Abstract
The spaces of semiperiodic sequences and functions are examined in the relationship to the closely related notions of almostperiodicity, quasiperiodicity and periodicity. Besides the main theorems, several illustrative examples of this type are supplied. As an application, the existence and uniqueness results are formulated for semiperiodic solutions of quasilinear difference and differential equations.
MSC: 34C15, 34C27, 34K14, 39A10, 42A16, 42A75.
Keywords:
semiperiodic sequences; semiperiodic functions; semiperiodic solutions; difference equations; differential equationsIntroduction
In [1], it is observed that although the set of periodic sequences forms a linear space, its uniform closure is not the space of almostperiodic sequences but of semiperiodic sequences. In fact, the space of semiperiodic sequences was shown there to be Banach.
The whole Sections I.6, I.7 in [2] and Sections II.4, II.5 in [3] are devoted to semiperiodic continuous functions, called there limit periodic functions (cf. also [[4], p.129]). This class was shown there to be identical with the one of uniformly almostperiodic functions with oneterm ℚbase and, in case of integral oneterm base, it reduces to the one of purely periodic functions. For some more references concerning limit periodic functions, see, e.g., [5,6]. In fact, limit periodic functions were already considered by Bohr in 1925, as pointed out in [[3], p.113].
In the following section, we define analogously to [1] the class of semiperiodic continuous functions (with values in a Banach space) and show that it is the same as the class of limit periodic functions considered in [2,3] (see Theorem 1 below). Let us note that many different notions with the same name (i.e., semiperiodic), like functions satisfying Floquet boundary conditions (see, e.g., [7,8]) or those describing Bloch waves (see, e.g., [7], and the references therein), exist in the literature (cf. also [9,10]).
Hence, after giving a definition of semiperiodic functions, which is analogous to [1], we prove that the uniform closure of the set of periodic functions is again the one of semiperiodic functions. Unlike in the discrete case, the space of semiperiodic functions is, however, not linear and so not Banach. In order to clarify transparently the position of semiperiodic sequences and functions in the hierarchy of closely related spaces, we decided to illustrate it by means of Venn’s diagrams. Thus, the spaces of almostperiodic, semiperiodic, quasiperiodic and periodic functions and sequences and some of their sums (in the continuous case) are compared in this way. For this, the semiperiodicity is considered by means of the FourierBohr coefficients.
There are even more general interesting classes of almostperiodic functions (for their hierarchy, see, e.g., [11,12]), but for our needs here only those which are uniformly (Bohr) a.p. will be taken into account. It is well known that uniformly continuous Stepanov a.p. functions are Bohr a.p. (see, e.g., [4,11]). Another nontraditional characterization of Bohr almostperiodicity was recently done in [13], namely that Stepanov a.p. functions with Stepanov a.p. derivatives are also Bohr a.p.
In order to make applications to difference and differential equations, we still need to define the notion of uniform semiperiodicity and prove that the associated Nemystkii operators map the set of semiperiodic sequences into themselves. This is unfortunately not true in the case of functions. On this basis, we finally give two examples about the existence of semiperiodic solutions in the form of theorems, both in the discrete and in the continuous cases. Although many various sorts of periodictype solutions were investigated (for their panorama, see [7]), as far as we know, semiperiodic solutions in the sense of definitions below of difference or differential equations have been only considered in [14] and in a certain sense also in [5]. Nevertheless, as pointed out in [14], Johnson [15] and Millionshchikov [16] have already given examples of limit periodic differential equations which admit almost automorphic solutions, but not limit periodic ones.
Before passing to semiperiodic functions in the next section, it will be convenient to mention some facts about semiperiodic sequences.
Hence, denoting as usually by ℤ the set of (positive) integers and letting to be a Banach space endowed with the norm , let us recall the definition of semiperiodic sequences (cf.[1]).
Definition 1 A sequence is called semiperiodic (s.p.) if
One can readily check that Definition 1 can be regarded as a discrete version of Definition 2 below for semiperiodic functions. Similarly, the definition of quasiperiodic (q.p.) sequences can be regarded as a discretized (i.e., restricted to ℤ) version of the one for quasiperiodic functions recalled below. A q.p. extending function has the FourierBohr expansion with to be finitely generated which is also true for q.p. sequences. For more properties and details concerning q.p. functions, see, e.g., [17].
In this light, since the analogy of Theorem 2 below holds for sequences (see Remark 4) and since the discrete (i.e., restricted to ℤ) analogies of Examples 13 below can be constructed, one can illustrate the relationship of these classes by means of Venn’s diagram in Figure 1. For more properties about s.p. sequences, see, e.g., [1,18,19].
Figure 1. Venn’s diagram: discrete case.
On the other hand, the situation in Figure 1 is much simpler than in Figure 2 for continuous functions, because under the restriction to ℤ, the sum of (semi)periodic sequences remains (semi)periodic while Stepanov almostperiodic (a.p.) sequences were shown in [20] to coincide with Bohr a.p. sequences.
Figure 2. Venn’s diagram: continuous case.
Continuous semiperiodic functions
Let be the set of continuous Tperiodic functions,
be the set of periodic functions and be the set of continuous bounded functions. The last one is a Banach space with the uniform norm (written ).
Definition 2 A continuous function is said to be semiperiodic (s.p.) if
Such a T will be called an εsemiperiod of f.
Let denote the set of semiperiodic functions.
It is easy to see from the definition that every continuous periodic function is semiperiodic. Moreover, if f is semiperiodic, then f is uniformly (Bohr) almostperiodic (i.e., ), and so it is bounded. Thus, we can rewrite Definition 2 as follows.
Definition 3 A (bounded) continuous function is said to be semiperiodic (s.p.) if
We have
From this, we can consider as a metric space, when using
As we will see later, is not a linear space, but is a complete metric space.
Lemma 1Let, andbe anεsemiperiod off. Then there exists a continuousperiodic functionφs.t.
Proof Consider a periodic function ψ such that its restriction to is the same as the one of f. For each , we can write with and . Thus, we get
Since ψ is not necessarily continuous, consider still such that, for any , . Define a periodic continuous function φ which is equal to ψ on and which is linear on . For , we obtain
and subsequently
□
Remark 1 For , unlike for semiperiodic functions in the sense of Definition 2 or Definition 3, in fact the same lemma was already proved in [[3], pp.114115], but for limit periodic functions. As already pointed out in the foregoing section, these classes will be shown to coincide by Theorem 1 below, whose proof is just based on Lemma 1.
We are ready to give the first theorem.
Theorem 1is the closure ofin the supnorm.
Proof Assume firstly that f is s.p. Taking in Lemma 1 , we obtain a sequence of periodic functions s.t. .
Reversely, assume that f is in the closure of the set of continuous Tperiodic functions. Then, for any , we can find a periodic φ s.t. . Let T be its period. Then, for any ,
□
Remark 2 In view of Theorem 1, one can now also define a semiperiodic function, equivalently w.r.t. Definition 2 and Definition 3, as the uniform limit of a uniformly convergent sequence of continuous purely periodic functions. This was so done, e.g., in [2,3,5,6,14].
In the following proposition, we look for the link between s.p. sequences and functions. Given a sequence , we set , the function s.t. its restriction to ℤ is and which is linear on each , , i.e.,
where is the fractional part of u, i.e., and .
Proposition 1Let. All the following statements are equivalent:
1. is s.p. with a semiperiod in ℕ,
2. there exists a s.p. function with a semiperiod in ℕ whose restriction to ℤ is,
Proof For (1) ⇒ (2), take in (2). For (2) ⇒ (3), take T as an εsemiperiod for the function f in (2). Then we have
For (3) ⇒ (1), given T as an εsemiperiod of , we have for all
□
Let us now consider the Fourier expansion of a semiperiodic function. Recall that every a.p. function has the FourierBohr expansion,
where
and
is the mean operator (see, e.g., [3,4,11]). It follows from the above formula that is 1Lipschizian (and so it is continuous) from to .
Set and denote by the ℤmodulus generated by . Recall that an a.p. function is quasiperiodic (q.p.) if has a finite ℤbasis, and that T is a period of f if and only if (see, e.g., [4,17]).
Proposition 2 (for , cf. [[2], p.32])
Thenfis s.p.
Proof Consider
Clearly, if , then is a period of the nth term. The same is obviously true for . Thus, is a period of which is so periodic. Moreover,
which already proves that f is s.p. □
The following result is also, at least for , well known (see, e.g., [14], [[3], pp.118119], and the references therein).
Lemma 2If, then there existss.t.
Proof Let us consider λ and μ s.t. and and a sequence of periodic functions s.t. , uniformly. It follows from the continuity that, for sufficiently large N, and , but since is periodic, it follows that . □
Remark 3
1. This proof also demonstrates that, for a sufficiently large n, the period of satisfies .
2. It indicates that is not a linear space. For instance, a simple q.p. function is not s.p. although it is a sum of two s.p. functions. On the other hand, the sum of two a.p. functions is trivially a.p.
Example 1 On the basis of Proposition 2 and Lemma 2, we can easily give the following example of a purely s.p. (i.e., not periodic) function:
Moreover, one can readily check that the function f can be obtained as a uniform limit of the sequence , where is a continuous periodic function,
Theorem 2Every s.p. function which is also q.p. is in fact periodic:
Proof Let . Since f is q.p., we can find such that
Set . is an additive subgroup of ℝ. Since , we can find s.t. . Set . is another additive subgroup of ℝ, so is a subgroup of which contains . Since G is a subgroup of , there exist and positive ℤindependent real numbers s.t.
Let us show that . Once we have it, we can conclude that which proves that is a period of f. Since, for each i, , we know that, for each i, we can find s.t. . This proves that , for , which is impossible. □
Remark 4 In view of Proposition 1 and its analogy for q.p. sequences mentioned in the foregoing section, a discrete (i.e., restricted to ℤ) analogy of Theorem 2 holds for sequences.
Example 2 As an example of a function which is almostperiodic (a.p.) but neither quasiperiodic nor a sum of semiperiodic functions, consider
where the ’s are constructed by induction, say for all k,
We will prove that we cannot find a finite set of numbers s.t.
Firstly, assume this has already been proved. Then if f is a sum of semiperiodic functions , say , we could find, according to Lemma 2, for each j a s.t. . This implies that
which is not true. If f were quasiperiodic, we could find s.t.
which is again wrong. Now, we can make the first part of the proof. So, let us assume
We have . Thus, for any , we can find s.t.
Let us now consider the square matrix
If it is invertible, we can express linearly (with rational coefficients) depending on . This proves that should be a (rational) linear combination of , which is not true.
Assuming that the matrix is singular, its rows are linearly dependent. So, we can find s.t. , for each j. Multiplying it by and then summing over j, we obtain which is not possible.
Example 3 As an example of a function which is quasiperiodic (q.p.) but not a sum of periodic functions, consider
Here , thus , i.e., f is q.p. Assume that f is a sum of a finite number of periodic functions. Let be the periods. According to [21], we have
where
An easy calculation yields
by which
Since ℕ is infinite, we can find two different integers m, n with the same . Thus, there exist two integers , s.t.
This implies that , and we obtain
which is not possible.
Remark 5 We know (see, e.g., [4,11]) that every almostperiodic (a.p.) f is a uniform limit of a sequence of a finite sum of periodic functions . Writing
we can see that every a.p. function can be expressed as a series of periodic functions. Reversely, a uniformly convergent series of periodic functions is a.p.
Summing up the above observations, we can present in Figure 2 Venn’s diagram for continuous functions under our investigation. The classes of almostperiodic, semiperiodic and quasiperiodic functions are in circles, while sums of semiperiodic functions are in the ellipse. Sums of periodic functions are in the intersection of the classes of quasiperiodic functions and sums of semiperiodic functions. In fact, one can check by similar arguments as in the proof of Theorem 2 that a sum of periodic functions is exactly the sum of semiperiodic functions which is quasiperiodic. Periodic functions are, according to Theorem 2, at the same time semiperiodic and quasiperiodic. Purely semiperiodic functions are in the grey strip.
Now, consider the primitives of s.p. functions.
Lemma 3Assume thatfis a.p. and consider. Assume that there existsands.t.,
Indeed, φ is necessarily differentiable, and integrating the equality , we obtain
because φ is bounded. This already proves Lemma 3. It is well known that is a necessary and sufficient condition for F to be periodic, provided f is so. It is, however, not sufficient in the case of a.p. functions. For more details, see, e.g., [22]. Despite the approximation by periodic functions, it is also not sufficient in the case of s.p. functions, as demonstrated by the following example.
Example 4 Let us consider the s.p. function
We have a normal convergence, so the series exists and defines a s.p. function for which . A formal candidate to be its primitive is
We have a uniform convergence on each compact set, because . Thus, this series also exists and defines a primitive of f. If F were s.p., it should be a.p. which is obviously not true, because the Parseval equality does not apply.
Uniformly semiperiodic functions with respect to a parameter
Definition 4 Let , where M is a subset of . We say that f is uniformly semiperiodic (u.s.p.) if for any compact set , we have
Since such a function is u.a.p., we know that given a compact subset K of M, f is bounded and uniformly continuous on .
Proposition 3Any u.s.p. function is a uniform limit, on each, of a sequence of continuous functions which are periodic w.r.t. their first variables.
Proof Let T be given by the definition and consider a Tperiodic function such that its restriction to is the same as the one of . For each , we can write with and . Thus, we get
uniformly w.r.t. . Since φ is not necessarily continuous, consider still such that, for any and any , . This is possible, because K is compact. Define a Tperiodic continuous function which is equal to on and which is linear on . For , we obtain
and subsequently
□
Remark 6 Assume that f is LLipschitzian w.r.t. its second variable. It follows from the proof that so is φ, from which we can deduce the same for ψ. So, a u.s.p. function Lipschitzian w.r.t. its second variable can be approximated uniformly on each (K compact) by a sequence of functions which are periodic w.r.t. their first variables and Lipschitzian (with the same constant L) w.r.t. their second variables.
Remark 7 It is possible to define the same for the discrete case and to obtain analogous results. This will be omitted here, because the proofs are quite similar.
Concerning the Nemytskii operator, in the continuous case, it is not true that if f is u.s.p. and ϕ is s.p., then is s.p. As an example, take and . On the other hand, it is true in the discrete case.
Proposition 4Assume thatis s.p. and thatis s.p. with the range in. Then the sequenceis s.p.
Proof Set . Since is a.p., K is a compact subset of M. So, given , we can find s.t.
Set . We know that we can find two integers , s.t.
Let T be a common multiplier of and (for instance, ). The last inequalities remain true, when replacing every by T. Thus, for any ,
□
For an alternative proof, one can employ the approximation by periodic sequences.
Semiperiodic solutions of difference equations
In this section, we are interested in semiperiodic solutions of the difference equation in ,
where A is a real square matrix.
Theorem 3Assuming thatAhas no eigenvalues with modulus one and thatfis u.s.p. and Lipschitzian w.r.t. the second variable with a sufficiently small constant, there exists a unique semiperiodic solution for the difference equation (1).
Proof We know (see, e.g., Proposition 2.2 in [23]) that, for each a.p. sequence with values in , there exists a unique a.p. solution to
Denoting by the Banach space of a.p. sequences (cf.[23]), the linear operator , determined by the lefthand side of (2), is obviously invertible. Since T is continuous satisfying , we know from the wellknown Banach theorem that must be continuous as well.
Now, consider a s.p. sequence with values in . We are firstly interested in the a.p. solution to the equation
By the hypothesis imposed on f and in view of Proposition 4, is s.p. Therefore, there exists a unique a.p. solution of (3) (see again Proposition 2.2 in [23]). We can now consider . Since maps the space of periodic sequences into itself, by the unique solvability of (3) in and by the continuity of , the mapping
maps into itself. Denote by L the Lipschitz constant to all . It is easy to see that is a Lipschitz constant for .
Assuming that , the mapping T is a contraction in the Banach space . So it has a unique fixed point representing the desired s.p. solution of (1). □
Remark 8 Using a triangular form of −A (like Jordan’s one) (see, e.g., [[4], Proposition 6.14 and Remark 6.26]), it is possible to compute explicitly a constant c s.t. . For such a constant, it is sufficient to assume in order to justify Theorem 3.
Semiperiodic solutions of differential equations
Let us consider the equation
We assume that a real square matrix A has an exponential dichotomy property, i.e., that there exist a projection matrix P () and constants , , such that
where X is the fundamental matrix of satisfying , i.e., the unit matrix (see, e.g., [[8], Chapter III.5]). Furthermore, let be u.s.p. with respect to the variable x.
Setting
where
is the Green function associated to A, and , stand for the corresponding spectral projections on the invariant subspaces of A, we can formulate the following theorem.
Theorem 4Assume still thatfisLLipschitzian w.r.t. the second variable with. Then there exists a unique semiperiodic solution of the equation (4).
Proof Let be a sequence of periodic functions w.r.t. their first variables s.t. , uniformly. We can assume without any loss of generality (see Remark 3) that each is LLipschitzian w.r.t. its second variable. Let be the unique bounded (in fact, periodic) solution of the equation
and be the unique bounded solution of (4). Such solutions exist; for more details, see, e.g., [[8], Chapter III.5].
It will be sufficient to show that , uniformly.
We have the integral representations (see again, e.g., [[8], Chapter III.5])
It can be easily checked that, in view of uniqueness of bounded solutions, the periods of are also periods of . It holds
Now, let us prove that there exists a uniform estimate to all . We have
and
Thus,
where R is the desired bound. Putting , we arrive at
Concluding remarks
Remark 9 Because of the righthand side in (4), even in the scalar case, Theorem 4 cannot be deduced from the results in [14], where the scalar equation was considered.
Remark 10 Since Theorem 3 and Theorem 4 represent only illustrative examples, the obtained existence and uniqueness criteria were tendentiously very simple. More sophisticated situations will be considered by ourselves elsewhere.
Remark 11 Analogously as in [24,25], where almostperiodic solutions were under consideration, it would be interesting to obtain similar results concerning semiperiodic solutions of monotone systems or those treated by means of variational methods.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
All authors contributed equally in this article. They read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
The first author was supported by the project AMathNet Applied Mathematics Knowledge Transfer Network No CZ.1.07/2.4.00/17.0100.
References

Berg, JD, Wilansky, A: Periodic, almostperiodic, and semiperiodic sequences. Mich. Math. J.. 9, 363–368 (1962)

Besicovitch, AS: Almost Periodic Functions, Dover, New York (1954)

Levitan, BM: AlmostPeriodic Functions, GITTL, Moscow (1953) in Russian

Corduneanu, C: Almost Periodic Oscillations and Waves, Springer, Berlin (2009)

Bell, H, Meyer, KR: Limit periodic functions, adding machines, and solenoids. J. Dyn. Differ. Equ.. 7, 409–422 (1995). Publisher Full Text

Schwarz, W, Spilker, J: Arithmetical Functions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)

Andres, J: Periodictype solutions of differential inclusions. In: Baswell AR (ed.) Advances in Mathematical Research, pp. 295–353. Nova Sciences Publishers, New York (2009)

Andres, J, Górniewicz, L: Topological Fixed Point Principles for Boundary Value Problems, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (2003)

Ichihara, N, Ishii, H: Asymptotic solutions of HamiltonJacobi equations with semiperiodic Hamiltonians. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ.. 33, 784–807 (2008). Publisher Full Text

Lorenz, EN: Noisy periodicity and reverse bifurcation. Nonlinear Dynamics. 282–291 (1980)

Andres, J, Bersani, AM, Grande, RF: Hierarchy of almostperiodic function spaces. Rend. Mat. Appl.. 26, 121–188 (2006)

Corduneanu, C: A scale of almost periodic function spaces. Differ. Integral Equ.. 24, 1–28 (2011)

Andres, J, Pennequin, D: On the nonexistence of purely Stepanov almostperiodic solutions of ordinary differential equations. Proc. Am. Math. Soc.. 140, 2825–2834 (2012). Publisher Full Text

Alonso, AI, Obaya, R, Ortega, R: Differential equations with limitperiodic forcings. Proc. Am. Math. Soc.. 131, 851–857 (2002)

Johnson, RA: On almostperiodic linear differential systems of Milionshchikov and Vinograd. J. Math. Anal. Appl.. 85, 452–460 (1982). Publisher Full Text

Millionshchikov, VM: Proof of the existence of irregular systems of linear differential equations with almost periodic coefficients. Differ. Equ.. 4, 203–205 (1968)

Blot, J, Pennequin, D: Spaces of quasiperiodic functions and oscillations in differential equations. Acta Appl. Math.. 65, 83–113 (2001). Publisher Full Text

Goes, G: FourierStieltjes transforms of discrete measures; periodic and semiperiodic functions. Math. Ann.. 174, 148–156 (1967). Publisher Full Text

Jiménez, MN: Multipliers on the space of semiperiodic sequences. Trans. Am. Math. Soc.. 291, 801–811 (1985)

Andres, J, Pennequin, D: On Stepanov almostperiodic oscillations and their discretizations. J. Differ. Equ. Appl.. 18, 1665–1682 (2012). Publisher Full Text

Mortola, S, Peirone, R: The sum of periodic functions. Boll. Unione Mat. Ital.. 8, 393–396 (1999)

Andres, J, Bednařík, D, Pastor, K: On the notion of derivoperiodicity. J. Math. Anal. Appl.. 303, 405–417 (2005). Publisher Full Text

Pennequin, D: Existence of almost periodic solutions of discrete time equations. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst.. 7, 51–60 (2001)

Blot, J, Cieutat, P, Mawhin, J: Almost periodic oscillations of monotone secondorder systems. Adv. Differ. Equ.. 2, 693–714 (1997)

Mawhin, J: Bounded and almost periodic solutions of nonlinear differential equations: variational vs nonvariational approach. In: Ioffe A, Reich S, Shafrir I (eds.) Calculus of Variations and Differential Equations, pp. 167–184. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (1999)