Abstract and Applied AnalysisVolume 2011 (2011), Article ID 791323, 19 pagesdoi:10.1155/2011/791323

Research Article

On Asymptotic Behaviour of Solutions to -Dimensional Systems of Neutral Differential Equations

H. Šamajová and E. Špániková

Department of Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Žilina, Univerzitná 1, 010 26 Žilina, Slovakia

Received 6 July 2011; Revised 9 September 2011; Accepted 22 September 2011

Academic Editor: Marcia Federson

Copyright © 2011 H. Šamajová and E. Špániková. 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.

This paper presents the properties and behaviour of solutions to a class of n-dimensional functional differential systems of neutral type. Sufficient conditions for solutions to be either oscillatory, or = 0, or , , are established. One example is given.

1. Introduction

The authors have investigated some properties of solutions to -dimensional functional differential systems in [1]. We studied the properties of solutions presupposing that both functions and were bounded and there were presented theorems where sufficient conditions to every solution with the first component of the solution to be either oscillatory, or for .

The goal of this paper is to enquire about the behaviour of the solution to -dimensional functional differential system of neutral type (1.1) under no restriction to and to the first component of solution . Results are given in theorems where sufficient conditions are stated to every solution to have the next properties: a solution to be either oscillatory, or or ,  .

The system (1.1) is investigated under the assumptions , and throughout this paper, the next conditions are considered:(a) is a continuous function;(b) is a continuous and increasing function, ;(c), , are continuous functions; not identically equal to zero in any neighbourhood of infinity, , ;(d) is a continuous and increasing function, ;(e) is a continuous function; moreover, for , and hold, where is a positive constant.

For a function , is defined, and for , we introduce A vector function is a solution to the system (1.1) if there is a such that is continuous on ; functions ,   are continuously differentiable on and satisfies (1.1) on .

denotes the set of all solutions to the system (1.1) that exist on some interval and satisfy the condition

A solution is considered nonoscillatory if there exists a such that every component is different from zero for . Otherwise a solution is said to be oscillatory.

Properties of solutions to similar differential equations and systems like system (1.1) have been studied in [1–6] and in the references cited therein. Problems of existence of solutions to neutral differential systems were analysed, for example, in [7, 8].

It will be useful to define two types of recursion formulae. Let , and . One has

It is easy to prove that the following identities hold: for .

Functions denote the inverse functions to , .

2. Preliminaries

Lemma 2.1 (see [9, Lemma 1]). Let be a solution of (1.1) with on , . Then is nonoscillatory and are monotone on some ray , .

Let be a non-oscillatory solution of (1.1). By (1.1) and (c), it follows that the function from (1.2) has to be eventually of constant sign, so that either or for sufficiently large .

We mention for the comfort of proofs a classification of non-oscillatory solutions of the system (1.1) which was introduced by the authors in [1].

Assume first that (2.1) holds.

By [9, Lemma 4], the statement in Lemma 2.2 follows.

Lemma 2.2. Let be a non-oscillatory solution to (1.1) on , and assume that (2.1) holds. Then there exists an integer such that or , and such that for

Denote by the set of non-oscillatory solutions to (1.1) satisfying (2.3). Now assume that (2.2) holds.

By the aid of Kiguradze's lemma, it is easy to prove Lemma 2.3.

Lemma 2.3. Let be a non-oscillatory solution to (1.1) on , and assume that (2.2) holds. Then there exists an integer and or , and such that for either or

Denote by the set of nonoscillatory solutions to (1.1) satisfying (2.4), and by the set of non-oscillatory solutions to (1.1) satisfying (2.5). Denote by the set of all non-oscillatory solutions to (1.1). Obviously by Lemmas 2.2 and 2.3, we have the classification of non-oscillatory solutions to the system (1.1): odd, : odd, : even, : even, :

The next lemma can be proved similarly as Lemma 2 in [9].

Lemma 2.4. Let be a non-oscillatory solution to (1.1) on , , and let ,, . Then

Remark 2.5. If , and , ( is a constant), then from [9], we have .

Lemma 2.6 (see [10, Lemma 2.2]). In addition to conditions (a) and (b) suppose that Let be a continuous non-oscillatory solution to the functional inequality defined in a neighbourhood of infinity. Suppose that for . Then is bounded. If, moreover, for some positive constant , then .

3. Main Results

Theorem 3.1. Suppose that for , If is odd and , then every solution to (1.1) is oscillatory or , .

Proof. Let be a non-oscillatory solution to (1.1). The Expression (2.7) holds. Taking into account Remark 2.5, one may write Without loss of generality we may suppose that is positive for . (I) Let on . In this case, we can write for and . We claim that . Otherwise . Then where is sufficiently large.Integrating the last equation of (1.1) from to , we get for From (3.10) with regard to (e), (3.8), and (3.9), we have for Multiplying (3.11) by and then using the th equation of the system (1.1), we get for Integrating (3.12) from to and then using (3.8), we get for Multiplying (3.13) by and then using the equation of the system (1.1), and the new inequality we integrate from to we employ (3.8) and for Similarly for , we have Integrating (3.15) from to and then using (3.8), we get for which a contradiction to (3.4). Hence .Then , where is sufficiently large and We prove that is bounded indirectly. Let be unbounded. Then there exists a sequence , where as It follows from (3.1), (3.2), and (3.17), That is a contradiction to and the function is bounded. We claim that and prove it indirectly. Let Let , be such a kind of sequence, that as and Then . From (1.2) and (3.1), follow. From the last inequality, we have That is a contradiction to condition (3.1) and Since and from Lemma 2.4, implie .(II) Let , for some , on . In this case, one can consider for Integrating the first equation of the system (1.1) from to and using (3.22) above, we get where is sufficiently large. Integrating step by step th equations of the system (1.1) and subsequently substituting into (3.23) for , we obtain Integrating equation of the system (1.1) and using (3.22), we have Combining expressions (3.24) and (3.25) and using (3.22), we get for The formula above may be rewritten by (1.5) and (1.6) for to Integrating the last equation of (1.1) from and using (e), (1.2), and (3.22), we obtain for where is sufficiently large, From (3.2), (3.27), and (3.28) and the monotonicity of , we have for , which is a contradiction to (3.5), and it gives (III) Let on . In this case we consider for the components of solution and for function Analogically as in the previous part of the proof, holds and also (3.28), and for which is a contradiction to (3.6) and .

Theorem 3.2. Suppose that (3.1)–(3.4) are employed and (3.5) holds for and for sufficiently large. If is even and , then every solution to the system (1.1) is either oscillatory, or , , or , .

Proof. Let be a non-oscillatory solution to (1.1). Expression (2.8) holds. Taking into account Remark 2.5, Without loss of generality we may suppose that is positive for . (I) Let on . In this case, for We may choose analogical approach as in Theorem 3.1 part (I). Equation (3.9) holds and we replace (3.11) by inequality Moreover (3.15) holds and similarly as in the proof of Theorem 3.1 case (I). We prove that , .(II) Let on , for some . In this case, for , The analogical approach as in Theorem 3.1 part (II) follows out.Instead of inequality (3.27), we get for and instead of (3.28) for and in the end we gain the contradiction to (3.5).(III) Let on . In this case (3.31) holds. Integrating the last equation of the system (1.1) and on the basis of (3.31), (3.2), (e), and (1.2), we have where is sufficiently large.Integrating the first equation of the system (1.1) from to and employing (3.31), we obtain Combining (3.41) and (3.42), we have for Further consequently integrating the equations of the system (1.1) and step by step substituting into (3.43), we get for On basis of (3.31), for hold. Combining (3.44) and (3.45) for , we have From the inequality above and relation (3.34), we obtain . Lemma 2.4 implies and , . Since for , so and the final conclusion is , .

Theorem 3.3. Suppose that (3.3) holds and for , If is odd and then every solution to (1.1) is either oscillatory, or , .

Proof. Let be a non-oscillatory solution to (1.1). Expression (2.6) holds. Without loss of generality we may suppose that is positive for . (I) Let on . Lemma 2.6 implies . In this case, for , and so which is a contradiction to the fact that the is positive and a nondecreasing function on the interval and (II) Let on . In this case, we can write for We indirectly prove .Since is nondecreasing and Because , follows. From (3.55) and (3.57), we get By (c), (e), the last equation of (1.1), and (3.58), we get for Integrating (3.59) from to , we get Multiplying (3.60) by and then using the equation of system (1.1), we get for Integrating (3.61) from to , we get for Similarly we continue by the same way until we derive for Integrating (3.63) from to , we get for That contradicts (3.49), and consequently holds. We prove that is bounded and . There is some positive constant , for , and by (1.2) and (3.47), one has for We prove indirectly that is bounded. Let us suppose that is unbounded. Then is unbounded, and there is a sequence By (3.65) That is a contradiction to and the function is bounded. We claim that and we will prove it indirectly.Let , , Then .Let , be such a kind of sequence that and .Then, .By (1.2) and (3.47), follows. By the last inequality, we have holds. That is a contradiction to (3.47). It means and also Moreover, holds, so and this leads to .By Lemma 2.4 it follows that (III) Let , , on In this case for, , Integrating the first equation of (1.1) from to and using (3.71), we get where is sufficiently large.Integrating the equations of the system (1.1), and substituting into (3.72), we get for Integrating equations of the system (1.1) we gain the system We combine the formulae (3.73) and (3.74), and with regard to (3.71), we get for Employing (1.5) and (1.6) the equation above may be rewritten to for . Integrating the last equation of (1.1) from to and using (e) and (3.71), From (3.2), (3.57) in regard to (3.76), (3.77) and monotonicity of , we get for which means for This is a contradiction to (3.50) and (IV) Let on .In this case, we can write for We may lead the proof analogically as in the previous part of the proof and we will prove that (3.77), (3.57), and hold and also which is a contradiction to (3.51) and .

Theorem 3.4. Suppose that (3.3), (3.47)–(3.49) hold and condition (3.50) is fulfilled for , and for . If is even and , then every solution to (1.1) is either oscillatory, or , , or and , .

Proof. Let be a non-oscillatory solution to (1.1). Expression (2.9) holds.(I) Let . Analogically as in the proof of Theorem 3.3 (I), we prove that (II) Let on . Similarly to the proof of Theorem 3.3 (II), we prove , .(III) Let , for some , for . Likewise as proof of Theorem 3.3 (III), for sets we prove that .(IV) Let for . Analogically to the proof of case (III) of Theorem 3.2, we claim , .

Example 3.5. We consider system (1.1) as follows: All assumptions of Theorem 3.2 are satisfied, and every solution to (3.86) is either oscillatory or One of the solutions has particular components as follows: and in this case

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Scientific Grant Agency (VEGA) of the Ministry of Education of Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences for supporting this work under Grant no. 2/0215/09.

References

E. Špániková and H. Šamajová, “Asymptotic properties of solutions to n-dimensional neutral differential systems,” Nonlinear Analysis, Theory, Methods & Applications, vol. 71, no. 7-8, pp. 2877–2885, 2009.

B. Mihalíková and J. Džurina, “On the oscillation of bounded solutions of systems of neutral differential equations,” in Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference of Mathematics, pp. 189–194, University of Žilina, Slovakia, 1998.

T. Mihály, “On the oscillatory and asymptotic properties of solutions of systems of neutral differential equations,” Nonlinear Analysis, Theory, Methods & Applications, vol. 66, no. 9, pp. 2053–2063, 2007.

R. Olach and H. Šamajová, “Oscillatory properties of nonlinear differential systems with retarded arguments,” Mathematica Slovaca, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 307–316, 2005.

H. Šamajová, “Neutral two-dimensional functional differential systems–-asymptotic properties of solutions,” Studies of the University of Žilina, Mathematical Series, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 49–56, 2005.

S. Staněk, “Oscillation behaviour of solutions of neutral delay differential equations,” Časopis Pro Pěstování Matematiky, vol. 115, no. 1, pp. 92–99, 1990.

L. H. Erbe, Q. Kong, and B. G. Zhang, Oscillation Theory for Functional-Differential Equations, vol. 190 of Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, USA, 1995.

J. Diblík, “A criterion for existence of positive solutions of systems of retarded functional-differential equations,” Nonlinear Analysis, Theory, Methods & Applications, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 327–339, 1999.

P. Marušiak, “Oscillatory properties of functional-differential systems of neutral type,” Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 649–662, 1993.

J. Jaroš and T. Kusano, “On a class of first order nonlinear functional-differential equations of neutral type,” Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 475–490, 1990.