Abstract and Applied Analysis

Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 914264, 11 pages

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/914264

Research Article

New Oscillatory Behavior of Third-Order Nonlinear Delay Dynamic Equations on Time Scales

Li Gao, Quanxin Zhang, and Shouhua Liu

Department of Mathematics, Binzhou University, Shandong 256603, China

Received 18 December 2013; Accepted 22 January 2014; Published 11 March 2014

Academic Editor: Tongxing Li

Copyright © 2014 Li Gao et al. 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.

A class of third-order nonlinear delay dynamic equations on time scales is studied. By using the generalized Riccati transformation and the inequality technique, four new sufficient conditions which ensure that every solution is oscillatory or converges to zero are established. The results obtained essentially improve earlier ones. Some examples are considered to illustrate the main results.

1. Introduction

In recent years, there has been much research activity concerning the oscillation and nonoscillation of solutions of various equations on time scales, and we refer the reader to the studies by Bohner and Saker [1] and Erbe et al. [2, 3]. And there are some results dealing with oscillatory behavior of second-order delay dynamic equations on time scales [4–10]. However, there are few results dealing with the oscillation of the solutions of third-order delay dynamic equations on time scales, we refer the reader to the papers [11–14].

In this paper, we consider new oscillatory behavior of all solutions of the third-order nonlinear delay dynamic equation

where is the ratio of two positive odd integers.

Throughout this paper, we will assume the following hypotheses.

) 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 .(), , are positive and real-valued rd-continuous functions defined on , and , satisfy

() is a strictly increasing and differentiable function, such that

() is a continuous function and there exists some positive constant such that for all .

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 , where is the space of -continuous functions. A solution of (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

If, furthermore, , ,  , then (1) reduces to the third-order linear dynamic equation

If, in addition, , then (1) reduces to the nonlinear delay dynamic equation

In 2005, Erbe et al. [11] considered the general third-order nonlinear dynamic equation (4). By employing the generalized Riccati transformation techniques, they established some sufficient conditions which ensure that every solution of (4) is oscillatory or converges to zero. In 2007, Erbe et al. [12] studied the third-order linear dynamic equation (5), and they obtained Hille and Nehari type oscillation criteria for (5). In 2011, Han et al. [13] extended and improved the results of [12], meanwhile obtaining some oscillatory criteria for (6). In 2014, Gao et al. [14] extended some results of [12, 13] to (1). On this basis, we continue to discuss the oscillation of solutions of (1). By using the generalized Riccati transformation and the inequality technique, we obtain some new sufficient conditions which guarantee that every solution of (1) is oscillatory or converges to zero. Our results will improve some results that have been established in [11–14].

Throughout this paper, we will make use of the following product and quotient rules:

For and a differentiable function , the Cauchy integral of is defined by

The integration by parts formula reads

and improper integrals are defined in the usual way by

For more details, see [15, 16].

2. Several Lemmas

In this section we present several lemmas that will be needed in the proofs of our results in Section 3.

Lemma 1. Assume that is an eventually positive solution of (1), then there exists such that either

or

Proof. Assume that is an eventually positive solution of (1), then there exists such that and for all . From (1); we obtain

Hence, is decreasing and therefore eventually of one sign, so is either eventually positive or eventually negative. We assert that for all .

If there exists such that , we get

Let , then

Integrating (16) from to provides

Then there exists such that . Similarly, , we obtain

which contradicts with . So ; this implies that or for all . This completes the proof.

Lemma 2 (see [17]). Assume that () and the following conditions hold:

(I), where   for some ;(II),  ,    for .

Then, for each , there exists a constant ,   such that

Lemma 3 (see [15]). If is differentiable, then

Lemma 4 (see [12]). Assume that satisfies

Then

where the Taylor monomials are defined recursively by

Lemma 5 (see [18]). Assume that and are nonnegative real numbers. Then

where the equality holds if and only if .

Lemma 6. Assume that is an eventually positive solution of (1) which satisfies case (II) in Lemma 1, if either

or

Then .

Proof. Assume that is an eventually positive solution of (1) which satisfies case (II) in Lemma 1. Then is decreasing and . If ; it is easy to see that there exists such that for all . From (14),

If (25) holds, then integrating (27) from to   , we get

This is contrary to .

If (26) holds, then integrating (1) from to , we get

and hence,

Again, integrating this inequality from to , we obtain

Finally, integrating the last inequality from to , we get

Hence by (26), we obtain , which contradicts . Thus, we get . This completes the proof.

Lemma 7 (see [19]). Let . Then for positive rd-continuous functions , one has

where and .

3. Main Results

New we state and prove the main results of this paper.

Theorem 8. Assume that ()–(), (26), and hold. Furthermore, suppose that there exists a positive function with , and for all sufficiently large , there exists , such that

where . Then every solution of (1) is either oscillatory or converges to zero.

Proof. Assume that (1) has a nonoscillatory solution on . Without loss of generality, we may assume that there exists sufficiently large , such that and for all . In the case when is eventually negative, the proof is similar. By Lemma 1, we see that satisfies either case (I) or case (II).

If case (I) holds, then ,  . Define the function by

Then . By the product rule (7) and the quotient rule (8), we have

Let , from case (I) in Lemma 1, we get ,  . In view of that

and , it is not difficult to see that . Thus, by Lemma 2, for every , there exists with , such that for all ; this implies that

By Lemma 3, we get , that is,

Using (38) and (39),

Let for all ; it is easy to see that ,  ,  ,  . Thus, by Lemma 4, there exists such that for all . Then, we get

From , we obtain . By (41), we get

Therefore, from (38) and (42), there exists with such that

Using (43), we get

that is,

Now, set

where ,   and . Using the equality (24), we obtain

From (47), we obtain

Integrating (48) from to , we get

consequently,

This is contrary to (34).

If case (II) holds, from (26), we get . This completes the proof.

Theorem 9. Assume that ()–(), (26), and hold. Furthermore, suppose that there exist functions , where such that

and has a nonpositive continuous -partial derivative on with respect to the second variable and satisfies, for all sufficiently large , that there exists , such that

where and are defined in Theorem 8. . Then every solution of (1) is either oscillatory or converges to zero.

Proof. Assume that (1) has a nonoscillatory solution on . Without loss of generality, we may assume that there exists sufficiently large , such that and for all . In the case when is eventually negative, the proof is similar. By Lemma 1, we see that satisfies either case (I) or case (II). If case (I) holds, we proceed as in the proof of Theorem 8 and get (45). In (45), replace by and multiply both sides by and integrate with respect to from to , ; we get

Integrating by parts using (51) and (52), we obtain

and so

Now, set

where , and . Using inequality (24), we obtain

Combining (56) and (58), we get

which contradicts (53).

If case (II) holds, from (26), we get . This completes the proof.

If (53) is not held, then we get the following result.

Theorem 10. Assume that ()–(), (26), and hold. Furthermore, suppose that there exist functions , where , such that (51) holds, has a nonpositive continuous -partial derivative on with respect to the second variable and satisfies (52). Assume that

and a real rd-continuous function such that

for , where and are defined in Theorem 8, . Then every solution of (1) is either oscillatory or converges to zero.

Proof. Assume that (1) has a nonoscillatory solution on . Without loss of generality, we may assume that there exists sufficiently large , such that and for all . In the case when is eventually negative, the proof is similar. By Lemma 1, we see that satisfies either case (I) or case (II).

If case (I) holds, proceeding as in the proof of Theorem 9, we get that (56) and (58) hold. Then we conclude that

From (63), we obtain

By (56), we get

We denote

meanwhile noting that (63), we obtain

Now we assert that

holds. Suppose to the contrary that

by (60), there exists a constant such that

from (71); there exists for arbitrary real number such that

By (10), we obtain

From (72), there exists , we get for , so that . Since is arbitrary, we obtain

Selecting a sequence : with satisfying

then there exists a constant such that

for sufficiently large positive integer . From (75), we can easily see

(77) implies that

From (77) and (78), we obtain

that is,

for sufficiently large positive integer , which together with (79) implies

On the other hand, by Lemma 7, we obtain

The above inequality shows that

Hence, (82) implies

This contradicts (61). Therefore (70) holds. Noting for , by using (70), we obtain

This contradicts (62). This completes the proof.

If case (II) holds, from (26), we get . This completes the proof.

Theorem 11. Assume that ()–(), (26), (52), (60), (62), and hold, where ,  , and are defined in Theorem 10. Furthermore suppose that there is a real rd-continuous function such that

for , where is defined in Theorem 8, . Then every solution of (1) is either oscillatory or converges to zero.

Proof. Assume that (1) has a nonoscillatory solution on . Without loss of generality, we may assume that there exists sufficiently large , such that and for all . In the case when is eventually negative, the proof is similar. By Lemma 1, we see that satisfies either case (I) or case (II).

If case (I) holds, proceeding as in the proof of Theorem 9, we get that (56) and (58) hold. We conclude that

From (88), we obtain

Using (87) and (92), we get

Thus, there exists a sequence : with such that

We define and also, as in the proof of Theorem 10. From (56) and (91), we obtain

For the above sequence , we get

Similar to the proof of Theorem 10, we get (70). The rest proofs are the same as the Theorem 10, here omitted. This completes the proof.

Remark 12. From Theorems 9, 10, and 11, we can obtain different sufficient conditions for the oscillation of (1) with different choices of the functions and .

Remark 13. The theorems in this paper are new even for the cases of and .

Example 14. Consider the third-order nonlinear delay dynamic equation

Here , , , , , and .

Conditions ()–() are clearly satisfied, and () holds with .  , and

so (26) holds.

Let , then . Since

so that

Then by Theorem 8, every solution of (97) is either oscillatory or converges to zero. But the other known results cannot be applied in (97).

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions and useful comments that have led to the present improved version of the original paper. This research is supported by Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation (ZR2011AL001 and ZR2013AM003) and the Science Foundation of Binzhou University (BZXYQNLG201009).

References

M. Bohner and S. H. Saker, “Oscillation of second order nonlinear dynamic equations on time scales,” The Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1239–1254, 2004.

L. Erbe, “Oscillation criteria for second order linear equations on a time scale,” The Canadian Applied Mathematics Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 345–375, 2001.

L. Erbe, A. Peterson, and P. Rehák, “Comparison theorems for linear dynamic equations on time scales,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 275, no. 1, pp. 418–438, 2002.

S. Sun, Z. Han, and C. Zhang, “Oscillation of second-order delay dynamic equations on time scales,” Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing, vol. 30, no. 1-2, pp. 459–468, 2009.

Q. Zhang and L. Gao, “Oscillation criteria for second order half-liner delay dynamic equations with damping on time scales,” Scientia Sinica A, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 673–682, 2010 (Chinese).

Q. Zhang, L. Gao, and S. Liu, “Oscillation criteria for second order half-liner delay dynamic equations with damping on time scales(II),” Scientia Sinica A, vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 885–896, 2011 (Chinese).

S. R. Grace, R. P. Agarwal, B. Kaymakçalan, and W. Sae-jie, “Oscillation theorems for second order nonlinear dynamic equations,” Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 205–218, 2010.

R. P. Agarwal, M. Bohner, and S. H. Saker, “Oscillation of second order delay dynamic equations,” The Canadian Applied Mathematics Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2005.

L. Erbe, A. Peterson, and S. H. Saker, “Oscillation criteria for second-order nonlinear delay dynamic equations,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 333, no. 1, pp. 505–522, 2007.

S. R. Grace, M. Bohner, and R. P. Agarwal, “On the oscillation of second-order half-linear dynamic equations,” Journal of Difference Equations and Applications, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 451–460, 2009.

L. Erbe, A. Peterson, and S. H. Saker, “Asymptotic behavior of solutions of a third-order nonlinear dynamic equation on time scales,” Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 181, no. 1, pp. 92–102, 2005.

L. Erbe, A. Peterson, and S. H. Saker, “Hille and Nehari type criteria for third-order dynamic equations,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 329, no. 1, pp. 112–131, 2007.

Z. Han, T. Li, S. Sun, and M. Zhang, “Oscillation behavior of solutions of third-order nonlinear delay dynamic equations on time scales,” Communications of the Korean Mathematical Society, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 499–513, 2011.

L. Gao, Q. Zhang, and S. Liu, “Oscillatory behavior of third-order nonlinear delay dynamic equations on time scales,” Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 256, pp. 104–113, 2014.

M. Bohner and A. Peterson, Dynamic Equations on Time Scales: An Introduction with Applications, Birkhäuser, Boston, Mass, USA, 2001.

M. Bohner and A. Peterson, Advances in Dynamic Equations on Time Scales, Birkhäuser, Boston, Mass, USA, 2003.

Y. Şahiner, “Oscillation of second-order delay differential equations on time scales,” Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, vol. 63, no. 5–7, pp. e1073–e1080, 2005.

G. H. Hardy, J. E. Littlewood, and G. Pólya, Inequalities, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2nd edition, 1998.

A. Tuna and S. Kutukcu, “Some integral inequalities on time scales,” Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 23–29, 2008.