Research

# Continuous dependence of solutions of abstract generalized linear differential equations with potential converging uniformly with a weight

Giselle Antunes Monteiro1 and Milan Tvrdý2*

Author Affiliations

1 Mathematical Institute, Academy of Sciences of Czech Republic, Žitná 25, Praha, 115 67, Czech Republic

2 Mathematical Institute, Academy of Sciences of Czech Republic, Žitná 25, Praha, 115 67, Czech Republic

For all author emails, please log on.

Boundary Value Problems 2014, 2014:71  doi:10.1186/1687-2770-2014-71

Dedicated to Professor Ivan Kiguradze for his merits in mathematical sciences.

 Received: 20 January 2014 Accepted: 13 March 2014 Published: 26 March 2014

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

### Abstract

In this paper we continue our research from (Monteiro and Tvrdý in Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 33(1):283-303, 2013) on continuous dependence on a parameter k of solutions to linear integral equations of the form , , , where , X is a Banach space, is the Banach space of linear bounded operators on X, , have bounded variations on , are regulated on . The integrals are understood as the abstract Kurzweil-Stieltjes integral and the studied equations are usually called generalized linear differential equations (in the sense of Kurzweil, cf. (Kurzweil in Czechoslov. Math. J. 7(82):418-449, 1957) or (Kurzweil in Generalized Ordinary Differential Equations: Not Absolutely Continuous Solutions, 2012)). In particular, we are interested in the situation when the variations need not be uniformly bounded. Our main goal here is the extension of Theorem 4.2 from (Monteiro and Tvrdý in Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 33(1):283-303, 2013) to the nonhomogeneous case. Applications to second-order systems and to dynamic equations on time scales are included as well.

MSC: 45A05, 34A30, 34N05.

##### Keywords:
abstract generalized differential equation; continuous dependence; time scale dynamics

### 1 Introduction

In the theory of differential equations it is always desirable to ensure that their solutions depend continuously on the input data. In other words to ensure that small changes of the input data causes also small changes of the corresponding solutions. For ordinary differential equations, in some sense a final result on the continuous dependence was delivered by Kurzweil and Vorel in their paper [1] from 1957. In fact, it was a response to the averaging method introduced few years before by Krasnoselskij and Krein [2]. The extension of the averaging method and the problem of the continuous dependence of solutions on input data were the main motivations for Kurzweil to introduce his notion of generalized differential equations in [3].

By generalized linear differential equations we understand linear integral equations of the form

(1.1)

where , X is a Banach space, is the Banach space of linear bounded operators on X, , has bounded variation on , is regulated on and the integrals are understood in the Kurzweil-Stieltjes sense. By a solution of (1.1) we understand a function such that exists and (1.1) is true for all .

For , such equations are special cases of equations introduced in 1957 by Kurzweil (see [3]) in connection with the advanced study of continuous dependence properties of ordinary differential equations (see also [1]). In this connection, we want to highlight the recent monograph [4] bringing a new insight into the topic. Linear equations of the form (1.1) have been in the finite-dimensional case thoroughly treated by Schwabik, Tvrdý and Ashordia (see e.g.[5,6] and [7]).

Basic theory of the abstract Kurzweil-Stieltjes integral (called also abstract Perron-Stieltjes or simply gauge-Stieltjes integral) and generalized linear differential equations in a general Banach space has been established by Schwabik in a series of papers [8-10] written between 1996 and 2000. Some of the needed complements have been added in our paper [11].

Taking into account the closing remark in [9], we can see that the following basic existence result is a particular case of [[9], Proposition 2.10].

Proposition 1.1Lethave a bounded variation on. Then, (1.1) possesses a unique solutionxonfor everyand every functionregulated onif and only if

(1.2)

wherestands for the identity operator onX. In such a casexis regulated on, has a bounded variation onand

(1.3)

where.

Primarily we are concerned with the continuous dependence of solutions of generalized linear differential equations on a parameter. In particular, we assume that the given equation (1.1) has a unique solution x for each f regulated on and each and we consider a sequence of equations depending on a parameter ,

(1.4)

where have bounded variation on , are regulated on and for . We are looking for conditions ensuring that (1.4) has a unique solution for each k large enough and the sequence tends uniformly on to x, i.e.

(1.5)

In [12] we proved the following two theorems. The first one deals with the case that the variations of are uniformly bounded.

Proposition 1.2 [[12], Theorem 3.4]

Lethave bounded variation on, be regulated onandfor. Furthermore, assume (1.2),

(1.6)

(1.7)

(1.8)

(1.9)

Then (1.1) has a unique solutionxon. Furthermore, for eachsufficiently large there is a unique solutiononto (1.4) and (1.5) holds.

The second result from [12], inspired by Opial’s paper [13], concerns the situation when variations of (1.6) need not be uniformly bounded and (1.1) and (1.4) reduce to homogeneous equations.

Proposition 1.3 [[12], Theorem 4.2]

Lethave bounded variation onand letfor. Furthermore, assume (1.2), (1.9) and

(1.10)

Then the equation

(1.11)

has a unique solutionxon. Moreover, for eachsufficiently large, the equation

(1.12)

has a unique solutiononand (1.5) holds.

Let us recall the following observation.

Lemma 1.4Lethave bounded variation onand let (1.10) be satisfied. Then (1.7) is true as well.

Proof The proof follows from the obvious inequality

□

The only known result (cf. [[12], Corollary 4.4]) concerning nonhomogeneous equations (1.1), (1.4) and the case when (1.6) is not satisfied requires that X is a finite-dimensional space. The aim of this paper is to fill this gap.

For a more detailed list of related references, see [12].

### 2 Preliminaries

Throughout these notes X is a Banach space and is the Banach space of bounded linear operators on X. By we denote the norm in X. Similarly, denotes the usual operator norm in .

Assume that and denotes the corresponding closed interval. A set with is said to be a division of if . The set of all divisions of is denoted by .

A function is called a finite step function on if there exists a division of such that f is constant on every open interval , .

For an arbitrary function we set and

is the variation of f over . If , we say that f is a function of bounded variation on . denotes the Banach space of functions of bounded variation on equipped with the norm .

The function is called regulated on if for each there is such that and for each there is such that . By we denote the Banach space of regulated functions equipped with the norm . For , we put and . Recall that cf.e.g. the assertion contained in Section 1.5 of [9].

In what follows, by an integral we mean the Kurzweil-Stieltjes integral. Let us recall its definition. As usual, a partition of is a tagged system, i.e., a couple where , and holds for . Furthermore, any positive function is called a gauge on . Given a gauge δ on , the partition P is called δ-fine if holds for all . We remark that for an arbitrary gauge δ on there always exists a δ-fine partition of . It is stated by the Cousin lemma (see e.g. [[5], Lemma 1.4]).

For given functions and and a partition of , where , , we define

We say that is the Kurzweil-Stieltjes integral (or shortly KS-integral) of g with respect to F on and denote if for every there exists a gauge δ on such that

Analogously, we define the integral using sums of the form

Some basic estimates for the KS-integrals are summarized in the following proposition. For the proofs, see [[12], Proposition 2.1] and [[11], Lemma 2.2].

Proposition 2.1Letand.

(i) Ifand, thenexists and

(ii) Ifand, thenexists and

For more details concerning the abstract KS-integration and further references, see [8-10,14] and [11].

### 3 Main result

Our main result is based on the following lemma which is an analog of the assertion formulated for ODEs by Kiguradze in [[15], Lemma 2.5]. Its variant was used also in the study of FDEs by Hakl, Lomtatidze and Stavrolaukis in [[16], Lemma 3.5].

Lemma 3.1Letforand assume that (1.2) and (1.10) hold.

Then there existandsuch that

(3.1)

Proof Assume that (3.1) is not true, i.e. assume that for each there are and such that

(3.2)

We will prove that (3.2) leads to a contradiction. To this aim, first, rewrite inequality (3.2) as

(3.3)

where

(3.4)

Then, by (3.3) and (3.4) we can immediately see that for all . Hence,

(3.5)

Now, denote

(3.6)

and

(3.7)

By (3.3) we have

(3.8)

and, in particular,

(3.9)

Moreover, the equalities (3.6) and (3.7) yield

Consequently, ,

(3.10)

Now, let be fixed. We have

i.e.

(3.11)

where

(3.12)

We claim that

(3.13)

Indeed, by (3.10) and Proposition 2.1(ii) we have

wherefrom

(3.14)

follows due to (1.10). Moreover, using Proposition 2.1(i) and (3.8), we get

and, hence,

(3.15)

Now, (3.13) follows immediately from (3.14) and (3.15).

Finally, having in mind Proposition 1.1 (cf. (1.3)) and (3.11), (3.5), and (3.13), we conclude that

i.e.

(3.16)

This, together with (3.7) and (3.9), implies that , which is impossible as for all . The assertion of the lemma is true. □

Theorem 3.2Let, , andfor. Assume (1.2), (1.9), (1.10), and

(3.17)

Then (1.1) has a unique solutionon. Moreover, for eachsufficiently large, (1.4) has a unique solutiononand (1.5) is true.

Proof First, recall that, by Lemma 1.4 our assumption (1.10) implies that (1.7) is true, as well. Therefore, by [[12], Lemma 4.2], there is such that

and (1.4) has a unique solution for each (cf. Proposition 1.1). By Lemma 3.1 we may choose and in such way that (3.1) holds.

Put for . Then and

for and . Using (3.1) we deduce that the inequality

holds for all . Thus, due to (1.9), (1.10) and (3.17), we have , wherefrom (1.5) immediately follows. The proof of the theorem has been completed. □

Remark 3.3 The proof of Theorem 3.2 could be substantially simplified and also extended to the case if the following assertion was true.

Letforand

(3.18)

Then

(3.19)

holds for each.

Unfortunately, this is in general not true even in the scalar case as shown by the following example that was communicated to us by Ivo Vrkoč.

Example 3.4 Let . For puta

and define

(3.20)

and

It is easy to verify that

and

for all . In particular, (3.18) is true. However, if

(3.21)

then f is regulated, and (3.19) is not valid since

(3.22)

where the right-hand side evidently tends to ∞ for .

Moreover, the functions (3.20) and (3.21) provide us with the argument explaining that the condition in Theorem 3.2 cannot be extended to . Indeed, consider the equations

(3.23)

and

(3.24)

where for and . Obviously, is a solution to (3.23) on and, for any , (3.24) possesses a solution on . Furthermore, conditions (1.10) and (3.17) are satisfied. However, as we will see, does not converge to x.

Let be fixed. It is not difficult to verify that the solution to (3.24) on is given by

where

and

for . Furthermore, since

we have

Similarly, for we have

and hence

From these formulas we can deduce that

if m is even, while for m odd and we get

In particular, for . Using the above relations and the definition of f, we get

if is even, and

if is odd.

Clearly, ,

and

On the other hand, like in (3.22), we have

where the right-hand side tends to ∞ when . Consequently, the sequence cannot have a finite limit for .

Remark 3.5 Reasonable examples of sequences that tend to a function f of bounded variation are provided e.g. by sequences of the form , where tends to and tends to 0.

Remark 3.6 For and , define

and

Then is said to be the semi-variation ofF on (cf.e.g.[17]).b It is clear that if then F has bounded semi-variation on while the reversed implication is not true in general (cf. [[18], Theorem 2]). By [8] and [11], the Kurzweil-Stieltjes integral is well defined when both functions, A and x, are regulated and A has bounded semi-variation. Therefore, the study of generalized linear differential equations has a good sense also when A is regulated and has bounded semi-variation instead of having , cf.[9] and [10]. However, the possible extension of Theorem 3.1 to such a case remains open.

Analogously to operator valued functions, the semi-variation of a function could be defined using

However, it may be shown that, in this case, f has a bounded semi-variation if and only . Therefore, the possible replacement of the condition in Theorem 3.1 by the requirement that f has a bounded semi-variation is not interesting.

### 4 Some applications

#### Second-order measure equations

Let Y be a Banach space, , and . Consider the following system of generalized linear differential equations:

(4.1)

Put and for and define functions and by

(4.2)

Clearly,

and system (4.1) can be reformulated as (1.1), where and is a function with values in X. One can verify that condition (1.2) is satisfied whenever one of the following conditions is true:

(4.3)

(4.4)

where stands for the identity operator on Y.

Indeed, assume e.g. that (4.3) holds and let for some and . Then

(4.5)

i.e.

(4.6)

By (4.3) the latter equality can happen only if . Consequently , and hence , as well. Similarly, we would show that implies also in the case that (4.4) is satisfied. This shows that the operator is injective.

To prove its surjectivity, assume first (4.3) and let be given. Put

Then, and

that is, for . Similarly, we can show that for each there is such that also in the case that (4.4) is satisfied. The operator is surjective. To summarize, according to the Banach theorem, the operator possesses a bounded .

Now, consider the systems

(4.7)

where , , and . Assume that (4.3) or (4.4) is true and

(4.8)

(4.9)

and

(4.10)

Define and for like A and f in (4.2) (however, replace P, Q, g, and h by , , and , respectively). It is easy to see that then the assumptions of Theorem 3.2 are satisfied. Therefore, we can state the following assertion.

Corollary 4.1Assume that (4.3) or (4.4) holds and that (4.8)-(4.10) are satisfied. Then system (4.1) has a unique solutionon. Moreover, for eachsufficiently large, the system (4.7) has a unique solutiononand

In [19], Meng and Zhang investigated the continuous dependence on a parameter k for second-order linear measure differential equations of the form

(4.11)

where are normalized measures on (generated by functions of bounded variation on and right-continuous in ), and stands for the generalized right-derivative of y. The main result of [19] is Theorem 1.1, which states that the weak convergence implies the uniform convergence of the corresponding solutions, the weak convergence and the ending velocity convergence .

Notice that our systems (4.7) reduce to (4.11) when , , and for and both and are constant [[19], Definition 3.1]. Similarly, if, in addition, and for and both g and h are constant, then system (4.1) reduces to the second-order linear measure differential equation of the form

(4.12)

where μ is a normalized measure on and . Obviously, both existence conditions (4.3) and (4.4) are now satisfied. In view of this, assuming that μ and have a bounded variation on and

it follows from our Corollary 4.1 that

holds for the corresponding solutions of (4.11) and (4.12).

Thus, in comparison with Theorem 1.1 in [19], our convergence assumptions are partially stronger. The reason is that our result includes also the uniform convergence of the sequence . On the other hand, the weak convergence which appears in [19] includes the uniform boundedness of the variations (cf.e.g. [[20], Lemma 2.4] or [[21], Section 26]) which is not required in our case.

#### Linear dynamic equations on time scales

Let us recall some basics of the theory of dynamic equations on time scales. A nonempty closed subset of ℝ is called time scale. For given , we put . For , we define

The point is said to be right-dense if , while it is left-dense if . A function is rd-continuous in if f is continuous at every right-dense point of and there exists for every left-dense point (see e.g.[22]).

Let us consider the linear dynamic equation

(4.13)

where and , are rd-continuous functions and stands for the Δ-derivative. By a solution of (4.13) we understand a function satisfying the integral equation

where the integral is the Riemann Δ-integral defined e.g. in [22].

As noticed by Slavík (see [[23], Theorem 5]), the Riemann Δ-integral can be regarded as a special case of the Kurzweil-Stieltjes integral. More precisely:

Letbe an rd-continuous function and

and

Thenholds for.

As a consequence, a relationship between the solutions of (4.13) and generalized linear differential equations can be deduced.

Proposition 4.2 [[23], Theorem 12]

Ifis a solution of (4.13) then

is a solution of (1.1), where

(4.14)

Symmetrically, ifis a solution of (1.1), withAandfgiven by (4.14), thendefined byforis a solution of (4.13).

It is important to mention that, thanks to the properties of , the functions and given by (4.14) are well defined, left-continuous and of bounded variation on .

Using the correspondence stated in Proposition 4.2 and Theorem 3.2 we obtain the following result.

Theorem 4.3Let, forbe rd-continuous functions inand let, , be given. Assume that

(4.15)

(4.16)

Then initial value problem (4.13) has a solutiony, the initial value problems

(4.17)

have solutionsfor all, and

Proof For each and , define

(4.18)

It is not difficult to see that, if , then

and, consequently,

On the other hand,

and, analogously,

These estimates, together with (4.15) and (4.16) imply that the assumptions of Theorem 3.2 are satisfied. Therefore, the uniform convergence of solutions of equation (1.5) to the solution x of (1.1) follows. Since by Proposition 4.2 the solutions of (4.13) and (4.17) are, respectively, obtained as the restriction of x and to , the proof is complete. □

Remark 4.4 It is worth to mention that Theorem 4.3 given above encompasses Theorem 5.5 from [12]. This is due to the fact that the weighted convergence assumptions in [[12], Theorem 5.5] involves not only the supremum , but also .

### Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

### Authors’ contributions

The authors contributed equally to the manuscript and read and approved the final draft.

### Acknowledgements

GA Monteiro has bee supported by the Institutional Research Plan No. AV0Z10190503 and by the Academic Human Resource Program of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic and M Tvrdý has been supported by the grant No. 14-06958S of the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic and by the Institutional Research Plan No. AV0Z10190503. The authors sincerely thank Ivo Vrkoč for his valuable contribution to this paper.

### End notes

1. stands, as usual, for the integer part of the nonnegative real number x.

2. Sometimes it is called also the ℬ-variation ofF on (with respect to the bilinear triple , cf.e.g.[8]).

### References

1. Kurzweil, J, Vorel, Z: Continuous dependence of solutions of differential equations on a parameter. Czechoslov. Math. J.. 7(82), 568–583 (1957)

2. Krasnoselskij, MA, Krein, SG: On the averaging principle in nonlinear mechanics. Usp. Mat. Nauk. 10(3), 147–152 (in Russian) (1955)

3. Kurzweil, J: Generalized ordinary differential equation and continuous dependence on a parameter. Czechoslov. Math. J.. 7(82), 418–449 (1957)

4. Kurzweil, J: Generalized Ordinary Differential Equations: Not Absolutely Continuous Solutions, World Scientific, Singapore (2012)

5. Schwabik, Š: Generalized Ordinary Differential Equations, World Scientific, Singapore (1992)

6. Schwabik, Š, Tvrdý, M, Vejvoda, O: Differential and Integral Equations: Boundary Value Problems and Adjoints, Academia, Praha (1979)

7. Ashordia, M: On the correctness of linear boundary value problems for systems of generalized ordinary differential equations. Proc. Georgian Acad. Sci., Math.. 1, 385–394 (1993)

8. Schwabik, Š: Abstract Perron-Stieltjes integral. Math. Bohem.. 121, 425–447 (1996)

9. Schwabik, Š: Linear Stieltjes integral equations in Banach spaces. Math. Bohem.. 124, 433–457 (1999)

10. Schwabik, Š: Linear Stieltjes integral equations in Banach spaces II. Operator valued solutions. Math. Bohem.. 125, 431–454 (2000)

11. Monteiro, GA, Tvrdý, M: On Kurzweil-Stieltjes integral in Banach space. Math. Bohem.. 137, 365–381 (2012)

12. Monteiro, GA, Tvrdý, M: Generalized linear differential equations in a Banach space: continuous dependence on a parameter. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst.. 33(1), 283–303 (2013). Publisher Full Text

13. Opial, Z: Continuous parameter dependence in linear systems of differential equations. J. Differ. Equ.. 3, 571–579 (1967). Publisher Full Text

14. Dudley, RM, Norvaiša, R: Concrete Functional Calculus, Springer, New York (2011)

15. Kiguradze, IT: Boundary value problems for systems of ordinary differential equations. Itogi Nauki Tekh., Ser. Sovrem. Probl. Mat., Noveishie Dostizh.. 30, 3–103 (in Russian). English transl.: J. Sov. Math. 43, 2259-2339 (1988) (1987)

16. Hakl, R, Lomtatidze, A, Stavrolaukis, IP: On a boundary value problem for scalar linear functional differential equations. Abstr. Appl. Anal.. 2004(1), 45–67 (2004). Publisher Full Text

17. Hönig, CS: Volterra Stieltjes-Integral Equations, Elsevier, Amsterdam (1975)

18. Thorp, BLD: On the equivalence of certain notions of bounded variation. J. Lond. Math. Soc.. 43, 247–252 (1968)

19. Meng, G, Zhang, M: Dependence of solutions and eigenvalues of measure differential equations on measures. J. Differ. Equ.. 254, 2196–2232 (2013). Publisher Full Text

20. Meng, G, Zhang, M: Measure differential equations I. Continuity of solutions in measures with weak∗ topology. Preprint, Tsinghua University (2009)

21. Glivenko, VI: The Stieltjes Integral, ONTI, Moscow (1936) (in Russian)

22. Bohner, M, Peterson, A: Dynamic Equations on Time Scales: An Introduction with Applications, Birkhäuser, Boston (2001)

23. Slavík, A: Dynamic equations on time scales and generalized ordinary differential equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl.. 385, 534–550 (2012). Publisher Full Text