New Oscillatory Theorems for Third-Order Nonlinear Delay Dynamic Equations on Time Scales ()
1. Introduction
Beginning with the landmark contribution work of Hilger [1] , the time scales theory, which in order to unify the continuous and discrete analysis, has received significant attention. In the recent years, there has been increasing interest in obtaining sufficient conditions for the oscillation and nonoscillation of solutions of various equations on time scales; we refer the reader to the papers [2] - [18] . Following this trend, we shall consider oscillation for the third-order nonlinear delay dynamic equation
(1)
where
is a quotient of odd positive integers.
Throughout this paper, assume that
(H1)
is a time scale (i.e., a nonempty closed subset of the real numbers
) which is unbounded above, and
with
. We define the time scale interval of the form
by
.
(H2)
are positive, real-valued rd-continuous functions defined on
, and
satisfy
(H3)
is a strictly increasing and differentiable function such that
(H4)
is a continuous function, and there exists a positive number
K such that
for
.
By a solution of (1) , we mean a nontrivial function
satisfying (1) which has the properties
for
, and
. Our attention is restricted to those
solutions of (1) which satisfy
for all
. A solution x of Equation (1) is said to be oscillatory on
if it is neither eventually positive nor eventually negative. Otherwise it is called nonoscillatory. The equation itself is called oscillatory if all its solutions are oscillatory.
If
, then (1) simplifies to the third-order nonlinear dynamic equation
(2)
If, furthermore,
,
, then (1) reduces to the third-order linear dynamic equation
(3)
If, in addition,
, then (1) reduces to the nonlinear delay dynamic equation
(4)
In [11] , Erbe et al. established some sufficient conditions which ensure that every solution of Equation (2) is oscillatory or converges to zero. In [12] , Erbe et al. studied the third-order linear dynamic Equation (3), and they obtained Hille and Nehari type oscillation criteria for the Equation (3). In [16] , Han et al. extended and improved the results of [11] [12] , meanwhile obtained some oscillatory criteria for the Equation (4). In [18] , Gao et al. considered the third-order nonlinear dynamic Equation (1). By employing the generalized Riccati transformation and the integral averaging technique, they established three sufficient conditions which ensure that every solution of Equation (1) is oscillatory or converges to zero. On this basis, we continue to study Equation (1). If (4.11) in ( [18] , Theorem 4.3) is not hold, then we obtain two new sufficient conditions which guarantee that every solution of Equation (1) is oscillatory or converges to zero. Our results will improve some previous results. The usual notation and concepts of the time scales calculus, which will be used throughout the paper, can be found in [19] [20] .
2. Several Lemmas
Lemma 1 Assume that
is an eventually positive solution of (1). Then there exists
such that either
(I)
or
(II)
The proof is similar to that of ( [11] , Lemma 1).
Lemma 2 (see [19] , Theorem 1.90]) If x is differentiable, then
(5)
Lemma 3 (see [21] , Theorem 41]) Assume that X and Y are nonnegative real numbers. Then
(6)
where the equality holds if and only if
.
Throughout this paper, for sufficiently large T, we denote
Lemma 4 Assume that
is an eventually positive solution of (1) which satisfies case (I) in Lemma 1. Then there exists
, such that
(7)
The proof is similar to that of (18], Lemma 3.4).
Lemma 5 Assume that
is an eventually positive solution of (1) which satisfies case (I) in Lemma 1. Furthermore, assume that
and
(8)
Then there exists
such that
, and
is strictly decreasing on
.
The proof is similar to that of ( [16] , Lemma 2.3).
Lemma 6 Assume that
is an eventually positive solution of (1) which satisfies case (II) in Lemma 1. Furthermore,
(9)
Then
.
Proof Assume that
is an eventually positive solution of (1) which satisfies the case (II) in Lemma 1. Then
is decreasing and
. We assert that
. If not, then
for
. Integrating (1) from
to
, we get
Hence, we have
Integrating the above inequality from
to
, we obtain
Integrating the last inequality again from T to t, we have
Since condition (9) holds, we obtain
, which contradicts
. Hence
. This completes the proof.
Lemma 7 (see [22] , Theorem 3]) Let
and
, for positive rd-continuous functions
, we have
(10)
where
and
.
3. Main Results
Theorem 1 Assume that (8) and (9) hold,
. Furthermore, assume that there exist functions
, where
such that
(11)
and H has a nonpositive continuous D-partial derivative
with respect to the second variable and satisfies
(12)
and, for all sufficiently large T, that there exists
,
(13)
(14)
and a real rd-continuous function
such that
(15)
(16)
where
is a positive D-differentiable function,
.
Then every solution
of Equation (1) is either oscillatory or converges to zero.
Proof Assume that (1) has a nonoscillatory solution
on
. Without loss generality we may assume that there exists sufficiently large
such that
and
for all
. By Lemma 1, we see that
satisfies either case (I) or case (II).
If case (I) holds, then
. Define the function
by
Obviously
. Using the product and quotient rule of D-differential, we obtain
By Lemma 2, we get
where
, and get
From Lemma 5, we obtain
,
, and using (7), so we obtain
Hence, by the definition of
, we obtain
(17)
Multiplying both sides of (17), with t replaced by s, by
, integrating with respect to s from
to
,
, we get
Integrating by parts and using (11), we obtain
and so
(18)
Now set
where
,
and
. Using the inequality (6), we obtain
(19)
Combining (18) and (19), we get
From (16), we obtain
(20)
By (18), we get
(21)
We denote
meanwhile noting that (16), we obtain
Now we assert that
(22)
holds. Suppose to the contrary that
(23)
by (13), there exists a constant
such that
(24)
from (23), there exists
for arbitrary real number
such that
Using the integration by parts formula of D-differential, we obtain
From (24), there exists
, we get
for
, so that
. Since M is arbitrary, we obtain
(25)
Selecting a sequence
:
with
satisfying
then there exists a constant
such that
(26)
for sufficiently large positive integer n. From (22), we can easily see
(27)
(26) implies that
(28)
From (26) and (27), we obtain
i.e.,
for sufficiently large positive integer n, which together with (28) implies
(29)
On the other hand, by Lemma 7, we obtain
The above inequality show that
Hence, (29) implies
This contradicts (14). Therefore (22) holds. Noting
for
, by using (22), we obtain
This contradicts (15).
If case (II) holds, from (9), by Lemma 6
. The proof is complete.
Theorem 2 Assume that (8), (9), (12), (13), (15) and
hold, where
and
are defined in Theorem 1. Furthermore, assume that there is a real rd-continuous function
such that
(30)
(31)
for
, where
are defined in Theorem 1. Then every solution
of Equation (1) is either oscillatory or converges to zero.
Proof Assume that (1) has a nonoscillatory solution
on
. Without loss generality we may assume that there exists sufficiently large
such that
and
for all
. By Lemma 1, we see that
satisfies either case (I) or case (II).
If case (I) holds, proceeding as in the proof of Theorem 1, we get
From (31), we obtain
(32)
and
(33)
Using (30) and (33), we get
Thus, there exists a sequence
:
with
such that
We define
and
also, as in the proof of Theorem 1. From (18) and (32), we obtain
For the above sequence
, we get
Similar to the proof of Theorem 1, we get (22). The rest of the proof is similar to that of Theorem 1, and hence is omitted. The proof is complete.
Remark 1 From Theorems 1 and 2, we can obtain different sufficient conditions for the oscillation of Equation (1) with different choices of the functions
and
. For example,
or
.
Remark 2 The theorems in this paper are new even for the cases of
and
.
Example 1 Consider the third-order nonlinear delay dynamic equation
(34)
Here
,
,
,
,
and
.
The conditions (H1)-(H3) are clearly satisfied, (H4) holds with
.
.
, and
so (8), (9) hold. For larger enough
, we have
Let
, since
, we have
Let
, that there exists a function
such that
It follows that
so (12), (13) and (14) hold. Let
, we have
and
Then, by Theorem 1, every solution
of Equation (34) is either oscillatory or converges to zero. But the results in [18] cannot be applied in (34).
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the reviewers for their comments and suggestions. This research is supported by Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation (ZR2013AM003), Technology Planning Program of Shandong Province (J14LI54).