We consider the boundary value problem

where:

(1) m ≥ 3, η_i ∈ (0, 1) and α_i > 0 with ;

(2) g : ℝ → ℝ is continuous and satisfies

and

(3) p : [0, 1] × ℝ² → ℝ is continuous and satisfies

for some C > 0 and β ∈ (0, 1/2).

We obtain infinitely many solutions having specified nodal properties by the bifurcation techniques.

MSC(2000). 34B15, 58E05, 47J10

We consider the nonlinear boundary value problem

where

(H1) m ≥ 3, η_i ∈ (0, 1) and α_i > 0 with

(H2) g : ℝ → ℝ is continuous and satisfies

and

(H3) p : [0, 1] × ℝ² → ℝ is continuous and satisfies

for some C > 0 and β ∈ (0, 1/2).

In order to state our results, we first recall some standard notations to describe the nodal properties of solutions. For any integer, n ≥ 0, Cⁿ[0, 1] will denote the usual Banach space of n-times continuously differentiable functions on [0, 1], with the usual sup-type norm, denoted by || · ||n. Let X := {u ∈ C²[0, 1]: u satisfies (1.2)}, Y := C⁰[0, 1], with the norms | · |₂ and | · |₀, respectively. Let

with the norms | · |_E.

We define a linear operator L : X → Y by

In addition, for any continuous function g : ℝ → ℝ and any u ∈ Y, let g(u) ∈ Y denote the function g(u(x)), x ∈ [0, 1].

Next, we state some notations to describe the nodal properties of solutions of (1.1), see [1] for the details. For any C¹ function u, if u(x₀) = 0, then x₀ is a simple zero of u, if u'(x₀) ≠ 0. Now, for any integer k ≥ 1 and any ν ∈ {+, -}, we define sets consisting of the set of functions u ∈ C²[0, 1] satisfying the following conditions:

(i) u(0) = 0, νu'(0) > 0; (ii) u has only simple zeros in [0, 1] and has exactly k - 1 zeros in (0, 1).

(i) u(0) = 0, νu'(0) > 0; (ii) u' has only simple zeros in (0, 1) and has exactly k such zeros; (iii) u has a zero strictly between each two consecutive zeros of u'.

Remark 1.1 If we add the restriction u' (1) ≠ 0 on the functions in then becomes the set , which used in [1]. The reason we use rather than is that the Equation (1.1) is not autonomous anymore.

In [1, Remarks 2.1 and 2.2], Rynne pointed out that

a. If , then u has exactly one zero between each two consecutive zeros of u', and all zeros of u are simple. Thus, u has at least k - 1 zeros in (0, 1), and at most k zeros in (0, 1];

b. The sets are open in X and disjoint;

c. When considering the multi-point boundary condition (1.2), the sets are in fact more appropriate than the sets .

The main result of this paper is the following

Theorem 1.1 Let (H1)-(H3) hold. Then there exists an integer k₀ ≥ 1 such that for all integers k ≥ k₀ and each ν ∈ {+, -} the problem (1.1), (1.2) has at least one solution .

Superlinear problems with classical boundary value conditions have been considered in many papers, particularly in the second and fourth order cases, with either periodic or separated boundary conditions, see for example [2-11] and the references therein. Specifically, the second order periodic problem is considered in [2,3], while [4-7] consider problems with separated boundary conditions, and results similar to Theorem 1.1 were obtained in each of these papers. The fourth order periodic problem is considered in [8-10]. Rynne [11] and De Coster [12] consider some general higher order problems with separated boundary conditions also.

Calvert and Gupta [13] studied the superlinear three-point boundary value problem

(which is a nonlocal boundary value problem), under the assumptions:

(A0) β ∈ (0, 1) ∪ (1, ∞);

(A1) g : ℝ → ℝ is continuous and satisfies g(s)s > 0, s ≠ 0, is increasing and

(A2) p : [0, 1] × ℝ² → ℝ is a function satisfying the Carathéodory conditions and satisfies

where M₁ : [0, 1] × [0, ∞) → [0, ∞) satisfies the condition: for each s ∈ [0, ∞), M₁(·, s) is integrable on [0, 1] and for each t ∈ [0, 1], M₁(t, ·) is increasing on [0, ∞) with as s → ∞.

Calvert and Gupta used Leray-Schauder degree and some ideas from Henrard [14] and Cappieto et al. [5] to prove the existence of infinity many solutions for (1.7), (1.8). Their results extend the main results in [14].

It is the purpose of this paper to use the global bifurcation theorem, see [15] and [1], to obtain infinity many nodal solutions to m-point boundary value problems (1.1), (1.2) under the assumptions (H1)-(H3). Obviously, our conditions (H2) and (H3) are much weaker than the corresponding restrictions imposed in [13]. Our paper uses some of ideas of Rynne [10], which deals with fourth order two-point boundary value problems. By the way, the proof [10, Lemma 2.8] contains a small error (since ||u″|₀ ≥ ζ₄(0) ⇏ |u″|₀ ≥ ζ₄(R) there). So, we introduce a new function χ (see (3.7)) with

which are required in applying Lemma 3.4.

First, we state some preliminary results related to the linear eigenvalue problem

Denote the spectrum of L by σ(L). The following spectrum results on (2.1) were established by Rynne [1], which extend the main result of Ma and O'Regan [16].

Lemma 2.1. [1, Theorem 3.1] The spectrum σ(L) consists of a strictly increasing sequence of eigenvalues λ_k > 0, k = 1, 2, ..., with corresponding eigenfunctions . In addition,

(i) lim_k→∞ λ_k = ∞;

(ii) , for each k ≥ 1, and ϕ₁ is strictly positive on (0, 1).

Lemma 2.2 [1, Theorem 3.8] For each k ≥ 1, the algebraic multiplicity of the characteristic value λ_k of L^-1 : Y → Y is equal to 1.

For any u ∈ X, we define e(u)(·): [0, 1] → ℝ by

It follows from (1.5) that

For any s ∈ ℝ, let

and for any s ≥ 0, let

We now consider the boundary value problem

where α ∈ [0, 1] is an arbitrary fixed number and λ ∈ ℝ. In the following lemma (λ, u) ∈ ℝ × X will be an arbitrary solution of (3.2).

By (H2), we can choose b₁ ≥ 1 such that

By (1.2), we have the following

Lemma 3.1. Let (H1) hold and let u ∈ X. Then

Lemma 3.2. Let u be a solution of (3.2). Then for any x₀, x₁ ∈ [0, 1],

Proof. Multiply (3.2) by u' and integrate from x₀ to x₁, then we get the desired result. ■

In the following, let us fix R ∈ (0, ∞) so large that R ≥ b₁ and

Lemma 3.3. There exists an increasing function ζ₁ : [0, ∞) → [0, ∞), such that for any solution u of (3.2) with 0 ≤ λ ≤ R and |u(x0)| + |u'(x₀)| ≤ R for some x₀ ∈ [0, 1], we have

Proof. Choose x₁ ∈ [0, 1] such that |u'|₀ = |u'(x₁)|. We obtain from Lemma 3.2 that

Combining this with (3.1), (3.4), it concludes that

with

This implies

■

Define

Clearly, the function is nondecreasing.

Lemma 3.4 Let u be a solution of (3.2) with 0 ≤ λ ≤ R and |u'|₀ ≥ ζ₂(R) for some R > 0. Then, for any x ∈ [0, 1] with |u(x)| ≤ R, we have |u'(x)| ≥ R².

Proof. Suppose, on the contrary that there exists x₀ ∈ (0, 1) such that |u(x₀)| ≤ R and |u'(x₀)| < R². Then

Combining this with λ ≤ R < R + R² and using Lemma 3.3, it concludes that

However, this is impossible if |u'|₀ ≥ ζ₂(R). ■

For fixed R > b₁, let us define

Let us now consider the problem

where θ : ℝ → ℝ is a strictly increasing, C^∞-function with θ(s) = 0, s ≤ 1 and θ(s) = 1, s ≥ 2. The nonlinear term in (3.8) is a continuous function of (λ, u) ∈ ℝ × X and is zero for λ ∈ ℝ, |u'|₀ ≤ χ(λ), so (3.8) becomes a linear eigenvalue problem in this region, and overall the problem can be regarded as a bifurcation (from u = 0) problem.

The next lemma now follows immediately.

Lemma 3.5 The set of solutions (λ, u) of (3.8) with |u'|₀ ≤ χ(λ) is

We also have the following global bifurcation result for (3.8).

Lemma 3.6 For each k ≥ 1 and ν ∈ {+, -}, there exists a connected set of nontrivial solutions of (3.8) such that is closed and connected and:

(i) there exists a neighborhood N_k of (λ_k, 0) in ℝ × E such that ,

(ii) meets infinity in ℝ × E (that is, there exists a sequence , such that |λ_n| + |u_n|_E → ∞).

Proof. Since L^-1 : Y → X exists and is bounded, (3.8) can be rewritten in the form

and since L^-1 can be regarded as a compact operator from Y to E, it is clear that finding a solution (λ, u) of (3.8) in ℝ × E is equivalent to finding a solution of (3.9) in ℝ × E. Now, by the similar method used in the proof of [1, Theorem 4.2]), we may deduce the desired result.

■

Since e(u)(t) σ 0 in (3.8), nodal properties need not be preserved. However, we will rely on preservation of nodal properties for "large" solutions, encapsulated in the following result.

Lemma 3.7 If (λ, u) is a solution of (3.8) with λ ≥ 0 and |u'|₀ > χ(λ), then , for some k ≥ 1 and ν ∈ {+, -}.

Proof. If for any k ≥ 1 and ν, then one of the following cases must occur:

Case 1. u'(0) = 0;

Case 2. u' (τ) = u″(τ) = 0 for some τ ∈ (0, 1].

In the Case 1, u(t) ≡ 0 on [0, 1]. This contradicts the assumption |u'|₀ > χ(λ) ≥ ζ₂(λ). So this case cannot occur.

In the Case 2, we have from (3.8) that

Since |u'|₀ > χ(λ), we have from the definition of θ that

It follows from Lemma 3.4 that |u(τ)| > R ≥ b₁. Combining this with (3.11) and (3.3), it concludes that

which contradicts (3.10). So, Case 2 cannot occur.

Therefore, for any k ≥ 1 and ν ∈ {+, -}. ■

In view of Lemmas 3.5 and 3.7, in the following lemma, we suppose that (λ, u) is an arbitrary nontrivial solution of (3.8) with λ ≥ 0 and , for some k ≥ 1 and ν.

Lemma 3.8. There exists an integer k₀ ≥ 1 (depending only on χ(0)) such that for any nontrivial solution u of (3.8) with λ = 0 and χ(0) ≤ |u'|₀ ≤ 2χ(0), we have

Proof. Let x₁, x₂ be consecutive zeros of u. Then there exists x₃ ∈ (x₁, x₂) such that u'(x₃) = 0, and hence, Lemma 3.4, (3.3), and (3.7) yield that |u(x₃)| > 1. Since

for some τ₁ ∈ (x₃, x₂), τ₂ ∈ (x₁, x₃), it follows that

Notice that |u'|₀ > χ(0) ≥ ζ₂(R) implies that for some k ∈ ∞ and ν ∈ {+, -}, and subsequently, there exist 0 < r₁ < r₂ < · · · < r_k-1, such that

This together with (3.14) imply that

and accordingly, k < |u'|₀/2 + 1 ≤ χ(0) + 1. ■

Now let

Lemma 3.9. Suppose that 0 ≤ λ ≤ R and |u'|₀ ≥ χ(R). Then W_R(u) consists of at least k intervals and at most k + 1 intervals, each of length less than 2/R, and V_R(u) consists of at least k intervals and at most k + 1 intervals.

Proof. Lemma 3.4 implies that |u'(x)| ≥ R² for all x ∈ W_R(u). For any interval I ⊂ W_R(u), u' does not change sign on I, say,

We claim that the length of I is less than 2/R.

In fact, for x, y ∈ I with x > y, say,

Thus,

which implies

The case

can be treated by the similar method. Since u is monotonic in any subinterval containing in W_R(u), the desired result is followed. ■

Lemma 3.10. There exists ζ₃ with lim_R→∞ ζ₃(R) = 0, and η₁ ≥ 0 such that, for any R ≥ η₁, if either

(a) 0 ≤ λ ≤ R and |u'|₀ = 2χ(R), or

(b) λ = R and χ(R) ≤ |u'|₀ ≤ 2χ(R),

then the length of each interval of V_R(u) is less than ζ₃(R).

Proof. Define H = H(R) by

and let ζ₃(R) := 2π/H(R). By (1.4), lim_R→∞ H(R) = ∞, so lim_R→∞ζ₃(R) = 0, and we may choose η₁ ≥ b₁ sufficiently large that H(R) > 0 for all R ≥ η₁.

We firstly show that

In fact, if |u(x)| ≤ R on [0, 1], then Lemma 3.4 yields that either

or

However, these contradict the boundary conditions (1.2), since (H1) implies u'(s₀) = 0 for some s₀ ∈ (0, 1). Therefore, (3.15) is valid.

Now, Let us choose x₀, x₂ such that either

(1) u(x₀) = u(x₂) = R and u > R on (x₀, x₂) or

(2) u(x₀) = R, x₂ = 1 and u > R on (x₀, 1].

(the case of intervals on which u < 0 is similar). Let

By (3.8) and the construction of H(R), if either (a) or (b) holds then

and by Lemma 3.4, u'(x₀) > 0, and u'(x₂) < 0, if x₂ < 1.

Suppose, now on the contrary that x₂ - x₀ > ζ₃(R), that is, l := 2π/(x₂ - x₀) < H(R). Defining x₁ = (x₀ + x₂)/2 and

we have

and hence

and this contradiction shows that x₂ - x₀ ≤ ζ₃(R), which proves the lemma.

■

Now, we are in the position to prove Theorem 1.1.

Proof of Theorem 1.1 Now, choose an arbitrary integer k ≥ k₀ and ν ∈ {+, -}, and choose Λ > max{η₁, μ_k} (Here, we assume Λ > η₁, so that Lemma 3.10 could be applied!) such that

Notice that Lemma 3.9 implies that if |u'|₀ ≥ χ(Λ), then the length of each interval of W_Λ(u) is less than for 0 ≤ λ ≤ Λ. This together with (3.16) and Lemma 3.10 imply that there exists no solution (λ, u) of (3.8), which satisfies either

(a) 0 ≤ λ ≤ Λ and |u'|₀ = 2χ(Λ) or

(b) λ = Λ and χ(Λ) ≤ |u'|₀ ≤ 2χ(Λ).

Now, let us denote

It follows from Lemma 3.5 that "enters" B through the set D₁, while from Lemma 3.7, . Thus, by Lemma 3.6 and the fact

must "leave" B. (Suppose, on the contrary that does not "leave" B, then

which contradicts the fact that joins (μ_k, 0) to infinity in ℝ × E.) Since is connected, it must intersect ∂B. However, Lemmas 3.8-3.10 (together with (3.16)) show that the only portion of ∂B (other than D₁), which can intersect is D₂. Thus, there exists a point , and clearly provides the desired solution of (1.1)-(1.2).

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

The authors declare that the work was realized in collaboration with same responsibility. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

The authors are grateful to the anonymous referee for his/her valuable suggestions. Supported by the NSFC(No.11061030), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Gansu Universities.

1. Rynne, BP: Spectral properties and nodal solutions for second-order, m-point, boundary value problems. Nonlinear Anal. Theory Method Appl. 67(12), 3318–3327 (2007). Publisher Full Text

2. Cappieto, A, Mawhin, J, Zanolin, F: A continuation approach to superlinear periodic boundary value problems. J Diff Equ. 88, 347–395 (1990). Publisher Full Text

3. Ding, T, Zanolin, F: Periodic solutions of Duffing's equation with superquadratic potential. J. Diff. Equ. 97, 328–378 (1992). Publisher Full Text

4. Pimbley, GH Jr.: A superlinear Sturm-Liouville problem. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 103, 229–248 (1962). Publisher Full Text

5. Cappieto, A, Henrard, M, Mawhin, J, Zanolin, F: A continuation approach to some forced superlinear Sturm-Liouville boundary value problems. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 3, 81–100 (1994)

6. Cappieto, A, Mawhin, J, Zanolin, F: On the existence of two solutions with a prescribed number of zeros for a superlinear two point boundary value problem. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 6, 175–188 (1995)

7. Ma, R, Thompson, B: Multiplicity results for second-order two-point boundary value problems with superlinear or sublinear nonlinearities. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 303(2), 726–735 (2005). Publisher Full Text

8. Mawhin, J, Zanolin, F: A continuation approach to fourth order superlinear periodic boundary value problems. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 2, 55–74 (1993)

9. Conti, M, Terracini, S, Verzini, G: Infinitely many solutions to fourth order superlinear periodic problems. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 356, 3283–3300 (2004). Publisher Full Text

10. Rynne, BP: Infinitely many solutions of superlinear fourth order boundary value problems. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 19(2), 303–312 (2002)

11. Rynne, BP: Global bifurcation for 2mth order boundary value problems and infinitely many solutions of superlinear problems. J. Diff. Equ. 188(2), 461–472 (2003). Publisher Full Text

12. De Coster, C, Gaudenzi, M: On the existence of infinitely many solutions for superlinear nth order boundary value problems. Nonlinear World. 4, 505–524 (1997)

13. Calverta, B, Gupta, CP: Multiple solutions for a super-linear three-point boundary value problem. Nonlinear Anal. Theory Method Appl. 50, 115–128 (2002). Publisher Full Text

14. Henrard, M: Topological degree in boundary value problems: existence and multiplicity results for second-order differential equations. In: Henrard ME (ed.) Thesis,p. 123. Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium (1995)

15. Rabinowitz, PH: Some global results for nonlinear eigenvalue problems. J Funct Anal. 7(3), 487–513 (1971). Publisher Full Text

16. Ma, R, O'Regan, D: Nodal solutions for second-order m-point boundary value problems with nonlinearities across several eigenvalues. Nonlinear Anal Theory Method Appl. 64, 1562–1577 (2006). Publisher Full Text