(\omega(t)\) is \(L^{p}\)-integrable.
Remark 6.2
Generally, it is difficult to study the existence of positive solutions for nonlinear fourth order boundary value problems with impulsive effects and deviating arguments (see, e.g., [15‐25] and their references).
Here \(\lambda>0\) and \(\mu>0\) are two parameters, \(a, b>0\), \(J=[0,1]\), \(\phi_{m}(s)\) is an m-Laplace operator, i.e., \(\phi_{m}(s)=|s|^{m-2}s\), \(m>1\), \((\phi_{m})^{-1}=\phi_{m^{*}}\), \(\frac{1}{m}+\frac{1}{m^{*}}=1\), \(t_{k}\) (\(k=1,2,\ldots,n\)) (where n is a fixed positive integer) are fixed points with \(0=t_{0}< t_{1}<t_{2}<\cdots <t_{k}<\cdots <t_{n}<t_{n+1}=1\), \(\Delta y' |_{t=t_{k}}=y'(t_{k}^{+})-x'(t_{k}^{-})\), where \(y'(t_{k}^{+})\) and \(y'(t_{k}^{-})\) represent the right-hand limit and the left-hand limit of \(y'(t)\) at \({t=t_{k}}\), respectively.
By means of transformation (2.2), we can convert problem (4.1) into
Using a similar proof to that of Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 2.2, we can obtain the following results. In addition, if we replace ξ, ν by \(\xi^{*}\), \(\nu^{*}\) in (H2), respectively, then we obtain (\(\mathrm{H}^{*}_{2}\)), where
It is not difficult to prove that \(H^{*}(t,s)\) and \(H_{1}^{*}(t,s)\) have similar properties to those of \(H(t,s)\) and \(H_{1}(t,s)\). However, there does not exist a positive number \(\delta\in(0,1)\) such that
where \(\zeta\in(0,t_{1})\) and \(\zeta^{*}\in(t_{n},1)\). This implies that we cannot study the existence of positive solutions for problem (6.1) when the deviating arguments are delayed and advanced.
Remark 6.3
There are many functions \(\alpha(t)\) satisfying \(\alpha(t)\geq t\) or \(\alpha(t)\leq t\) on J. For example,
$$\begin{aligned}& \mbox{if }\alpha(t)=t^{\frac{1}{n}},\quad \mbox{then }\alpha(t)\geq t \mbox{ on }J; \\& \mbox{if }\alpha(t)=t^{n},\quad \mbox{then }\alpha(t)\leq t \mbox{ on }J, \end{aligned}$$
where n is a positive integral number.
Acknowledgements
We wish to express our thanks to Prof. Xuemei Zhang, Department of Mathematics and Physics, North China Electric Power University, Beijing, P.R. China, for her kind help, careful reading, and making useful comments on the earlier version of this paper. The authors also thank the project NSFC (11171032) and the improving project of graduate education of Beijing Information Science and Technology University (YJT201416) for their support.
Open Access This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
MF checked the proofs and verified the calculation. JQ completed the main study and carried out the results of this article. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.