- Research Article
- Open access
- Published:
New gaps between zeros of fourth-order differential equations via Opial inequalities
Journal of Inequalities and Applications volume 2012, Article number: 182 (2012)
Abstract
In this paper, for a fourth-order differential equation, we will establish some lower bounds for the distance between zeros of a nontrivial solution and also lower bounds for the distance between zeros of a solution and/or its derivatives. We also give some new results related to some boundary value problems in the theory of bending of beams. The main results will be proved by making use of some generalizations of Opial and Wirtinger-type inequalities. Some examples are considered to illustrate the main results.
MSC:34K11, 34C10.
1 Introduction
In this paper, we are concerned with the lower bounds of the distance between zeros of a nontrivial solution and also lower bounds of the distance between zeros of a solution and/or its derivatives for the fourth-order differential equation
where are continuous measurable functions and is a nontrivial interval of reals. By a solution of (1.1) on the interval , we mean a nontrivial real-valued function , which has the property that and satisfies equation (1.1) on J. We assume that (1.1) possesses such a nontrivial solution on . An existence result in the literature, which is related to our results in this paper, was proved by Lyapunov [1] for second-order differential equations. This result states that if is a solution of the differential equation
with () and , then
where q is a real valued continuous function. This was strengthened in [2] with replaced by where . Since the appearance of this inequality various proofs and generalizations or improvements have appeared in the literature for different types of differential equations. For contributions, we refer the reader to the papers [3–22] and the references cited therein.
The nontrivial solution of (1.1) is said to oscillate or to be oscillatory, if it has arbitrarily large zeros. Equation (1.1) is oscillatory if one of its nontrivial solutions is oscillatory. Equation (1.1) is said to be -disconjugate if i and j are positive integers such that and no solution of (1.1) has an -distribution of zeros, i.e., no nontrivial solution has a pair of zeros of multiplicities i and j, respectively. In general, an n th order differential equation
is said to be -disconjugate on an interval I in case no nontrivial solution has a zero of order k followed by a zero of order . This means that, for every pair of points , , there does not exist a nontrivial solution of (1.1) which satisfies
The least value of b such that there exists a nontrivial solution which satisfies (1.5) is called the -conjugate point of a. The differential equation (1.4) is said to disconjugate on an interval I if one of its nontrivial solutions has at most zeros. For our case, if no nontrivial solution of (1.1) has more than three zeros, the equation is termed disconjugate. Together with -disconjugacy, we consider the related concept which is -disfocality. The differential equation (1.4) is said to be disfocal on an interval I if, for every nontrivial solution x at least one of the functions does not vanish on I. If the equation is not disfocal on I, then there exists an integer k (), a pair of points , and a nontrivial solution x such that k of the functions vanishes at a and the remaining functions at b, i.e.,
Equation (1.1) is said to be -disconjugate on if there is no nontrivial solution and , such that . Equation (1.1) is said to be -disfocal on an interval I for some in case there does not exist a solution x with a zero of order k followed by a zero of of order , where for and . For n th order differential equations -disconjugacy and disfocality are connected by the result of Nehari [23] which states that if (1.4) is -disfocal on it is disconjuguate on . For more details about disconjugacy and disfocality and the relation between them, we refer the reader to the paper [24].
In [4] and [25], the authors established some new Lyapunov type inequalities for higher order differential equations. Next, we present some special cases of their results for fourth-order differential equations. In [25], it is proved that if is a solution of the fourth-order differential equation
which satisfies , then
and if satisfies , then
In [4], the author proved that if is a solution of (1.7), which satisfies , then
In this paper, we are concerned with the following problems for the general equation (1.1):
-
(i)
obtain lower bounds for the spacing , where x is a solution of (1.1) satisfying for and ,
-
(ii)
obtain lower bounds for the spacing , where x is a solution of (1.1) satisfying for and .
We will also establish some new results related to some boundary value problems in the theory of bending of beams. In particular, we consider the boundary conditions
which correspond to a beam clamped at each end. Second, we consider the boundary conditions
which correspond to a beam clamped at and free at . The study of the boundary conditions which correspond to a beam clamped at and free at , and the boundary conditions , which correspond to a beam hinged or supported at both ends are similar to the proof of the boundary conditions (1.8)-(1.9) and will be left to the interested reader. For more discussions of boundary conditions of the bending of beams, we refer to [26, 27].
The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we prove several results related to the problems (i)-(ii) and also prove some results related to the boundary value problems of the bending of beams with the boundary conditions (1.8) and (1.9). The main results will be proved by employing some Opial and Wirtinger type inequalities. The results yield conditions for disfocality and disconjugacy. In Section 3, we will discuss some special cases of the results to derive some new results for equation (1.7) and give some illustrative examples. To the best of the authors knowledge, this technique has not been employed before on equation (1.1), and the ideas are different from the techniques employed in [4] and [25]. We note of particular interest in this paper is when q is oscillatory.
2 Main results
In this section, we will prove the main results by employing some Opial and Wirtinger type inequalities. In the following, we present a generalization of Opial’s inequality due to Agarwal and Pang [[28], Theorem 3.9.1] that we will need in the proof of the main results.
Theorem 2.1 [[28], Theorem 3.9.1]
Assume that the functions ϑ and ϕ are non-negative and measurable on the interval , m, n are real numbers such that , and () fixed. Let be such that is absolutely continuous on . If for () then
where
If we replace by , (), then (2.1) holds where is replaced by which is given by
where
In the following, we present a special case of the Wirtinger type inequality due to Agarwal et al. [29] that we will need in the proof of the main results. For and a positive function with either or on , we have
for any with .
Remark 1 It is clear that the inequality (2.4) is satisfied for any function y satisfying the imposed assumptions. If we put with or , or and , then we have the following inequality which gives a relation between and on the interval .
Lemma 2.1 For , then we have
for any with , where satisfies the equation
for any function satisfies .
Remark 2 Note that equation (2.6) holds if one chooses , where in this case
Also, the inequality (2.5) holds if . In this case, the function satisfies the differential equation
for any function satisfies .
Now, we are ready to state and prove the main results when . For simplicity, we introduce the following notations:
and
Theorem 2.2 Suppose that x is a nontrivial solution of (1.1). If , for and , then
where . If , for and , then
where .
Proof We prove (2.10). Multiplying (1.1) by and integrating by parts, we have
Using the assumptions , and , we have
Integrating by parts the right-hand side, we see that
Using the assumption , we see that
Substituting (2.13) into (2.12), we have
Applying the inequality (2.1) on the integral
with , , , , , and , we get (note that , for ) that
where is defined as in (2.8). Applying the inequality (2.1) again on the integral
with , , , , and , we see that
where is defined as in (2.9). Applying the Wirtinger inequality (2.5) on the integral
where , we see that
where satisfies equation (2.7) for any positive function . Substituting (2.17) into (2.16), we have
Substituting (2.15) and (2.18) into (2.14) and canceling the term , we have
which is the desired inequality (2.10). The proof of (2.11) is similar by using integration by parts and the constants and are replaced by and which are defined as in (2.8). The proof is complete. □
Next, we recall the following inequality in Agarwal and Pang [30].
Theorem 2.3 [30]
Let , be nonnegative measurable functions on and () fixed. If such that , , is absolutely continuous on , then
where
If such that , , is absolutely continuous on then (2.20) holds with is replaced by where
Suppose that the solution of (1.1) satisfies . Applying the inequality (2.20) with , and on the term , leads to
where
If instead , then (2.21) holds where is replaced by
Using and instead of and in the proof of Theorem 2.2, we obtain the following result.
Theorem 2.4 Suppose that x is a nontrivial solution of (1.1). If , for , and , then
where . If , for and , then
where .
If the function is nonincreasing on , then we see that
and
Substituting these last two inequalities into Theorem 2.4, we have the following result.
Theorem 2.5 Assume that is a nonincreasing function and x is a nontrivial solution of (1.1). If , for and , then
If , for and , then
We mention here that if we use the maximum value of , we see that
It is worth mentioning here that the inequality due to Fink [31] can be applied on the term . This in fact will give new results when is a nonincreasing function. We now state this inequality. Let () but fixed and let such that , , is absolutely continuous on and . Then
where
The details of the application of (2.23) will be left to the interested reader. One can note that the inequality (2.23) has been proved without weighted functions, so it will be interesting to extend this inequality and prove an inequality similar to the inequality (2.23) with weighted functions.
In the following, we apply an inequality due to Boyd [32] and the Schwarz inequality to obtain results similar to Theorem 2.5. The Boyd inequality states that if with (or ), then
where , , ,
and
Note that the inequality (2.24) has immediate application to the case where . Choose and apply (2.24) to and , and then add to obtain
where is defined as in (2.25). The inequality (2.24) has an immediate application when , to the case where (or ). In this case, equation (2.24) becomes
where
and Γ is the Gamma function.
Applying the Schwarz inequality,
on the term
we see that
Applying the inequality (2.27) on the integral
with and (note that ), we see that
where we assumed that is a nonincreasing function. Substituting (2.31) into (2.30), we have
Applying the Wirtinger inequality (2.5) on the integral
where , we see that
where satisfies equation (2.7) for any positive function . This implies that
where . If we replace by , then (2.32) becomes
where .
Using the inequalities (2.31) and (2.33) and proceeding as in the proof of Theorem 2.4, we obtain the following result.
Theorem 2.6 Assume that is a nonincreasing function and x is a nontrivial solution of (1.1). If , for and , then
If , for and , then
Remark 3 In Theorem 2.6, if , then the term changes to .
In the following, we will prove some results related to the boundary value problems in the theory of bending of beams. We begin with the boundary conditions , which correspond to a beam clamped at each end. Let
Theorem 2.7 Suppose that x is a nontrivial solution of (1.1) and . If , then
where and are defined as in (2.34).
Proof Multiplying (1.1) by and integrating by parts, we have
Using the assumptions that and , we get that
Integrating by parts the right-hand side, we see that
Using the assumption , we see that
Integrating by parts the left-hand side of (2.37), we see that
Using the assumption , we have
Substituting (2.38) and (2.40) into (2.37), we have
Applying the inequality (2.1) on the integral
with , , , , and , we see that
where and are defined as in (2.34). Applying the inequality (2.20) on the integral
with , and , we see that
where . Substituting (2.42) and (2.43) into (2.41) and canceling the term , we have
which is the desired inequality (2.35). The proof is complete. □
Remark 4 One can use the condition instead of in the proof of Theorem 2.8. In this case the term is replaced by and also the term is replaced by .
In the following, we consider the boundary conditions , which correspond to a beam hinged or supported at both ends. The proof will be as in the proof of Theorem 2.7, by using these boundary conditions to get that and . This gives us the following result.
Theorem 2.8 Suppose that x is a nontrivial solution of (1.1) and . If , then
where and are defined as in (2.34).
Next, in the following, we establish some results, which allow us to consider the case when . Let
where
Theorem 2.9 Suppose that x is a nontrivial solution of (1.1). If , for and , then
where . If , for and , then
where .
Proof We prove (2.45). Multiplying (1.1) by and integrating by parts, we have
Using the assumptions and , we have
Integrating by parts the last term in the right-hand side, we see that
Using the assumption , we see that
Substituting (2.13) into (2.12), we have
Applying the inequality (2.1) on the integral
with , , , , , , and , we get (note that , for ) that
where is defined as in (2.8) and Q is replaced by . Applying the inequality (2.1) again on the integral
with , , , , and , we see that
where is defined as in (2.9) and Q is replaced by . Applying the Wirtinger inequality (2.5) on the integral
where , we see that
where satisfies equation (2.7) for any positive function . Substituting (2.52) into (2.51), we have
Applying the inequality (2.1) on the integral
with , , , , , , and , we get (note that , for ) that
where is defined as in (2.44). Substituting (2.50), (2.53), and (2.54) into (2.49) and canceling the term , we have
which is the desired inequality (2.45). The proof of (2.46) is similar to (2.45) by using the integration by parts and the constants
are replaced by
which are defined as in (2.8) and (2.44). The proof is complete. □
3 Discussions and examples
In this section, we present some special cases of the results obtained in Section 2 and also give some illustrative examples. We begin with Theorem 2.2 and consider the case when . In this case, equation (1.1) becomes the fourth-order differential equation
Using the definitions of the functions and , and putting , we see after simplifications that
which lead to
and
As a special case of Theorem 2.2, if , we have the following result.
Theorem 3.1 Suppose that x is a nontrivial solution of (3.1). If , for and , then
where . If , for and , then
where .
As a special case of Theorem 2.5, if , then we have the following result.
Theorem 3.2 Suppose that x is a nontrivial solution of (3.1). If , for and , then
If , for and , then
As a special case of Theorem 2.7, if , we have the following result.
Theorem 3.3 Suppose that x is a nontrivial solution of (3.1). If , then
Remark 5 Note that the violation of the conditions in Theorem 3.3 yield sufficient conditions for disconjugacy of equation (3.1).
As a special case of Theorem 2.8, if , we have the following result.
Theorem 3.4 Suppose that x is a nontrivial solution of (3.1). If , then
The following examples illustrate the results.
Example 1 Consider the equation
where λ and α are positive constants. If be a solution of (3.3) with , then
Then if , the condition (3.2) of Theorem 3.3 is given by
which is satisfied for any and .
Example 2 Consider the equation
where λ and α are positive constants. By Theorem 3.3, we see that the equation (3.5) is 2-2 disconjugate on if
That is,
From this, we conclude that the interval of disconjugacy is bounded below by a constant times the cubic root of the frequency for , i.e., if is the interval of disconjugacy, then . In fact, this is compatible with the special case of the results that has been proved in [33].
References
Lyapunov AM Ann. of Math. Stud. 17. In Probleme General de la Stabilitie du Movement. Princeton University Press, Princeton; 1949.
Wintner A: On the nonexistence of conjugate points. Amer. J. Math. 1951, 73: 368–380. 10.2307/2372182
Almenar P, Jódar L: A Lyapunov inequality for a second order nonlinear differential equations. Appl. Math. Lett. 2001, 24: 524–527.
Cakmak D: Lyapunov-type integral inequalities for certain higher order differential equations. Appl. Math. Comput. 2010, 216: 368–373. 10.1016/j.amc.2010.01.010
Chen LS: A Lyapunov inequality and forced oscillations in general nonlinear nth order differential-difference equations. Glasg. Math. J. 1977, 18: 161–166. 10.1017/S0017089500003219
Eliason SB: Lyapunov type inequalities for certain second-order functional differential equations. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 1974, 27: 180–199. 10.1137/0127015
Parhi N, Panigrahi S: On Liapunov-type inequality for third order differential equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1999, 233: 445–460. 10.1006/jmaa.1999.6265
Parhi N, Panigrahi S: Disfocality and Liapunov-type inequalities for third-order differential equations. Comput. Math. Appl. 2003, 16: 227–233.
Pachpatte BG: A note on Lyapunov type inequalities. Indian J. Pure Appl. Math. 1990, 21: 45–49.
Pachpatte BG: On the zeros of solutions of certain differential equations. Demonstr. Math. 1992, 25: 825–833.
Pachpatte BG: A Lyapunov type inequality for a certain second-order differential equation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., India 1994, 64: 69–73.
Pachpatte, BG: An inequality suggested by Lyapunov’s inequality. Centre Rech. Math. Pures, Neuchatel Chambery, Fac. 26, Ser. I, 1–4 (1995)
Pachpatte BG: Lyapunov type integral inequalities for certain differential equations. Georgian Math. J. 1997, 4: 139–148. 10.1023/A:1022930116838
Pachpatte BG: Inequalities related to the zeros of solutions of certain second order differential equations. Facta Univ. Ser. Math. Inform. 2001, 16: 35–44.
Patula WT: On the distance between zeros. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1975, 52: 247–251. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1975-0379986-5
Panigrahi S: Lyapunov-type integral inequalities for certain higher-order differential equations. Electron. J. Differ. Equ. 2009, 2009: 1–14.
Reid WT: A generalized Lyapunov inequality. Electron. J. Differ. Equ. 1973, 13: 182–196. 10.1016/0022-0396(73)90040-5
Saker SH: Lyapunov inequalities for half-linear dynamic equations on time scales and disconjugacy. Dyn. Contin. Discrete Impuls. Syst., Ser. B, Appl. Algorithms 2011, 18: 149–161.
Saker SH: Applications of Wirtinger inequalities on the distribution of zeros of the Riemann Zeta-function. J. Inequal. Appl. 2010., 2010: Article ID 215416
Saker SH: Applications of Opial and Wirtinger inequalities on zeros of third order differential equations. Dyn. Syst. Appl. 2011, 20: 479–494.
Saker SH: Lyapunov type inequalities for a second order differential equations with a damping term. Ann. Pol. Math. 2012, 103: 37–57. 10.4064/ap103-1-4
Saker SH: Opial’s type inequalities on time scales and some applications. Ann. Pol. Math. 2012, 104: 234–260.
Nehari Z: Green’s functions and disconjugacy. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 1976, 62: 53–76.
Elias U: Necessary conditions and sufficent conditions for disfocality and disconjugacy of a differential equation. Pac. J. Math. 1979, 81: 379–397. 10.2140/pjm.1979.81.379
Yang X: On a Liapunov-type inequality for a certain higher-order differential equations. Appl. Math. Comput. 2003, 134: 307–317. 10.1016/S0096-3003(01)00285-5
Courant R, Hilbert D I. In Methods of Mathematical Physics. Wiley, New York; 1989.
Zill DG, Wright WS, Cullen MR: Advanced Engineering Mathematics. 4th edition. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Canada; 2011.
Agarwal RP, Pang PYH: Opial Inequalities with Applications in Differential and Difference Equations. Kluwer, Dordrechet; 1995.
Agarwal RP, Bohner M, O’Regan D, Saker SH: Some dynamic Wirtinger-type inequalities and their applications. Pac. J. Math. 2011, 252: 1–18. 10.2140/pjm.2011.252.1
Agarwal RP, Pang PYH: Sharp Opial-type inequalities involving higher order derivatives of two functions. Math. Nachr. 1995, 174: 5–20. 10.1002/mana.19951740102
Fink AM:On Opial’s inequality for . Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1992, 115: 177–181.
Boyd D: Best constants in class of integral inequalities. Pac. J. Math. 1969, 30: 367–383. 10.2140/pjm.1969.30.367
Brown R, Hinton D: Lyapunov inequalities and their applications. In Survey on Classical Inequalities. Edited by: Rassias T. Kluwer, Drodrecht; 2000:1–25.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
All the authors contributed equaly and significantly in writting this paper.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Saker, S., Agarwal, R. & O’Regan, D. New gaps between zeros of fourth-order differential equations via Opial inequalities. J Inequal Appl 2012, 182 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2012-182
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2012-182