Skip to main content

Solutions and nonnegative solutions for a weighted variable exponent impulsive integro-differential system with multi-point and integral mixed boundary value problems

Abstract

This paper investigates the existence of solutions for a weighted p(t)-Laplacian impulsive integro-differential system with multi-point and integral mixed boundary value problems via Leray-Schauder’s degree; sufficient conditions for the existence of solutions are given. Moreover, we get the existence of nonnegative solutions.

MSC:34B37.

1 Introduction

In this paper, we consider the existence of solutions and nonnegative solutions for the following weighted p(t)-Laplacian integro-differential system:

p ( t ) u+f ( t , u , ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u , S ( u ) , T ( u ) ) =0,t(0,1),t t i ,
(1)

where u:[0,1] R N , f(,,,,):[0,1]× R N × R N × R N × R N R N , t i (0,1), i=1,,k, with the following impulsive boundary value conditions:

lim t t i + u(t) lim t t i u(t)= A i ( lim t t i u ( t ) , lim t t i ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u ( t ) ) ,i=1,,k,
(2)
lim t t i + w ( t ) | u | p ( t ) 2 u ( t ) lim t t i w ( t ) | u | p ( t ) 2 u ( t ) = B i ( lim t t i u ( t ) , lim t t i ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u ( t ) ) , i = 1 , , k ,
(3)
u(0)= 0 1 g(t)u(t)dt,u(1)= = 1 m 2 α u( ξ ) 0 1 h(t)u(t)dt,
(4)

where pC([0,1],R) and p(t)>1, p ( t ) u:= ( w ( t ) | u | p ( t ) 2 u ) is called the weighted p(t)-Laplacian; 0< t 1 < t 2 << t k <1, 0< ξ 1 << ξ m 2 <1; α 0 (=1,,m2); g L 1 [0,1] is nonnegative, 0 1 g(t)dt=σ[0,1]; h L 1 [0,1], 0 1 h(t)dt=δ; A i , B i C( R N × R N , R N ); T and S are linear operators defined by (Su)(t)= 0 1 h (t,s)u(s)ds, (Tu)(t)= 0 t k (t,s)u(s)ds, t[0,1], where k , h C([0,1]×[0,1],R).

If σ<1 and = 1 m 2 α δ1, we say the problem is nonresonant, but if σ=1 or = 1 m 2 α δ=1, we say the problem is resonant.

Throughout the paper, o(1) means functions which are uniformly convergent to 0 (as n+); for any v R N , v j will denote the j th component of v; the inner product in R N will be denoted by ,, || will denote the absolute value and the Euclidean norm on R N . Denote J=[0,1], J =(0,1){ t 1 ,, t k }, J 0 =[ t 0 , t 1 ], J i =( t i , t i + 1 ], i=1,,k, where t 0 =0, t k + 1 =1. Denote by J i o the interior of J i , i=0,1,,k. Let

PC ( J , R N ) = { x : J R N | x C ( J i , R N ) , i = 0 , 1 , , k and  lim t t i + x ( t )  exists for  i = 1 , , k } ,

wPC(J,R) satisfy 0<w(t), t(0,1){ t 1 ,, t k }, and ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 L 1 (0,1),

P C 1 ( J , R N ) = { x P C ( J , R N ) | x C ( J i o , R N ) , lim t t i + ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 x ( t ) and  lim t t i + 1 ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 x ( t )  exists for  i = 0 , 1 , , k } .

For any x=( x 1 ,, x N )PC(J, R N ), denote | x i | 0 =sup{| x i (t)|t J }.

Obviously, PC(J, R N ) is a Banach space with the norm x 0 = ( i = 1 N | x i | 0 2 ) 1 2 , and P C 1 (J, R N ) is a Banach space with the norm x 1 = x 0 + ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 x 0 . Denote L 1 = L 1 (J, R N ) with the norm

x L 1 = ( i = 1 N | x i | L 1 2 ) 1 2 ,x L 1 , where  | x i | L 1 = 0 1 | x i ( t ) | dt.

In the following, PC(J, R N ) and P C 1 (J, R N ) will be simply denoted by PC and P C 1 , respectively. We denote

u ( t i + ) = lim t t i + u ( t ) , u ( t i ) = lim t t i u ( t ) , w ( 0 ) | u | p ( 0 ) 2 u ( 0 ) = lim t 0 + w ( t ) | u | p ( t ) 2 u ( t ) , w ( 1 ) | u | p ( 1 ) 2 u ( 1 ) = lim t 1 w ( t ) | u | p ( t ) 2 u ( t ) , A i = A i ( lim t t i u ( t ) , lim t t i ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u ( t ) ) , i = 1 , , k , B i = B i ( lim t t i u ( t ) , lim t t i ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u ( t ) ) , i = 1 , , k .

The study of differential equations and variational problems with nonstandard p(t)-growth conditions has attracted more and more interest in recent years (see [14]). The applied background of these kinds of problems includes nonlinear elasticity theory [4], electro-rheological fluids [1, 3], and image processing [2]. Many results have been obtained on these kinds of problems; see, for example, [515]. Recently, the applications of variable exponent analysis in image restoration have attracted more and more attention [1619]. If p(t)p (a constant), (1)-(4) becomes the well-known p-Laplacian problem. If p(t) is a general function, one can see easily p ( t ) cu c p ( t ) 1 ( p ( t ) u) in general, but p cu= c p 1 ( p u), so p ( t ) represents a non-homogeneity and possesses more nonlinearity, thus p ( t ) is more complicated than p . For example:

  1. (a)

    If Ω R N is a bounded domain, the Rayleigh quotient

    λ p ( x ) = inf u W 0 1 , p ( x ) ( Ω ) { 0 } Ω 1 p ( x ) | u | p ( x ) d x Ω 1 p ( x ) | u | p ( x ) d x

is zero in general, and only under some special conditions λ p ( x ) >0 (see [9]), when ΩR (N=1) is an interval, the results show that λ p ( x ) >0 if and only if p(x) is monotone. But the property of λ p >0 is very important in the study of p-Laplacian problems, for example, in [20], the authors use this property to deal with the existence of solutions.

  1. (b)

    If w(t)1 and p(t)p (a constant) and p u>0, then u is concave, this property is used extensively in the study of one-dimensional p-Laplacian problems (see [21]), but it is invalid for p ( t ) . It is another difference between p and p ( t ) .

In recent years, many results have been devoted to the existence of solutions for the Laplacian impulsive differential equation boundary value problems; see, for example, [2229]. There are some methods to deal with these problems, for example, sub-super-solution method, fixed point theorem, monotone iterative method, coincidence degree. Because of the nonlinear property of p , results on the existence of solutions for p-Laplacian impulsive differential equation boundary value problems are rare (see [3033]). In [34], using the coincidence degree method, the present author investigates the existence of solutions for p(r)-Laplacian impulsive differential equation with multi-point boundary value conditions, when the problem is nonresonant. Integral boundary conditions for evolution problems have various applications in chemical engineering, thermo-elasticity, underground water flow and population dynamics. There are many papers on the differential equations with integral boundary value problems; see, for example, [3538].

In this paper, when p(t) is a general function, we investigate the existence of solutions and nonnegative solutions for the weighted p(t)-Laplacian impulsive integro-differential system with integral and multi-point boundary value conditions. Results on these kinds of problems are rare. Our results contain both of the cases of resonance and nonresonance. Our method is based upon Leray-Schauder’s degree. The homotopy transformation used in [34] is unsuitable for this paper. Moreover, this paper will consider the existence of (1) with (2), (4) and the following impulsive condition:

lim t t i + ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u ( t ) lim t t i ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u ( t ) = D i ( lim t t i u ( t ) , lim t t i ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u ( t ) ) , i = 1 , , k ,
(5)

where D i C( R N × R N , R N ), the impulsive condition (5) is called a linear impulsive condition (LI for short), and (3) is called a nonlinear impulsive condition (NLI for short). In general, p-Laplacian impulsive problems have two kinds of impulsive conditions, including LI and NLI; but Laplacian impulsive problems only have LI in general. It is another difference between p-Laplacian impulsive problems and Laplacian impulsive problems. Moreover, since the Rayleigh quotient λ p ( x ) =0 in general and the p(t)-Laplacian is non-homogeneity, when we deal with the existence of solutions of variable exponent impulsive problems like (1)-(4), we usually need the nonlinear term that satisfies the sub-( p 1) growth condition, but for the p-Laplacian impulsive problems, the nonlinear term only needs to satisfy the sub-(p1) growth condition.

Let N1, the function f:J× R N × R N × R N × R N R N is assumed to be Caratheodory, by which we mean:

  1. (i)

    For almost every tJ, the function f(t,,,,) is continuous;

  2. (ii)

    For each (x,y,s,z) R N × R N × R N × R N , the function f(,x,y,s,z) is measurable on J;

  3. (iii)

    For each R>0, there is a α R L 1 (J,R) such that, for almost every tJ and every (x,y,s,z) R N × R N × R N × R N with |x|R, |y|R, |s|R, |z|R, one has

    |f(t,x,y,s,z)| α R (t).

We say a function u:J R N is a solution of (1) if uP C 1 with w(t)| u | p ( t ) 2 u absolutely continuous on J i o , i=0,1,,k, which satisfies (1) a.e. on J.

In this paper, we always use C i to denote positive constants, if it cannot lead to confusion. Denote

z = inf t J z(t), z + = sup t J z(t)for any zPC(J,R).

We say f satisfies the sub-( p 1) growth condition if f satisfies

lim | u | + | v | + | s | + | z | + f ( t , u , v , s , z ) ( | u | + | v | + | s | + | z | ) q ( t ) 1 =0for tJ uniformly,

where q(t)PC(J,R) and 1< q q + < p .

We will discuss the existence of solutions for system (1)-(4) or (1) with (2), (4) and (5) in the following three cases:

Case (i): σ<1, = 1 m 2 α δ=1;

Case (ii): σ=1, = 1 m 2 α δ1;

Case (iii): σ<1, = 1 m 2 α δ<1.

This paper is organized as five sections. In Section 2, we present some preliminaries and give the operator equation which has the same solutions of (1)-(4) in the three cases, respectively. In Section 3, we give the existence of solutions for system (1)-(4) or (1) with (2), (4) and (5) when σ<1, = 1 m 2 α δ=1. In Section 4, we give the existence of solutions for system (1)-(4) or (1) with (2), (4) and (5) when σ=1, = 1 m 2 α δ1. Finally, in Section 5, we give the existence of solutions and nonnegative solutions for system (1)-(4) or (1) with (2), (4) and (5) when σ<1, = 1 m 2 α δ<1.

2 Preliminary

For any (t,x)J× R N , denote φ(t,x)=|x | p ( t ) 2 x. Obviously, φ has the following properties.

Lemma 2.1 (see [34])

φ is a continuous function and satisfies:

  1. (i)

    For any t[0,1], φ(t,) is strictly monotone, i.e.,

    φ ( t , x 1 ) φ ( t , x 2 ) , x 1 x 2 >0 for any x 1 , x 2 R N , x 1 x 2 .
  2. (ii)

    There exists a function α:[0,+)[0,+), α(s)+ as s+ such that

    φ ( t , x ) , x α ( | x | ) |x| for all x R N .

It is well known that φ(t,) is a homeomorphism from R N to R N for any fixed tJ. Denote

φ 1 (t,x)=|x | 2 p ( t ) p ( t ) 1 xfor x R N {0}, φ 1 (t,0)=0,tJ.

It is clear that φ 1 (t,) is continuous and sends bounded sets to bounded sets.

In this section, we will do some preparation and give the operator equation which has the same solutions of (1)-(4) in three cases, respectively. At first, let us now consider the following simple impulsive problem with boundary value condition (4):

( w ( t ) φ ( t , u ( t ) ) ) = f ( t ) , t ( 0 , 1 ) , t t i , lim t t i + u ( t ) lim t t i u ( t ) = a i , i = 1 , , k , lim t t i + w ( t ) | u | p ( t ) 2 u ( t ) lim t t i w ( t ) | u | p ( t ) 2 u ( t ) = b i , i = 1 , , k , }
(6)

where a i , b i R N ; f L 1 .

Denote a=( a 1 ,, a k ), b=( b 1 ,, b k ). Obviously, a,b R k N .

We will discuss it in three cases, respectively.

2.1 Case (i)

Suppose that σ<1 and = 1 m 2 α δ=1. If u is a solution of (6) with (4), we have

w(t)φ ( t , u ( t ) ) =w(0)φ ( 0 , u ( 0 ) ) + t i < t b i + 0 t f(s)ds,t J .
(7)

Denote ρ 1 =w(0)φ(0, u (0)). It is easy to see that ρ 1 is dependent on a, b and f(). Define the operator F: L 1 PC as

F(f)(t)= 0 t f(s)ds,tJ,f L 1 .

By solving for u in (7) and integrating, we find

u(t)=u(0)+ t i < t a i +F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 + t i < t b i + F ( f ) ( t ) ) ] } (t),tJ,

which together with boundary value condition (4) implies

u(0)= 1 ( 1 σ ) 0 1 g(t) ( F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 + t i < t b i + F ( f ) ( t ) ) ] } ( t ) + t i < t a i ) dt,

and

= 1 m 2 α { t i < ξ a i + 0 ξ φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 + t i < t b i + F ( f ) ( t ) ) ] d t } i = 1 k a i 0 1 φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 + t i < t b i + F ( f ) ( t ) ) ] d t 0 1 h ( t ) ( F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 + t i < t b i + F ( f ) ( t ) ) ] } ( t ) + t i < t a i ) d t = 0 .

Denote W= R 2 k N × L 1 with the norm

ω= i = 1 k | a i |+ i = 1 k | b i |+ ϑ L 1 ,ω=(a,b,ϑ)W,

then W is a Banach space.

For any ωW, we denote

Λ ω ( ρ 1 ) = = 1 m 2 α { t i < ξ a i + 0 ξ φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ( t ) ) ] d t } i = 1 k a i 0 1 φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ( t ) ) ] d t 0 1 h ( t ) ( F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ( t ) ) ] } ( t ) + t i < t a i ) d t .

Denote ξ m 1 =1. Then

Λ ω ( ρ 1 ) = = 1 m 2 α { ξ t i a i + ξ 1 φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ( t ) ) ] d t } + 0 1 h ( t ) ( t 1 φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ( t ) ) ] d t + t i t a i ) d t = = 1 m 2 ( α ξ ξ + 1 h ( t ) d t ) ξ 1 φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ( t ) ) ] d t = 1 m 2 ξ ξ + 1 h ( t ) ξ t φ 1 [ s , ( w ( s ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 + s i < s b i + F ( ϑ ) ( s ) ) ] d s d t + 0 ξ 1 h ( t ) t 1 φ 1 [ s , ( w ( s ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 + s i < s b i + F ( ϑ ) ( s ) ) ] d s d t = 1 m 2 α ξ t i a i + 0 1 h ( t ) t i t a i d t .

Throughout the paper, we denote

Lemma 2.2 Suppose that h(t)0 on [ ξ 1 ,1], α ξ ξ + 1 h(t)dt (=1,,m2) and h(t)0 on [0, ξ 1 ]. Then the function Λ ω () has the following properties:

  1. (i)

    For any fixed ωW, the equation

    Λ ω ( ρ 1 )=0
    (8)

has a unique solution ρ 1 ˜ (ω) R N .

  1. (ii)

    The function ρ 1 ˜ :W R N , defined in (i), is continuous and sends bounded sets to bounded sets. Moreover, for any ω=(a,b,ϑ)W, we have

    | ρ 1 ˜ (ω)|3N [ ( 2 N ) p + ( δ E + 1 E i = 1 k | a i | ) p # 1 + i = 1 k | b i | + ϑ L 1 ] ,

where the notation M p # 1 means

M p # 1 = { M p + 1 , M > 1 , M p 1 , M 1 .

Proof (i) From Lemma 2.1, it is immediate that

Λ ω ( x 1 ) Λ ω ( x 2 ) , x 1 x 2 <0for  x 1 x 2 , x 1 , x 2 R N ,

and hence, if (8) has a solution, then it is unique.

Set R 0 =3N[ ( 2 N ) p + ( δ E + 1 E i = 1 k | a i | ) p # 1 + i = 1 k | b i |+ ϑ L 1 ].

Suppose that | ρ 1 |> R 0 , it is easy to see that there exists some j 0 {1,,N} such that the absolute value of the j 0 th component of ρ 1 satisfies

Thus the j 0 th component of ρ 1 + t i < t b i +F(ϑ)(t) keeps sign on J, namely, for any tJ, we have

Obviously, we have

then it is easy to see that the j 0 th component of Λ ω ( ρ 1 ) keeps the same sign of . Thus,

Λ ω ( ρ 1 )0.

Let us consider the equation

λ Λ ω ( ρ 1 )+(1λ) ρ 1 =0,λ[0,1].
(9)

According to the preceding discussion, all the solutions of (9) belong to b( R 0 +1)={x R N |x|< R 0 +1}. Therefore

d B [ Λ ω ( ρ 1 ) , b ( R 0 + 1 ) , 0 ] = d B [ I , b ( R 0 + 1 ) , 0 ] 0,

it means the existence of solutions of Λ ω ( ρ 1 )=0.

In this way, we define a function ρ 1 ˜ (ω):W R N , which satisfies Λ ω ( ρ 1 ˜ (ω))=0.

  1. (ii)

    By the proof of (i), we also obtain ρ 1 ˜ sends bounded sets to bounded sets, and

    | ρ 1 ˜ (ω)|3N [ ( 2 N ) p + ( δ E + 1 E i = 1 k | a i | ) p # 1 + i = 1 k | b i | + ϑ L 1 ] .

It only remains to prove the continuity of ρ 1 ˜ . Let { ω n } be a convergent sequence in W and ω n ω, as n+. Since { ρ 1 ˜ ( ω n )} is a bounded sequence, it contains a convergent subsequence { ρ 1 ˜ ( ω n j )}. Suppose that ρ 1 ˜ ( ω n j ) ρ 0 as j+. Since Λ ω n j ( ρ 1 ˜ ( ω n j ))=0, letting j+, we have Λ ω ( ρ 0 )=0, which together with (i) implies ρ 0 = ρ 1 ˜ (ω), it means ρ 1 ˜ is continuous. This completes the proof. □

Now we denote by N f (u):[0,1]×P C 1 L 1 the Nemytskii operator associated to f defined by

N f (u)(t)=f ( t , u ( t ) , ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u ( t ) , S ( u ) , T ( u ) ) on J.
(10)

We define ρ 1 :P C 1 R N as

ρ 1 (u)= ρ 1 ˜ (A,B, N f )(u),
(11)

where A=( A 1 ,, A k ), B=( B 1 ,, B k ).

It is clear that ρ 1 () is continuous and sends bounded sets of P C 1 to bounded sets of R N , and hence it is compact continuous.

If u is a solution of (6) with (4), we have

u(t)=u(0)+ t i < t a i +F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 ˜ ( ω ) + t i < t b i + F ( f ) ( t ) ) ] } (t),t[0,1].

For fixed a,b R k N , we denote K ( a , b ) : L 1 P C 1 as

K ( a , b ) (ϑ)(t)=F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 ˜ ( a , b , ϑ ) + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ( t ) ) ] } (t),tJ.

Define K 1 :P C 1 P C 1 as

K 1 (u)(t)=F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 ( u ) + t i < t B i + F ( N f ( u ) ) ( t ) ) ] } (t),tJ.

Lemma 2.3 (i) The operator K ( a , b ) is continuous and sends equi-integrable sets in L 1 to relatively compact sets in P C 1 .

  1. (ii)

    The operator K 1 is continuous and sends bounded sets in P C 1 to relatively compact sets in P C 1 .

Proof (i) It is easy to check that K ( a , b ) (ϑ)()P C 1 , ϑ L 1 , a,b R k N . Since and

K ( a , b ) ( ϑ ) (t)= φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 ˜ ( a , b , ϑ ) + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ) ] ,t[0,1],

it is easy to check that K ( a , b ) () is a continuous operator from L 1 to P C 1 .

Let now U be an equi-integrable set in L 1 , then there exists α L 1 such that

|u(t)|α(t)a.e. in J for any u L 1 .

We want to show that K ( a , b ) ( U ) ¯ P C 1 is a compact set.

Let { u n } be a sequence in K ( a , b ) (U), then there exists a sequence { ϑ n }U such that u n = K ( a , b ) ( ϑ n ). For any t 1 , t 2 J, we have

|F( ϑ n )( t 1 )F( ϑ n )( t 2 )|=| 0 t 1 ϑ n (t)dt 0 t 2 ϑ n (t)dt|=| t 1 t 2 ϑ n (t)dt|| t 1 t 2 α(t)dt|.

Hence the sequence {F( ϑ n )} is uniformly bounded and equi-continuous. By the Ascoli-Arzela theorem, there exists a subsequence of {F( ϑ n )} (which we rename the same) which is convergent in PC. According to the bounded continuity of the operator ρ 1 ˜ , we can choose a subsequence of { ρ 1 ˜ (a,b, ϑ n )+F( ϑ n )} (which we still denote { ρ 1 ˜ (a,b, ϑ n )+F( ϑ n )}) which is convergent in PC, then is convergent in PC.

Since

K ( a , b ) ( ϑ n )(t)=F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 ˜ ( a , b , ϑ n ) + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ n ) ) ] } (t),t[0,1],

it follows from the continuity of φ 1 and the integrability of in L 1 that K ( a , b ) ( ϑ n ) is convergent in PC. Thus { u n } is convergent in P C 1 .

  1. (ii)

    It is easy to see from (i) and Lemma 2.2.

This completes the proof. □

Let us define P 1 :P C 1 P C 1 as

P 1 (u)= 0 1 g ( t ) [ K 1 ( u ) ( t ) + t i < t A i ] d t 1 σ .

It is easy to see that P 1 is compact continuous.

Lemma 2.4 Suppose that σ<1, = 1 m 2 α δ=1; h(t)0 on [ ξ 1 ,1], α ξ ξ + 1 h(t)dt (=1,,m2) and h(t)0 on [0, ξ 1 ]. Then u is a solution of (1)-(4) if and only if u is a solution of the following abstract operator equation:

u= P 1 (u)+ t i < t A i + K 1 (u).
(12)

Proof Suppose that u is a solution of (1)-(4). By integrating (1) from 0 to t, we find that

w(t)φ ( t , u ( t ) ) = ρ 1 (u)+ t i < t B i +F ( N f ( u ) ) (t),t(0,1),t t 1 ,, t k .
(13)

It follows from (13) and (4) that

u ( t ) = u ( 0 ) + t i < t A i u ( t ) = + F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 ( u ) + t i < t B i + F ( N f ( u ) ) ) ] } ( t ) , t [ 0 , 1 ] , u ( 0 ) = 1 ( 1 σ ) u ( 0 ) = × 0 1 g ( t ) ( F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 ( u ) + t i < t B i + F ( N f ( u ) ) ) ] } ( t ) + t i < t A i ) d t u ( 0 ) = 0 1 g ( t ) [ K 1 ( u ) ( t ) + t i < t A i ] d t 1 σ = P 1 ( u ) .
(14)

Combining the definition of ρ 1 , we can see

u= P 1 (u)+ t i < t A i + K 1 (u).

Conversely, if u is a solution of (12), then (2) is satisfied. It is easy to check that

u ( 0 ) = P 1 ( u ) = 0 1 g ( t ) [ K 1 ( u ) ( t ) + t i < t A i ] d t 1 σ , u ( 0 ) = σ u ( 0 ) + 0 1 g ( t ) [ K 1 ( u ) ( t ) + t i < t A i ] d t = 0 1 g ( t ) u ( t ) d t ,
(15)

and

u(1)= P 1 (u)+ i = 1 k A i + K 1 (u)(1).

By the condition of the mapping ρ 1 , we have

= 1 m 2 α { t i < ξ A i + 0 ξ φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 + t i < t B i + F ( N f ( u ) ) ( t ) ) ] d t } i = 1 k A i 0 1 φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 + t i < t B i + F ( N f ( u ) ) ( t ) ) ] d t 0 1 h ( t ) ( F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 + t i < t B i + F ( N f ( u ) ) ( t ) ) ] } ( t ) + t i < t A i ) d t = 0 .

Thus

u(1)= = 1 m 2 α u( ξ ) 0 1 h(t)u(t)dt.
(16)

It follows from (15) and (16) that (4) is satisfied.

From (12), we have

w ( t ) φ ( t , u ( t ) ) = ρ 1 ( u ) + t i < t B i + F ( N f ( u ) ) ( t ) , t ( 0 , 1 ) , t t i , ( w ( t ) φ ( t , u ) ) = N f ( u ) ( t ) , t ( 0 , 1 ) , t t i .
(17)

It follows from (17) that (3) is satisfied.

Hence u is a solution of (1)-(4). This completes the proof. □

2.2 Case (ii)

Suppose that σ=1 and = 1 m 2 α δ1. If u is a solution of (6) with (4), we have

w(t)φ ( t , u ( t ) ) =w(0)φ ( 0 , u ( 0 ) ) + t i < t b i + 0 t f(s)ds,t J .

Denote ρ 2 =w(0)φ(0, u (0)). It is easy to see that ρ 2 is dependent on a, b and f(). Boundary value condition (4) implies that

0 1 g ( t ) ( F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 2 + t i < t b i + F ( f ) ( t ) ) ] } ( t ) + t i < t a i ) d t = 0 , u ( 0 ) = = 1 m 2 α { t i < ξ a i + 0 ξ φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 2 + t i < t b i + F ( f ) ( t ) ) ] d t } 1 i = 1 m 2 α + δ u ( 0 ) = i = 1 k a i + 0 1 φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 2 + t i < t b i + F ( f ) ( t ) ) ] d t 1 = 1 m 2 α + δ u ( 0 ) = 0 1 h ( t ) ( F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 2 + t i < t b i + F ( f ) ( t ) ) ] } ( t ) + t i < t a i ) d t 1 = 1 m 2 α + δ .

For any ωW, we denote

Γ ω ( ρ 2 )= 0 1 g(t) ( F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 2 + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ( t ) ) ] } ( t ) + t i < t a i ) dt.

Throughout the paper, we denote .

Lemma 2.5 The function Γ ω () has the following properties:

  1. (i)

    For any fixed ωW, the equation Γ ω ( ρ 2 )=0 has a unique solution ρ 2 ˜ (ω) R N .

  2. (ii)

    The function ρ 2 ˜ :W R N , defined in (i), is continuous and sends bounded sets to bounded sets. Moreover, for any ω=(a,b,ϑ)W, we have

    | ρ 2 ˜ (ω)|3N [ ( 2 N ) p + ( E 1 + 1 E 1 i = 1 k | a i | ) p # 1 + i = 1 k | b i | + ϑ L 1 ] ,

where the notation M p # 1 means

M p # 1 = { M p + 1 , M > 1 , M p 1 , M 1 .

Proof Similar to the proof of Lemma 2.2, we omit it here. □

We define ρ 2 :P C 1 R N as ρ 2 (u)= ρ 2 ˜ (A,B, N f )(u), where A=( A 1 ,, A k ), B=( B 1 ,, B k ).

It is clear that ρ 2 () is continuous and sends bounded sets of P C 1 to bounded sets of R N , and hence it is compact continuous.

For fixed a,b R k N , we denote K ( a , b ) : L 1 P C 1 as

K ( a , b ) (ϑ)(t)=F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 2 ˜ ( a , b , ϑ ) + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ( t ) ) ] } (t),tJ.

Define K 2 :P C 1 P C 1 as

K 2 (u)(t)=F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 2 ( u ) + t i < t B i + F ( N f ( u ) ) ( t ) ) ] } (t),tJ.

Similar to the proof of Lemma 2.3, we have the following.

Lemma 2.6 (i) The operator K ( a , b ) is continuous and sends equi-integrable sets in L 1 to relatively compact sets in P C 1 .

  1. (ii)

    The operator K 2 is continuous and sends bounded sets in P C 1 to relatively compact sets in P C 1 .

Let us define P 2 :P C 1 P C 1 as

P 2 ( u ) = = 1 m 2 α [ t i < ξ A i + K 2 ( u ) ( ξ ) ] i = 1 k A i 1 = 1 m 2 α + δ K 2 ( u ) ( 1 ) + 0 1 h ( t ) [ K 2 ( u ) ( t ) + t i < t A i ] d t 1 = 1 m 2 α + δ .

It is easy to see that P 2 is compact continuous.

Lemma 2.7 Suppose that σ=1, = 1 m 2 α δ1, then u is a solution of (1)-(4) if and only if u is a solution of the following abstract operator equation:

u= P 2 (u)+ t i < t A i + K 2 (u).

Proof Similar to the proof of Lemma 2.4, we omit it here. □

2.3 Case (iii)

Suppose that σ<1 and = 1 m 2 α δ<1. If u is a solution of (6) with (4), we have

w(t)φ ( t , u ( t ) ) =w(0)φ ( 0 , u ( 0 ) ) + t i < t b i + 0 t f(s)ds,t J .

Denote ρ 3 =w(0)φ(0, u (0)). It is easy to see that ρ 3 is dependent on a, b and f().

From u(0)= 0 1 g(t)u(t)dt, we have

u ( 0 ) = 1 ( 1 σ ) × 0 1 g ( t ) ( F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 + t i < t b i + F ( f ) ( t ) ) ] } ( t ) + t i < t a i ) d t .
(18)

From u(1)= = 1 m 2 α u( ξ ) 0 1 h(t)u(t)dt, we obtain

u ( 0 ) = = 1 m 2 α { t i < ξ a i + 0 ξ φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 + t i < t b i + F ( f ) ( t ) ) ] d t } 1 = 1 m 2 α + δ i = 1 k a i + 0 1 φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 + t i < t b i + F ( f ) ( t ) ) ] d t 1 = 1 m 2 α + δ 0 1 h ( t ) ( F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 + t i < t b i + F ( f ) ( t ) ) ] } ( t ) + t i < t a i ) d t 1 = 1 m 2 α + δ .
(19)

For fixed ωW, we denote

ϒ ω ( ρ 3 ) = 1 ( 1 σ ) 0 1 g ( t ) ( F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ( t ) ) ] } ( t ) + t i < t a i ) d t = 1 m 2 α { t i < ξ a i + 0 ξ φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ( t ) ) ] d t } 1 = 1 m 2 α + δ + i = 1 k a i + 0 1 φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ( t ) ) ] d t 1 = 1 m 2 α + δ + 0 1 h ( t ) ( F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ( t ) ) ] } ( t ) + t i < t a i ) d t 1 = 1 m 2 α + δ , ρ 3 R N .

From (18) and (19), we have ϒ ω ( ρ 3 )=0.

Obviously, ϒ ω ( ρ 3 ) can be rewritten as

ϒ ω ( ρ 3 ) = 1 ( 1 σ ) 0 1 g ( t ) ( F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ( t ) ) ] } ( t ) + t i < t a i ) d t + = 1 m 2 α { ξ t i a i + ξ 1 φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ( t ) ) ] d t } 1 = 1 m 2 α + δ + ( 1 = 1 m 2 α ) 0 1 φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ( t ) ) ] d t 1 = 1 m 2 α + δ + i = 1 k a i ( 1 = 1 m 2 α ) 1 = 1 m 2 α + δ + 0 1 h ( t ) ( F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ( t ) ) ] } ( t ) + t i < t a i ) d t 1 = 1 m 2 α + δ .

Denote ξ m 1 =1. Moreover, we also have

ϒ ω ( ρ 3 ) = 1 ( 1 σ ) 0 1 g ( t ) ( F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ( t ) ) ] } ( t ) + t i < t a i ) d t + = 1 m 2 α ξ t i a i 1 = 1 m 2 α + δ + = 1 m 2 ( α ξ ξ + 1 h ( t ) d t ) ξ 1 φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ( t ) ) ] d t 1 = 1 m 2 α + δ + = 1 m 2 ξ ξ + 1 h ( t ) ξ t φ 1 [ s , ( w ( s ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 + s i < s b i + F ( ϑ ) ( s ) ) ] d s d t 1 = 1 m 2 α + δ 0 ξ 1 h ( t ) t 1 φ 1 [ s , ( w ( s ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 + s i < s b i + F ( ϑ ) ( s ) ) ] d s d t + 0 1 h ( t ) t i t a i d t 1 = 1 m 2 α + δ + 0 1 φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ( t ) ) ] d t + i = 1 k a i .

Lemma 2.8 Suppose that α , g, h satisfy one of the following:

(10) = 1 m 2 α 1, g(t)(1 = 1 m 2 α +δ)+h(t)(1σ)0;

(20) h(t)0 on [ ξ 1 ,1], α ξ ξ + 1 h(t)dt (=1,,m2) and h(t)0 on [0, ξ 1 ].

Then the function ϒ ω () has the following properties:

  1. (i)

    For any fixed ωW, the equation ϒ ω ( ρ 3 )=0 has a unique solution ρ 3 ˜ (ω) R N .

  2. (ii)

    The function ρ 3 ˜ :W R N , defined in (i), is continuous and sends bounded sets to bounded sets. Moreover, for any ω=(a,b,ϑ)W, we have

    | ρ 3 ˜ ( ω ) | 3 N { ( 2 N ) p + [ ( E 1 + 1 ( 1 σ ) E 1 + ( δ + 1 ) E + 1 ( 1 = 1 m 2 α + δ ) E ) i = 1 k | a i | ] p # 1 + i = 1 k | b i | + ϑ L 1 } ,

where the notation M p # 1 means

M p # 1 = { M p + 1 , M > 1 , M p 1 , M 1 .

Proof Similar to the proof of Lemma 2.2, we omit it here. □

We define ρ 3 :P C 1 R N as ρ 3 (u)= ρ 3 ˜ (A,B, N f )(u), where A=( A 1 ,, A k ), B=( B 1 ,, B k ).

It is clear that ρ 3 () is continuous and sends bounded sets of P C 1 to bounded sets of R N , and hence it is compact continuous.

For fixed a,b R k N , we denote K ( a , b ) : L 1 P C 1 as

K ( a , b ) (ϑ)(t)=F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 ˜ ( a , b , ϑ ) + t i < t b i + F ( ϑ ) ( t ) ) ] } (t),tJ.

Define K 3 :P C 1 P C 1 as

K 3 (u)(t)=F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 ( u ) + t i < t B i + F ( N f ( u ) ) ( t ) ) ] } (t),tJ.

Similar to the proof of Lemma 2.3, we have

Lemma 2.9 (i) The operator K ( a , b ) is continuous and sends equi-integrable sets in L 1 to relatively compact sets in P C 1 .

  1. (ii)

    The operator K 3 is continuous and sends bounded sets in P C 1 to relatively compact sets in P C 1 .

Let us define P 3 :P C 1 P C 1 as

P 3 (u)= 0 1 g ( t ) [ K 3 ( u ) ( t ) + t i < t A i ] d t 1 σ .

It is easy to see that P 3 is compact continuous.

Lemma 2.10 Suppose that σ<1, = 1 m 2 α δ<1 and α , g, h satisfy one of the following:

(10) = 1 m 2 α 1, g(t)(1 = 1 m 2 α +δ)+h(t)(1σ)0;

(20) h(t)0 on [ ξ 1 ,1], α ξ ξ + 1 h(t)dt (=1,,m2) and h(t)0 on [0, ξ 1 ].

Then u is a solution of (1)-(4) if and only if u is a solution of the following abstract operator equation:

u= P 3 (u)+ t i < t A i + K 3 (u).

Proof Similar to the proof of Lemma 2.4, we omit it here. □

3 Existence of solutions in Case (i)

In this section, we apply Leray-Schauder’s degree to deal with the existence of solutions for system (1)-(4) or (1) with (2), (4) and (5) when σ<1, = 1 m 2 α δ=1.

When f satisfies the sub-( p 1) growth condition, we have the following theorem.

Theorem 3.1 Suppose that σ<1, = 1 m 2 α δ=1; h(t)0 on [ ξ 1 ,1], α ξ ξ + 1 h(t)dt (=1,,m2) and h(t)0 on [0, ξ 1 ]; f satisfies the sub-( p 1) growth condition; and operators A and B satisfy the following conditions:

i = 1 k | A i ( u , v ) | C 1 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 p + 1 , i = 1 k | B i ( u , v ) | C 2 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 , ( u , v ) R N × R N ,
(20)

then problem (1)-(4) has at least a solution.

Proof First we consider the following problem:

( S 1 ) { p ( t ) u = λ N f ( u ) ( t ) , t ( 0 , 1 ) , t t i , lim t t i + u ( t ) lim t t i u ( t ) = λ A i ( lim t t i u ( t ) , lim t t i ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u ( t ) ) , i = 1 , , k , lim t t i + w ( t ) | u | p ( t ) 2 u ( t ) lim t t i w ( t ) | u | p ( t ) 2 u ( t ) = λ B i ( lim t t i u ( t ) , lim t t i ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u ( t ) ) , i = 1 , , k , u ( 0 ) = 0 1 g ( t ) u ( t ) d t , u ( 1 ) = = 1 m 2 α u ( ξ ) 0 1 h ( t ) u ( t ) d t .

Denote

where N f (u) is defined in (10).

Obviously, ( S 1 ) has the same solution as the following operator equation when λ=1:

u= Ψ f (u,λ).
(21)

It is easy to see that the operator is compact continuous for any λ[0,1]. It follows from Lemma 2.2 and Lemma 2.3 that Ψ f (,λ) is compact continuous from P C 1 to P C 1 for any λ[0,1].

We claim that all the solutions of (21) are uniformly bounded for λ[0,1]. In fact, if it is false, we can find a sequence of solutions {( u n , λ n )} for (21) such that u n 1 + as n+ and u n 1 >1 for any n=1,2, .

From Lemma 2.2, we have

Thus

(22)

From ( S 1 ), we have

It follows from (11) and Lemma 2.2 that

Denote α= q + 1 p 1 . If the above inequality holds then

( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u n ( t ) 0 C 8 u n 1 α ,n=1,2,.
(23)

It follows from (14), (20) and (22) that

| u n (0)| C 9 u n 1 α ,where α= q + 1 p 1 .

For any j=1,,N, we have

| u n j ( t ) | = | u n j ( 0 ) + t i < t A i + 0 t ( u n j ) ( s ) d s | | u n j ( 0 ) | + | t i < t A i | + | 0 t ( w ( s ) ) 1 p ( s ) 1 sup t ( 0 , 1 ) | ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 ( u n j ) ( t ) | d s | u n 1 α [ C 10 + C 8 E ] + | t i < t A i | C 11 u n 1 α , t J , n = 1 , 2 , ,

which implies that

| u n j | 0 C 12 u n 1 α ,j=1,,N;n=1,2,.

Thus

u n 0 N C 12 u n 1 α ,n=1,2,.
(24)

It follows from (23) and (24) that { u n 1 } is uniformly bounded.

Thus, we can choose a large enough R 0 >0 such that all the solutions of (21) belong to B( R 0 )={uP C 1 u 1 < R 0 }. Therefore the Leray-Schauder degree d L S [I Ψ f (,λ),B( R 0 ),0] is well defined for λ[0,1], and

d L S [ I Ψ f ( , 1 ) , B ( R 0 ) , 0 ] = d L S [ I Ψ f ( , 0 ) , B ( R 0 ) , 0 ] .

It is easy to see that u is a solution of u= Ψ f (u,0) if and only if u is a solution of the following usual differential equation:

( S 2 ) { p ( t ) u = 0 , t ( 0 , 1 ) , u ( 0 ) = 0 1 g ( t ) u ( t ) d t , u ( 1 ) = = 1 m 2 α u ( ξ ) 0 1 h ( t ) u ( t ) d t .

Obviously, system ( S 2 ) possesses a unique solution u 0 . Since u 0 B( R 0 ), we have

d L S [ I Ψ f ( , 1 ) , B ( R 0 ) , 0 ] = d L S [ I Ψ f ( , 0 ) , B ( R 0 ) , 0 ] 0,

which implies that (1)-(4) has at least one solution. This completes the proof. □

Theorem 3.2 Suppose that σ<1, = 1 m 2 α δ=1; h(t)0 on [ ξ 1 ,1], α ξ ξ + 1 h(t)dt (=1,,m2) and h(t)0 on [0, ξ 1 ]; f satisfies the sub-( p 1) growth condition; and operators A and D=( D 1 ,, D k ) satisfy the following conditions:

i = 1 k | A i ( u , v ) | C 1 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 p + 1 , i = 1 k | D i ( u , v ) | C 2 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) α i + , ( u , v ) R N × R N ,

where α i q + 1 p ( t i ) 1 , and p( t i )1 q + α i , i=1,,k.

Then problem (1) with (2), (4) and (5) has at least a solution.

Proof Obviously, B i (u,v)=φ( t i ,v+ D i (u,v))φ( t i ,v).

From Theorem 3.1, it suffices to show that

i = 1 k | B i (u,v)| C 2 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 ,(u,v) R N × R N .
(25)
  1. (a)

    Suppose that |v| M | D i (u,v)|, where M is a large enough positive constant. From the definition of D, we have

    | B i (u,v)| C 1 | D i (u,v) | p ( t i ) 1 C 2 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) α i ( p ( t i ) 1 ) .

Since α i < q + 1 p ( t i ) 1 , we have α i (p( t i )1) q + 1. Thus (25) is valid.

  1. (b)

    Suppose that |v|> M | D i (u,v)|, we can see that

    | B i (u,v)| C 3 |v | p ( t i ) 1 | D i ( u , v ) | | v | = C 4 |v | p ( t i ) 2 | D i (u,v)|.

There are two cases: Case (i): p( t i )11; Case (ii): p( t i )1<1.

Case (i): Since p( t i )1 q + α i , we have p( t i )2+ α i q + 1, and

| B i (u,v)| C 5 |v | p ( t i ) 2 | D i (u,v)| C 6 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) p ( t i ) 2 + α i C 6 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 .

Thus (25) is valid.

Case (ii): Since α i < q + 1 p ( t i ) 1 , we have α i (p( t i )1) q + 1, and

| B i (u,v)| C 7 |v | p ( t i ) 2 | D i (u,v)| C 8 | D i (u,v) | p ( t i ) 1 C 9 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) α i ( p ( t i ) 1 ) .

Thus (25) is valid.

Thus problem (1) with (2), (4) and (5) has at least a solution. This completes the proof. □

Let us consider

( w ( t ) | u | p ( t ) 2 u ) +ϕ ( t , u , ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u , S ( u ) , T ( u ) , ε ) =0,t(0,1),t t i ,
(26)

where ε is a parameter, and

ϕ ( t , u , ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u , S ( u ) , T ( u ) , ε ) = f ( t , u , ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u , S ( u ) , T ( u ) ) + ε h ( t , u , ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u , S ( u ) , T ( u ) ) ,

where h,f:J× R N × R N × R N × R N R N are Caratheodory. We have the following theorem.

Theorem 3.3 Suppose that σ<1, = 1 m 2 α δ=1; h(t)0 on [ ξ 1 ,1], α ξ ξ + 1 h(t)dt (=1,,m2) and h(t)0 on [0, ξ 1 ]; f satisfies the sub-( p 1) growth condition; and we assume that

i = 1 k | A i ( u , v ) | C 1 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 p + 1 , i = 1 k | B i ( u , v ) | C 2 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 , ( u , v ) R N × R N ,

then problem (26) with (2)-(4) has at least one solution when parameter ε is small enough.

Proof Denote

ϕ λ ( t , u , ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u , S ( u ) , T ( u ) , ε ) = f ( t , u , ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u , S ( u ) , T ( u ) ) + λ ε h ( t , u , ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u , S ( u ) , T ( u ) ) .

We consider the existence of solutions of the following equation with (2)-(4)

( w ( t ) | u | p ( t ) 2 u ) + ϕ λ ( t , u , ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u , S ( u ) , T ( u ) , ε ) =0,t(0,1),t t i .
(27)

Denote

ρ 1 , λ # ( u , ε ) = ρ 1 ˜ ( A , B , N ϕ λ ) ( u ) , K 1 , λ # ( u , ε ) = F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 1 , λ # ( u , ε ) + t i < t B i + F ( N ϕ λ ( u ) ) ( t ) ) ] } , P 1 , λ # ( u , ε ) = 0 1 g ( t ) [ K 1 , λ # ( u , ε ) ( t ) + t i < t A i ] d t ( 1 σ ) , Φ ε ( u , λ ) = P 1 , λ # ( u , ε ) + t i < t A i + K 1 , λ # ( u , ε ) ,

where N ϕ λ (u) is defined in (10).

We know that (27) with (2)-(4) has the same solution of u= Φ ε (u,λ).

Obviously, ϕ 0 =f. So Φ ε (u,0)= Ψ f (u,1). As in the proof of Theorem 3.1, we know that all the solutions of u= Φ ε (u,0) are uniformly bounded, then there exists a large enough R 0 >0 such that all the solutions of u= Φ ε (u,0) belong to B( R 0 )={uP C 1 u 1 < R 0 }. Since Φ ε (,0) is compact continuous from P C 1 to P C 1 , we have

inf u B ( R 0 ) u Φ ε ( u , 0 ) 1 >0.
(28)

Since f and h are Caratheodory, we have

F ( N ϕ λ ( u ) ) F ( N ϕ 0 ( u ) ) 0 0 for  ( u , λ ) B ( R 0 ) ¯ × [ 0 , 1 ]  uniformly, as  ε 0 , | ρ 1 , λ # ( u , ε ) ρ 1 , 0 # ( u , ε ) | 0 for  ( u , λ ) B ( R 0 ) ¯ × [ 0 , 1 ]  uniformly, as  ε 0 , K 1 , λ # ( u , ε ) K 1 , 0 # ( u , ε ) 1 0 for  ( u , λ ) B ( R 0 ) ¯ × [ 0 , 1 ]  uniformly, as  ε 0 , | P 1 , λ # ( u , ε ) P 1 , 0 # ( u , ε ) | 0 for  ( u , λ ) B ( R 0 ) ¯ × [ 0 , 1 ]  uniformly, as  ε 0 .

Thus

Φ ε ( u , λ ) Φ 0 ( u , λ ) 1 0for (u,λ) B ( R 0 ) ¯ ×[0,1] uniformly, as ε0.

Obviously, Φ 0 (u,λ)= Φ ε (u,0)= Φ 0 (u,0). We obtain

Φ ε ( u , λ ) Φ ε ( u , 0 ) 1 0for (u,λ) B ( R 0 ) ¯ ×[0,1] uniformly, as ε0.

Thus, when ε is small enough, from (28), we can conclude that

inf ( u , λ ) B ( R 0 ) × [ 0 , 1 ] u Φ ε ( u , λ ) 1 inf u B ( R 0 ) u Φ ε ( u , 0 ) 1 sup ( u , λ ) B ( R 0 ) ¯ × [ 0 , 1 ] Φ ε ( u , 0 ) Φ ε ( u , λ ) 1 > 0 .

Thus u= Φ ε (u,λ) has no solution on B( R 0 ) for any λ[0,1], when ε is small enough. It means that the Leray-Schauder degree d L S [I Φ ε (,λ),B( R 0 ),0] is well defined for any λ[0,1], and

d L S [ I Φ ε ( u , λ ) , B ( R 0 ) , 0 ] = d L S [ I Φ ε ( u , 0 ) , B ( R 0 ) , 0 ] .

Since Φ ε (u,0)= Ψ f (u,1), from the proof of Theorem 3.1, we can see that the right-hand side is nonzero. Thus (26) with (2)-(4) has at least one solution when ε is small enough. This completes the proof. □

Theorem 3.4 Suppose that σ<1, = 1 m 2 α δ=1; h(t)0 on [ ξ 1 ,1], α ξ ξ + 1 h(t)dt (=1,,m2) and h(t)0 on [0, ξ 1 ]; f satisfies the sub-( p 1) growth condition; and we assume that

i = 1 k | A i ( u , v ) | C 1 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 p + 1 , i = 1 k | D i ( u , v ) | C 2 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) α i + , ( u , v ) R N × R N ,

where α i q + 1 p ( t i ) 1 , and p( t i )1 q + α i , i=1,,k, then problem (26) with (2), (4) and (5) has at least one solution when parameter ε is small enough.

Proof Similar to the proof of Theorem 3.2 and Theorem 3.3, we omit it here. □

4 Existence of solutions in Case (ii)

In this section, we apply Leray-Schauder’s degree to deal with the existence of solutions for system (1)-(4) or (1) with (2), (4) and (5) when σ=1, = 1 m 2 α δ1.

When f satisfies the sub-( p 1) growth condition, we have the following.

Theorem 4.1 Suppose that σ=1, = 1 m 2 α δ1; f satisfies the sub-( p 1) growth condition; and operators A and B satisfy the following conditions:

i = 1 k | A i ( u , v ) | C 1 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 p + 1 , i = 1 k | B i ( u , v ) | C 2 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 , ( u , v ) R N × R N ,

then problem (1)-(4) has at least a solution.

Proof Similar to the proof of Theorem 3.1, we omit it here. □

Theorem 4.2 Suppose that σ=1, = 1 m 2 α δ1; f satisfies the sub-( p 1) growth condition; and operators A and D=( D 1 ,, D k ) satisfy the following conditions:

i = 1 k | A i ( u , v ) | C 1 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 p + 1 , i = 1 k | D i ( u , v ) | C 2 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) α i + , ( u , v ) R N × R N ,

where

α i q + 1 p ( t i ) 1 andp( t i )1 q + α i ,i=1,,k,

then problem (1) with (2), (4) and (5) has at least a solution.

Proof Similar to the proof of Theorem 3.2, we omit it here. □

Theorem 4.3 Suppose that σ=1, = 1 m 2 α δ1; f satisfies the sub-( p 1) growth condition; and we assume that

i = 1 k | A i ( u , v ) | C 1 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 p + 1 , i = 1 k | B i ( u , v ) | C 2 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 , ( u , v ) R N × R N ,

then problem (26) with (2)-(4) has at least one solution when parameter ε is small enough.

Proof Similar to the proof of Theorem 3.3, we omit it here. □

Theorem 4.4 Suppose that σ=1, = 1 m 2 α δ1; f satisfies the sub-( p 1) growth condition; and we assume that

i = 1 k | A i ( u , v ) | C 1 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 p + 1 , i = 1 k | D i ( u , v ) | C 2 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) α i + , ( u , v ) R N × R N ,

where α i q + 1 p ( t i ) 1 , and p( t i )1 q + α i , i=1,,k, then problem (26) with (2), (4) and (5) has at least one solution when parameter ε is small enough.

Proof Similar to the proof of Theorem 3.2 and Theorem 3.3, we omit it here. □

5 Existence of solutions in Case (iii)

In this section, we apply Leray-Schauder’s degree to deal with the existence of solutions and nonnegative solutions for system (1)-(4) or (1) with (2), (4) and (5) when σ<1, = 1 m 2 α δ<1.

When f satisfies the sub-( p 1) growth condition, we have the following theorem.

Theorem 5.1 Suppose that σ<1, = 1 m 2 α δ<1 and α , g, h satisfy one of the following:

(10) = 1 m 2 α 1, g(t)(1 = 1 m 2 α +δ)+h(t)(1σ)0;

(20) h(t)0 on [ ξ 1 ,1], α ξ ξ + 1 h(t)dt (=1,,m2) and h(t)0 on [0, ξ 1 ];

when f satisfies the sub-( p 1) growth condition; and operators A and B satisfy the following conditions:

i = 1 k | A i ( u , v ) | C 1 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 p + 1 , i = 1 k | B i ( u , v ) | C 2 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 , ( u , v ) R N × R N ,

then problem (1)-(4) has at least a solution.

Proof Similar to the proof of Theorem 3.1, we omit it here. □

Theorem 5.2 Suppose that σ<1, = 1 m 2 α δ<1 and α , g, h satisfy one of the following:

(10) = 1 m 2 α 1, g(t)(1 = 1 m 2 α +δ)+h(t)(1σ)0;

(20) h(t)0 on [ ξ 1 ,1], α ξ ξ + 1 h(t)dt (=1,,m2) and h(t)0 on [0, ξ 1 ];

when f satisfies the sub-( p 1) growth condition; and operators A and D=( D 1 ,, D k ) satisfy the following conditions:

i = 1 k | A i ( u , v ) | C 1 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 p + 1 , i = 1 k | D i ( u , v ) | C 2 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) α i + , ( u , v ) R N × R N ,

where

α i q + 1 p ( t i ) 1 andp( t i )1 q + α i ,i=1,,k,

then problem (1) with (2), (4) and (5) has at least a solution.

Proof Similar to the proof of Theorem 3.2, we omit it here. □

Theorem 5.3 Suppose that σ<1, = 1 m 2 α δ<1 and α , g, h satisfy one of the following:

(10) = 1 m 2 α 1, g(t)(1 = 1 m 2 α +δ)+h(t)(1σ)0;

(20) h(t)0 on [ ξ 1 ,1], α ξ ξ + 1 h(t)dt (=1,,m2) and h(t)0 on [0, ξ 1 ];

when f satisfies the sub-( p 1) growth condition; and we assume that

i = 1 k | A i ( u , v ) | C 1 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 p + 1 , i = 1 k | B i ( u , v ) | C 2 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 , ( u , v ) R N × R N ,

then problem (26) with (2)-(4) has at least one solution when parameter ε is small enough.

Proof Similar to the proof of Theorem 3.3, we omit it here. □

Theorem 5.4 Suppose that σ<1, = 1 m 2 α δ<1 and α , g, h satisfy one of the following:

(10) = 1 m 2 α 1, g(t)(1 = 1 m 2 α +δ)+h(t)(1σ)0;

(20) h(t)0 on [ ξ 1 ,1], α ξ ξ + 1 h(t)dt (=1,,m2) and h(t)0 on [0, ξ 1 ];

when f satisfies the sub-( p 1) growth condition; and we assume that

i = 1 k | A i ( u , v ) | C 1 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 p + 1 , i = 1 k | D i ( u , v ) | C 2 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) α i + , ( u , v ) R N × R N ,

where α i q + 1 p ( t i ) 1 , and p( t i )1 q + α i , i=1,,k, then problem (26) with (2), (4) and (5) has at least one solution when parameter ε is small enough.

Proof Similar to the proof of Theorem 3.2 and Theorem 3.3, we omit it here. □

In the following, we will consider the existence of nonnegative solutions. For any x=( x 1 ,, x N ) R N , the notation x0 means x j 0 for any j=1,,N.

Theorem 5.5 Suppose that σ<1, = 1 m 2 α δ<1, = 1 m 2 α 1, g(t)(1 = 1 m 2 α +δ)+h(t)(1σ)0. We also assume:

(10) f(t,x,y,s,z)0, (t,x,y,s,z)J× R N × R N × R N × R N ;

(20) For any i=1,,k, B i (u,v)0, (u,v) R N × R N ;

(30) For any i=1,,k, j=1,,N, A i j (u,v) v j 0, (u,v) R N × R N ;

(40) h(t)0.

Then every solution of (1)-(4) is nonnegative.

Proof Let u be a solution of (1)-(4). From Lemma 2.10, we have

u(t)=u(0)+ t i < t A i +F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 ( u ) + t i < t B i + F ( N f ( u ) ) ) ] } (t),tJ.

We claim that ρ 3 (u)0. If it is false, then there exists some j{1,,N} such that ρ 3 j (u)<0.

It follows from (10) and (20) that

[ ρ 3 ( u ) + t i < t B i + F ( N f ( u ) ) ( t ) ] j <0,tJ.
(29)

Thus (29) and condition (30) hold

A i j 0,i=1,,k.
(30)

Similar to the proof before Lemma 2.8, from the boundary value conditions, we have

0 = 1 ( 1 σ ) 0 1 g ( t ) ( F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 + t i < t B i + F ( N f ( u ) ) ) ] } ( t ) + t i < t A i ) d t + = 1 m 2 α { ξ t i A i + ξ 1 φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 + t i < t B i + F ( N f ( u ) ) ) ] d t } 1 i = 1 m 2 α + δ + i = 1 k A i ( 1 = 1 m 2 α ) 1 i = 1 m 2 α + δ + ( 1 = 1 m 2 α ) 0 1 φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 + t i < t B i + F ( N f ( u ) ) ) ] d t 1 = 1 m 2 α + δ + 0 1 h ( t ) ( F { φ 1 [ t , ( w ( t ) ) 1 ( ρ 3 + t i < t B i + F ( N f ( u ) ) ) ] } ( t ) + t i < t A i ) d t 1 = 1 m 2 α + δ .
(31)

From (29) and (30), we get a contradiction to (31). Thus ρ 3 (u)0.

We claim that

ρ 3 (u)+ i = 1 k B i +F( N f )(1)0.
(32)

If it is false, then there exists some j{1,,N} such that

[ ρ 3 ( u ) + i = 1 k B i + F ( N f ) ( 1 ) ] j >0.

It follows from (10) and (20) that

[ ρ 3 ( u ) + t i < t B i + F ( N f ( u ) ) ( t ) ] j >0,tJ.
(33)

Thus (33) and condition (30) hold

A i j 0,i=1,,k.
(34)

From (33), (34), we get a contradiction to (31). Thus (32) is valid.

Denote Θ(t)= ρ 3 (u)+ t i < t B i +F( N f (u))(t), t J .

Obviously, Θ(0)= ρ 3 0, Θ(1)0, and Θ(t) is decreasing, i.e., Θ( t )Θ( t ) for any t , t J with t t . For any j=1,,N, there exist ζ j J such that

Θ j (t)0,t(0, ζ j ),and Θ j (t)0,t( ζ j ,T).

It follows from condition (30) that u j (t) is increasing on [0, ζ j ] and u j (t) is decreasing on ( ζ j ,T]. Thus min{ u j (0), u j (1)}= inf t J u j (t), j=1,,N.

For any fixed j{1,,N}, if

u j (0)= inf t J u j (t),
(35)

from (4) and (35), we have (1σ) u j (0)0. Then u j (0)0.

If

u j (1)= inf t J u j (t),
(36)

from (4), (36) and condition (40), we have (1 i = 1 m 2 α +δ) u j (1)0. Then u j (1)0.

Thus u(t)0, t[0,T]. The proof is completed. □

Corollary 5.6 Under the conditions of Theorem  5.1, we also assume:

(10) f(t,x,y,s,z)0, (t,x,y,s,z)J× R N × R N × R N × R N with x,s,z0;

(20) For any i=1,,k, B i (u,v)0, (u,v) R N × R N with u0;

(30) For any i=1,,k, j=1,,N, A i j (u,v) v j 0, (u,v) R N × R N with u0;

(40) h(t)0;

(50) For any t[0,1] and s[0,1], k (t,s)0, h (t,s)0.

Then (1)-(4) has a nonnegative solution.

Proof Define M(u)=( M # ( u 1 ),, M # ( u N )), where

M # (u)= { u , u 0 , 0 , u < 0 .

Denote

f ˜ ( t , u , v , S ( u ) , T ( u ) ) =f ( t , M ( u ) , v , S ( M ( u ) ) , T ( M ( u ) ) ) ,(t,u,v)J× R N × R N ,

then f ˜ (t,u,v,S(u),T(u)) satisfies the Caratheodory condition, and f ˜ (t,u,v,S(u),T(u))0 for any (t,u,v)J× R N × R N .

For any i=1,,k, we denote

A ˜ i (u,v)= A i ( M ( u ) , v ) , B ˜ i (u,v)= B i ( M ( u ) , v ) ,(u,v) R N × R N ,

then A ˜ i and B ˜ i are continuous and satisfy

B ˜ i ( u , v ) 0 , ( u , v ) R N × R N  for any  i = 1 , , k , A ˜ i j ( u , v ) v j 0 , ( u , v ) R N × R N  for any  i = 1 , , k , j = 1 , , N .

It is not hard to check that

(20)′ lim | u | + | v | + ( f ˜ (t,u,v,S(u),T(u))/ ( | u | + | v | ) q ( t ) 1 )=0 for tJ uniformly, where q(t)C(J,R), and 1< q q + < p ;

(30)′ i = 1 k | A ˜ i (u,v)| C 1 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 p + 1 , (u,v) R N × R N ;

(40)′ i = 1 k | B ˜ i (u,v)| C 2 ( 1 + | u | + | v | ) q + 1 , (u,v) R N × R N .

Let us consider

( w ( t ) φ p ( t ) ( u ( t ) ) ) = f ˜ ( t , u , ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u , S ( u ) , T ( u ) ) , t J , lim t t i + u ( t ) lim t t i u ( t i ) = A ˜ i ( lim t t i u ( t ) , lim t t i ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u ( t ) ) , i = 1 , , k , lim t t i + w ( t ) φ p ( t ) ( u ( t ) ) lim t t i w ( t ) φ p ( t ) ( u ( t ) ) = B ˜ i ( lim t t i u ( t ) , lim t t i ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u ( t ) ) , i = 1 , , k , u ( 0 ) = 0 1 g ( t ) u ( t ) d t , u ( 1 ) = = 1 m 2 α u ( ξ ) 0 1 h ( t ) u ( t ) d t . }
(37)

It follows from Theorem 5.1 and Theorem 5.5 that (37) has a nonnegative solution u. Since u0, we have M(u)=u, and then

f ˜ ( t , u , ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u , S ( u ) , T ( u ) ) = f ( t , u , ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u , S ( u ) , T ( u ) ) , A ˜ i ( lim t t i u ( t ) , lim t t i ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u ( t ) ) = A i ( lim t t i u ( t ) , lim t t i ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u ( t ) ) , B ˜ i ( lim t t i u ( t ) , lim t t i ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u ( t ) ) = B i ( lim t t i u ( t ) , lim t t i ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u ( t ) ) .

Thus u is a nonnegative solution of (1)-(4). This completes the proof. □

Note (i) Similarly, we can get the existence of nonnegative solutions of (26) with (2)-(4).

  1. (ii)

    Similarly, under the conditions of Case (ii), we can discuss the existence of nonnegative solutions.

6 Examples

Example 6.1 Consider the existence of solutions of (1)-(4) under the following assumptions:

f ( t , u , ( w ( t ) ) 1 p ( t ) 1 u , S ( u ) , T ( u ) ) = | u | q ( t ) 2 u + ( w ( t ) ) q ( t ) 1 p ( t ) 1 | u | q ( t ) 2 u + ( S ( u ) ) q ( t ) 1 + ( T ( u ) ) q ( t ) 1 , t ( 0 , 1 ) , t t i = i k + π , A i ( u , v ) = | u | 1 / 2 u + | v | 1 / 2 v , i = 1 , , k , B i ( u , v ) = | u | 2 u + | v | 2 v , i = 1 , , k , g ( t ) = 1 1 + t 2 , α = + 1 , ξ = m , h ( t ) = { 0 , 0 t 1 m , 1 1 + t , 1 m t 1 ,

where (Su)(t)= 0 1 e t + s u(s)ds, (T(u))(t)= 0 t ( t 2 + s 2 )u(s)ds, p(t)=6+ 3 t cos3t, q(t)=3+ 2 t cost.

Obviously, q(t)4<5p(t); h(t)=0 when 0t 1 m = ξ 1 ; α ξ ξ + 1 h(t)dt (=1,,m2); then the conditions of Theorem 3.1 are satisfied, then (1)-(4) has a solution.

References

  1. Acerbi E, Mingione G: Regularity results for a class of functionals with nonstandard growth. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 2001, 156: 121–140. 10.1007/s002050100117

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen Y, Levine S, Rao M: Variable exponent, linear growth functionals in image restoration. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 2006, 66: 1383–1406. 10.1137/050624522

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Růžička M Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1748. In Electrorheological Fluids: Modeling and Mathematical Theory. Springer, Berlin; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Zhikov VV: Averaging of functionals of the calculus of variations and elasticity theory. Math. USSR, Izv. 1987, 29: 33–36. 10.1070/IM1987v029n01ABEH000958

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Deng SG:A local mountain pass theorem and applications to a double perturbed p(x)-Laplacian equations. Appl. Math. Comput. 2009, 211: 234–241. 10.1016/j.amc.2009.01.042

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Diening L, Harjulehto P, Hästö P, Růžička M Lecture Notes in Mathematics 2017. In Lebesgue and Sobolev Spaces with Variable Exponents. Springer, Berlin; 2011.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Fan XL:Global C 1 , α regularity for variable exponent elliptic equations in divergence form. J. Differ. Equ. 2007, 235: 397–417. 10.1016/j.jde.2007.01.008

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Fan XL: Boundary trace embedding theorems for variable exponent Sobolev spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2008, 339: 1395–1412. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.08.003

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Fan XL, Zhang QH, Zhao D:Eigenvalues of p(x)-Laplacian Dirichlet problem. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2005, 302: 306–317. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2003.11.020

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Harjulehto P, Hästö P, Latvala V: Harnack’s inequality for p() -harmonic functions with unbounded exponent p . J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2009, 352: 345–359. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2008.05.090

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Harjulehto P, Hästö P, Lê ÚV, Nuortio M: Overview of differential equations with non-standard growth. Nonlinear Anal. TMA 2010, 72: 4551–4574. 10.1016/j.na.2010.02.033

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Mihăilescu M, Rădulescu V: Continuous spectrum for a class of nonhomogeneous differential operators. Manuscr. Math. 2008, 125: 157–167. 10.1007/s00229-007-0137-8

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Musielak J Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1034. In Orlicz Spaces and Modular Spaces. Springer, Berlin; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Samko SG:Density of C 0 ( R N ) in the generalized Sobolev spaces W m , p ( x ) ( R N ). Dokl. Akad. Nauk 1999, 369: 451–454.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhang QH:Existence of positive solutions to a class of p(x)-Laplacian equations with singular nonlinearities. Appl. Math. Lett. 2012, 25: 2381–2384. 10.1016/j.aml.2012.07.007

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Guo ZC, Liu Q, Sun JB, Wu BY:Reaction-diffusion systems with p(x)-growth for image denoising. Nonlinear Anal., Real World Appl. 2011, 12: 2904–2918. 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2011.04.015

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Guo ZC, Sun JB, Zhang DZ, Wu BY: Adaptive Perona-Malik model based on the variable exponent for image denoising. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 2012, 21: 958–967.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Harjulehto P, Hästö P, Latvala V, Toivanen O: Critical variable exponent functionals in image restoration. Appl. Math. Lett. 2013, 26: 56–60. 10.1016/j.aml.2012.03.032

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Li F, Li ZB, Pi L: Variable exponent functionals in image restoration. Appl. Math. Comput. 2010, 216: 870–882. 10.1016/j.amc.2010.01.094

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim IS, Kim YH: Global bifurcation of the p -Laplacian in R N . Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 70: 2685–2690. 10.1016/j.na.2008.03.055

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Ahmad B, Nieto JJ: The monotone iterative technique for three-point second-order integrodifferential boundary value problems with p -Laplacian. Bound. Value Probl. 2007., 2007: Article ID 57481

    Google Scholar 

  22. Chen P, Tang XH: New existence and multiplicity of solutions for some Dirichlet problems with impulsive effects. Math. Comput. Model. 2012, 55: 723–739. 10.1016/j.mcm.2011.08.046

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Li J, Nieto JJ, Shen J: Impulsive periodic boundary value problems of first-order differential equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 325: 226–236. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.04.005

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Luo ZG, Xiao J, Xu YL: Subharmonic solutions with prescribed minimal period for some second-order impulsive differential equations. Nonlinear Anal. 2012, 75: 2249–2255. 10.1016/j.na.2011.10.023

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Ma RY, Sun JY, Elsanosi M: Sign-changing solutions of second order Dirichlet problem with impulsive effects. Dyn. Contin. Discrete Impuls. Syst., Ser. A Math. Anal. 2013, 20: 241–251.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Nieto JJ, O’Regan D: Variational approach to impulsive differential equations. Nonlinear Anal., Real World Appl. 2009, 10: 680–690. 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2007.10.022

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Di Piazza L, Satco B: A new result on impulsive differential equations involving non-absolutely convergent integrals. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2009, 352: 954–963. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2008.11.048

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Xiao JZ, Zhu XH, Cheng R: The solution sets for second order semilinear impulsive multivalued boundary value problems. Comput. Math. Appl. 2012, 64: 147–160. 10.1016/j.camwa.2012.02.015

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Yao MP, Zhao AM, Yan JR: Periodic boundary value problems of second-order impulsive differential equations. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 70: 262–273. 10.1016/j.na.2007.11.050

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Bai L, Dai BX: Three solutions for a p -Laplacian boundary value problem with impulsive effects. Appl. Math. Comput. 2011, 217: 9895–9904. 10.1016/j.amc.2011.03.097

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Bogun I: Existence of weak solutions for impulsive p -Laplacian problem with superlinear impulses. Nonlinear Anal., Real World Appl. 2012, 13: 2701–2707. 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2012.03.014

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Cabada A, Tomeček J: Extremal solutions for nonlinear functional ϕ -Laplacian impulsive equations. Nonlinear Anal. 2007, 67: 827–841. 10.1016/j.na.2006.06.043

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Feng MQ, Du B, Ge WG: Impulsive boundary value problems with integral boundary conditions and one-dimensional p -Laplacian. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 70: 3119–3126. 10.1016/j.na.2008.04.015

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhang QH, Qiu ZM, Liu XP:Existence of solutions and nonnegative solutions for weighted p(r)-Laplacian impulsive system multi-point boundary value problems. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71: 3814–3825. 10.1016/j.na.2009.02.040

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Ding W, Wang Y: New result for a class of impulsive differential equation with integral boundary conditions. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 2013, 18: 1095–1105. 10.1016/j.cnsns.2012.09.021

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Hao XN, Liu LS, Wu YH: Positive solutions for second order impulsive differential equations with integral boundary conditions. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 2011, 16: 101–111. 10.1016/j.cnsns.2010.04.007

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Liu ZH, Han JF, Fang LJ: Integral boundary value problems for first order integro-differential equations with impulsive integral conditions. Comput. Math. Appl. 2011, 61: 3035–3043. 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.03.094

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhang XM, Yang XZ, Ge WG: Positive solutions of n th-order impulsive boundary value problems with integral boundary conditions in Banach spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71: 5930–5945. 10.1016/j.na.2009.05.016

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Partly supported by the National Science Foundation of China (10701066 & 10971087).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qihu Zhang.

Additional information

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

All authors typed, read and approved the final manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dong, R., Zhang, Q. Solutions and nonnegative solutions for a weighted variable exponent impulsive integro-differential system with multi-point and integral mixed boundary value problems. Bound Value Probl 2013, 161 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-2770-2013-161

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-2770-2013-161

Keywords