New Oscillation Criteria for Second Order Half-Linear Neutral Type Dynamic Equations on Time Scales ()
1. Introduction
In this paper, we are concerned with the oscillatory behavior of solutions of second-order half-linear neutral type dynamic equation with distributed deviating arguments of the form
(1.1)
where
is nonnegative integers. By a solution of (1.1), we mean a nontrivial real-valued function
which satisfies Equation (1.1) on
, where
is the space of rd-continuous functions. A solution
of Equation (1.1) is said to be oscillatory if it is neither eventually positive nor eventually negative and non-oscillatory otherwise. Equation (1.1) is called oscillatory if all its solutions are oscillatory. Throughout this paper, we will assume the following hypotheses:
(A1)
is positive,
, where p is a constant;
(A2)
,
;
(A3)
and
satisfies
for
and
;
(A4)
such that
for
and
.
A time scale
is an arbitrary nonempty closed subset of the real numbers. For any
, we define the forward and backward jump operators by
respectively. The graininess function
is defined by
.
If
is Δ-differentiable at
, then f is continuous at t. Furthermore, we assume that
is Δ-differentiable. The following formulas are useful:
;
;
;
.
where
. If
, we have
and (1.1) becomes the second-order half-linear differential equation with distributed deviating arguments:
(1.2)
If
, we have
and (1.1) becomes the second-order half-linear difference equation with distributed deviating arguments:
(1.3)
In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in the study of the oscillatory behavior of solutions of dynamic equations. We refer to the papers [1] - [16] and the references cited therein.
In [1] Bohner et al. proved several theorems provided sufficient conditions for oscillation of all solutions of the second order Emden-Fowler dynamic equations of the form
They studied both the cases
In [2] Baoguo et al. discussed the oscillatory behavior of second-order linear dynamic equations:
In [3] Grace et al. discussed the oscillation criteria of second order nonlinear dynamic equations:
In [4], by a Riccati transformation technique, Tripathy, obtained some oscillation results for nonlinear neutral second-order dynamic equations of the form
In [5], Chen et al. studied the oscillatory and asymptotic properties of second-order nonlinear neutral dynamic equations of the form
They studied both the cases
(1.4)
In [6] by a generalized Riccati transformation technique, Chen studied the oscillatory of second-order dynamic equations
when
are constants.
In [7] by a generalized Riccati transformation technique, Zhang et al. obtained some new oscillation results for second-order neutral delay dynamic equation of the form
In [8] under condition (1.4), Li et al. considered nonlinear second order neutral dynamic equations of the form
In [9] Li et al. studied the oscillatory for second-order half-linear delay damped dynamic equations on time scales of the form
In [10] under condition (1.4) and by generalized Riccati transformation technique and the integral averaging, Zhang et al. obtained some new oscillation criteria of second-order nonlinear delay dynamic equations on time scales of the form
In this paper, we will consider both the case when
(1.5)
holds and the case when
(1.6)
holds. For more details, see [13] [14] [15] [16]. When
, we refer the reader to [17] [18] [19] [20] and the references cited therein.
The details of the proofs of results for non-oscillatory solutions will be carried out only for eventually positive solutions, since the arguments are similar for eventually negative solutions.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we will state and prove the main oscillation theorems and we provide some examples to illustrate the main results.
2. Main Results
In this section, we establish some new oscillation criteria for the Equation (1.1). We begin with some useful lemmas, which will be used later.
Lemma 2.1. Let
be a non-oscillatory solution of Equation (1.1). Then there exists a
such that
,
and
for
. (2.1)
Proof. Let
is eventually positive solution of equation(1.1), we may assume that
,
, and
for
,
. Set
. By, assumption (A1), we have
, and from Equation (1.1), we get
(2.2)
Therefore,
is non-increasing function. Now we have two possible cases for
either
eventually or
eventually. Suppose that
for
. Then from (2.2), there is an integer
such that
and
(2.3)
Dividing by
and integrating the last inequality from
tot, we obtain
This implies that
as
, by (1.5), which is a contradiction the fact that
is positive. Then
. This completes the proof of Lemma 2.1.
Lemma 2.2. Assume that
,
. Then
Proof. The proof can be found in [11].
Lemma 2.3. Assume that
,
. Then
(2.4)
Proof. The proof can be found in [12].
Throughout this subsection we assume that there exists a double functions
and
such that
1)
for
,
2)
for
,
3) H has a nonpositive continuous ∆-partial derivative
with respect to the second variable, and satisfies
In the following results, we shall use the following notation
Next, we state and prove the main theorems.
Theorem 2.1. Let
and (1.5) holds. Further, assume that there exists a positive non-decreasing rd-continuous ∆-differentiable function
, such that for any
, there exists an integer
, with
(2.5)
where
. Then every solution of Equation (1.1) is oscillatory.
Proof. Assume that Equation (1.1) has a non-oscillatory solution, say
,
and
for all
. From Equation (1.1), Lemma 2.2 and condition (A4) there exists
such that for
, we get
(2.6)
Further, it is clear from (A3)
Thus
(2.7)
Define
(2.8)
Then
. From (2.8), we have
(2.9)
Since
, and By using the inequality
we have
(2.10)
Substitute from (2.10) in (2.9), we have
(2.11)
By Lemma (2.1), since
is decreasing function then
. Then it follows that
(2.12)
It follows from (2.11) and (2.12) that
(2.13)
Similarly, define another function
by
(2.14)
Then
. From (2.14), we have
(2.15)
From (2.10), (2.14), (2.15) and (2.12), we have
(2.16)
From (2.13) and (2.16), we obtain
(2.17)
From (2.7) and (2.17), we have
(2.18)
Using (2.18) and the inequality
(2.19)
we have
Integrating the last inequality from
to t, we obtain
which yields
where
is a finite constant. But, this contradicts (2.5). This completes the proof of Theorem 2.1.
Corollary 2.1. If
, then (2.5) becomes
(
)
Then every solution of Equation (1.2) is oscillatory.
Example 2.1. Consider the nonlinear delay dynamic equation
where
,
,
,
,
If we take
,
then we have
,
as
if
Thus Corollary 2.1 asserts that every solution of (3.1) is oscillatory when
.
Theorem 2.2. Let
and (1.5) holds. Further, assume that there exists a positive non-decreasing function
, such that for any
, there exists an integer
, with
Then Equation (1.1) is oscillatory.
Proof. The proof is similar to that of Theorem 2.1 and hence the details are omitted.
Theorem 2.3. Assume that
and (1.5) holds. Let
be a positive rd-continuous ∆-differentiable function. Furthermore, we assume that there exists a double function
. If
(2.20)
Then every solution of Equation (1.1) is oscillatory.
Proof. Proceeding as in Theorem 2.1 we assume that Equation (1.1) has a non-oscillatory solution, say
,
and
for all
. From the proof of Theorem 2.1, we find that (2.18) holds for all
. From (2.18), we have
Therefore, we have
which yields after integrating by parts
From (2.19), we have
Then,
which implies
Hence,
Hence,
which is contrary to (2.20). This completes the proof of Theorem 2.3.
Corollary 2.2. If
, then (2.20) becomes
(
)
Then every solution of Equation (1.2) is oscillatory.
Corollary 2.3. If
, then (2.20) becomes
(
)
where
Then every solution of Equation (1.3) is oscillatory.
Example 2.2. Consider the differential equation
If we take
and
, then we have
Hence, this equation is oscillatory by Corollary 2.4.
Theorem 2.4. Let
and (1.5) holds. Further, assume that there exists a positive rd-continuous ∆-differentiable function
, such that for any
, there exists an integer
, with
Then Equation (1.1) is oscillatory.
Proof. The proof is similar to that of Theorem 2.3 and hence the details are omitted.
Corollary 2.4. If
, then the condition of Theorem 2.4 becomes
Then every solution of Equation (1.3) is oscillatory.
Example 2.3. Consider the differential Equation
where
,
,
,
,
and
. If we take
,
and
, then
Hence, by Corollary 2.4, this equation is oscillatory.
Theorem 2.5. Let
and (1.5) holds. Further, assume that there exists a positive rd-continuous ∆-differentiable function
, such that for any
, there exists an integer
, with
(2.21)
where
.
Then every solution of Equation (1.1) oscillatory.
Proof. Assume that Equation (1.1) has a non-oscillatory solution, say
,
and
for all
. By Lemma 2.1, we have (2.1) and from Theorem 2.1, we have (2.7). Define
and
by (2.8) and (2.14) respectively. Proceeding as in the proof of Theorem 2.1, we obtain (2.9) and (2.15). By using the inequality
for
and
, we have
(2.22)
Substitute from (2.22) in (2.9), we have
(2.23)
From (2.12), we have
(2.24)
On the other hand, from (2.15), we have
(2.25)
From (2.24) and (2.25), we obtain
(2.26)
From (2.7) and (2.26), we have
(2.27)
Using the inequality
in (2.27), we have
(2.28)
Integrating (2.28) from
to t, we obtain
which yields
where
is a finite constant. Taking lim sup in the above inequality, we obtain a contradiction with (2.21). This completes the proof of Theorem 2.5.
Corollary 2.5. If
, then (2.21) becomes
(
)
Then every solution of Equation (1.2) oscillatory.
Example 2.4. Consider the nonlinear neutral dynamic equation
where
,
,
,
,
. If we take
,
, then, we have
,
if
. By Corollary 2.8 every solution of this equation is oscillatory when
.
Theorem 2.6. Let
and (1.5) holds. Further, assume that there exists a positive rd-continuous ∆-differentiable function
, such that for any
, there exists an integer
, with
Then Equation (1.1) is oscillatory.
Proof. The proof is similar to that of Theorem 2.5 and hence the details are omitted.
Theorem 2.7. Assume that
and (1.5) holds. Let
be a positive rd-continuous ∆-differentiable function. Furthermore, we assume that there exists a double function
. If
(2.29)
Then every solution of Equation (1.1) is oscillatory.
Proof. Proceeding as in Theorem 2.5 we assume that Equation (1.1) has a non-oscillatory solution, say
,
and
for all
. From the proof of Theorem 2.5, we find that (2.27) holds for all
. From (2.27), we have
(2.30)
Therefore, we have
which yields after summing by parts
Using the inequality
, we have
(2.31)
The rest of the proof is similar that of Theorem 2.3 and hence the details are omitted. This completes the proof of Theorem 2.7.
Corollary 2.6. If
, then (2.29) becomes
(
)
Then every solution of Equation (1.2) is oscillatory.
Theorem 2.8. Let
and (1.5) holds. Further, assume that there exists a positive rd-continuous ∆-differentiable function
, such that for any
, there exists an integer
, with
Then Equation (1.1) is oscillatory.
Proof. The proof is similar to that of Theorem 2.7 and hence the details are omitted.
Theorem 2.9. Let (1.5) holds. Assume that there exists a positive non-decreasing rd-continuous ∆-differentiable function
such that for any
, there exists an integer
, with
(2.32)
Then every solution of Equation (1.1) is oscillatory.
Proof. Assume that Equation (1.1) has a non-oscillatory solution, say
,
and
for all
. From Equation (1.1), From (2.1) and the fact that
, we see that
(2.33)
Further, it is clear form (A3) that
which in view of (2.1) leads to
Using the above inequality together with (2.1), (2.33), (A3) and (A4) in Equation (1.1) for
, we get
(2.34)
Define the function
by the generalized Riccati substitution
(2.35)
It follows that
From (2.34) = and (2.35), we have
(2.36)
First: we consider the case when
. By using the inequality
we have
Substituting in (2.36), we have
(2.37)
From (2.12) and (2.37), we find
(2.38)
Second: we consider the case when
. By using the inequality
We may write
Substituting in (2.36), we have
From (2.12) and by Lemma (2.1), since
is decreasing function, we have
(2.39)
Thus, we again obtain (2.38). However, from (2.35) we see that
(2.40)
Then, by using the inequality
we may write Equation (2.40) as follows
Substituting back in (2.38), we have
(2.41)
Thus,
Therefore, we have
which yields after summing by parts
Hence
From (2.19),
and
, we obtain
which implies
which is contrary to (2.32). This completes the proof of Theorem 2.9.
Theorem 2.10. Let (1.6) and (2.5) hold. Assume that
be as defined as Theorem 2.1. If
(2.42)
then every solution of Equation (1.1) either oscillates or tends to zero
Proof. Assume that Equation (1.1) has a non-oscillatory solution. Without loss of generality, we may assume that
,
and
for all
. Proceeding as in the proof of Lemma 2.1, we have (2.2) holds. Therefore,
is non-increasing function. Now we have two possible cases for
either
eventually or
eventually. If
, The proof is similar to that of Theorem 2.1 and hence is omitted. Suppose that
for
. Since
is a positive decreasing solution of Equation (1.1), then
. Now we claim that
. If
then
for
. Therefore from (A4) and (1.1), we have
Integrating the above inequality from
tot, we obtain
where
. Dividing by
and integrating the last inequality from
tot, we obtain
Condition (2.42) implies that
as
which is contradiction with the fact that
. Then
. i.e.
. Since
then
. The proof is complete.
3. Conclusion
We established some new sufficient conditions for the oscillation of all solutions of this equation. Our results not only unify the oscillation of second order nonlinear differential and difference equations but also can be applied to different types of time scales with
. Our results improved and expanded some known results, see e.g. the following results:
Remark 3.1. If
,
,
,
,
,
, then we extended and improved Theorems in [1].
Remark 3.2. If
,
,
,
,
, then we generalized the results in [3].
Remark 3.3. If
,
,
,
, then we extended and improved Theorems in [4].
Remark 3.4. If
,
,
, then we reduced to Theorems in [5].
Remark 3.5. If
,
,
,
,
, then we reduced to a special case in [6].
Remark 3.6. If
,
,
,
,
, then we reduced to a special case in [7].
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees very much for valuable suggestions, corrections and comments, which results in a great improvement in the original manuscript.