In this paper, we study the existence of solutions of periodic boundary value problems for impulsive differential equations depending on a parameter λ. By employing an existing critical point theorem, we find the range of the control parameter in which the boundary value problem admits at least one non-zero weak solution. An example illustrates our results.
MSC:34B15, 34B18, 34B37, 58E30.
Hinweise
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
JX drafted the manuscript and joined discussion with ZL. ZL read the draft and provided comments. Both authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
1 Introduction
The well-known impulsive differential equations serve as basic models to study the dynamics of processes that are subject to sudden changes in their states, which are often investigated in various fields of science and technology [1‐3]. For example, in the motion of spacecraft, one has to consider instantaneous impulses at a position with jump discontinuities in velocity, but no change in the position [4‐7]. This motivates us to consider the following particular periodic boundary value problems:
(1.1)
where , , , λ is a positive real parameter and the operator Δ is defined as , where denotes the right-hand (left-hand) limit of at .
Anzeige
In the literature, some classical tools have been used to study impulsive differential equations. These classical techniques include some fixed point theorems, the lower and upper solutions and the coincidence degree theory [8‐10]. Moreover, in the last few years, some researchers have gradually paid more attention to applying variational methods to deal with the existence of solutions for impulsive differential equation boundary value problems [11‐16]. The same tool has also already been used for a Neumann nonlinear differential problem in [17] (see also [18, 19] and [20] for two-point and mixed problems). In this paper, we use critical point theory and variational methods to establish the existence of at least one weak solution for problem (1.1).
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we present several definitions and main tools. In Section 3, under suitable hypotheses, we prove that problem (1.1) possesses at least one non-zero weak solution when λ lies in an exactly determined open interval. Finally, an example is provided to verify our results.
2 Preliminaries
In the following, we first introduce some notations. Take , in which we consider the inner product
and the norm
Anzeige
Note that this norm is equivalent to the usual norm
Definition 2.1 is an -Carathéodory function if:
(i)
is measurable for every ;
(ii)
is continuous for almost every ;
(iii)
for every , there exists a function such that
Definition 2.2 The function is called a weak solution of problem (1.1) if and
for all .
Note that if f is continuous, each weak solution is a classical solution of problem (1.1), i.e., , satisfies the equation of (1.1) a.e. on , the limits , , , exist and holds.
We recall the following inequality which will be used later.
Lemma 2.3If , then
(2.1)
where .
Proof The proof follows easily from the mean value theorem and the Hölder inequality, so we omit it here. □
Next we define a functional as
(2.2)
where
(2.3)
and
(2.4)
with
Note that is Fréchet differentiable at any and for any , we have
(2.5)
Obviously, is continuous and a critical point of , by (2.5), gives a weak solution of problem (1.1).
For all , with , we define
(2.6)
(2.7)
Note that for all , with , we have , .
To prove our main results, we need the following critical point theorem.
LetXbe a reflexive real Banach space. Letbe a sequentially weakly lower semicontinuous, coercive and continuously Gâteaux differentiable functional whose Gâteaux derivative admits a continuous inverse on ; letbe a continuously Gâteaux differentiable functional whose Gáteaux derivative is compact. Putand assume that there are , with , such that
(2.8)
whereβandαare given by (2.6) and (2.7). Then, for each , there issuch thatfor alland .
For the sake of convenience, we list the following conditions.
(H1) f is an -Carathéodory function.
(H2) , , .
3 Main results
In this section, we establish existence results for the periodic boundary value problem (1.1).
Given three nonnegative constants , , d, with , put
(3.1)
and
(3.2)
Theorem 3.1Assume that (H1), (H2) are satisfied and there exist three nonnegative constants , , d, with , such that
(3.3)
Then, for each , problem (1.1) admits at least one weak solution , , such that .
Proof By (2.3) and (2.4), we have that Φ is a nonnegative Gâteaux differentiable, coercive and sequentially weakly lower semicontinuous functional whose Gâteaux derivative admits a continuous inverse on , and Ψ is a continuously Gâteaux differentiable functional whose Gâteaux is compact. Let
(3.4)
By condition (H2), we have
(3.5)
and
(3.6)
Combining , (3.4), (3.5) and (3.6), we have
Clearly, we have . From Lemma 2.3, the estimate , , implies that
and
Therefore
For with , one can similarly obtain
Therefore, we have
On the other hand, we have
So, by (3.3), we induce
Therefore, by Theorem 2.4, for each , we have that admits at least one critical point u such that . Combining (2.3), we get
and
So, problem (1.1) admits at least one weak solution , , such that . □
Theorem 3.2Assume that (H1), (H2) hold and there exist two positive constantsc, d, with , such that
(3.7)
Then, for each , problem (1.1) admits at least one nontrivial weak solution , , such that .
Proof Let and , then by (3.1) and (3.2) we get
and
Therefore, owing to (3.6) we have . Moreover, by Theorem 3.1, we have that for each , problem (1.1) admits at least one nontrivial weak solution u such that . □
Now, when the nonlinear term of problem (1.1) is with separable variables, we have the following results. To be precise, let be such that a.e. , , and let be a nonnegative continuous function. Consider the boundary value problem
(3.8)
Put
Corollary 3.3Assume that (H2) is satisfied and there exist three nonnegative constants , , d, with , such that
(3.9)
Then, for each , where , problem (3.8) admits at least one weak solution , , such that .
Proof Let for all . It is clear that for all . Moreover, G is a nondecreasing function about u. So, we have
So, for each , problem (3.8) admits at least one weak solution , , such that . □
Corollary 3.4Assume that (H2) is satisfied and there exist two positive constantsc, d, with , such that
(3.10)
Then, for each , problem (3.8) admits at least one weak solutionsuch thatfor all .
Proof Let for all . It is clear that for all . Moreover, G is a nondecreasing function about u. So, we have
Therefore, by Theorem 3.2, for each , problem (3.8) admits at least one weak solution such that for all . □
4 An example
In this section, we give an example to illustrate our main results.
Example 4.1 Consider the boundary value problem
(4.1)
Compared to problem (3.8), , , . Clearly, (H2) is satisfied and such that a.e. , , and is a nonnegative continuous function. Choose , . By simple calculations, we obtain
Applying Corollary 3.4, when , system (4.1) has at least one weak solution u such that for all .
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the referees for their valuable comments and suggestions, which greatly improved the presentation of this paper. This work is supported by Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (No: 11JJ3012), Major Project of Science Research Fund of Education Department in Hunan (No: 11A095).
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
JX drafted the manuscript and joined discussion with ZL. ZL read the draft and provided comments. Both authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.