 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Oscillatory and asymptotic properties of thirdorder quasilinear delay differential equations
Journal of Inequalities and Applications volume 2019, Article number: 23 (2019)
Abstract
In this paper, we consider a class of quasilinear thirdorder differential equations with a delayed argument. We establish new sufficient conditions for all solutions of such equations to be oscillatory or almost oscillatory. Those criteria improve, simplify and complement a number of existing results. The strength of the criteria obtained is tested on Euler type equations.
Introduction
In this paper, we are concerned with the asymptotic and oscillatory behavior of solutions of quasilinear thirdorder delay differential equations of the form
Throughout the paper, without further mentioning, we will assume the following hypotheses:
 (H_{0}):

α is a quotient of odd positive integers;
 (H_{1}):

\(r\in\mathcal{C}([t_{0},\infty), \mathbb {R})\) is positive and satisfies
$$ \int_{t_{0}}^{\infty}\frac{\mathrm {d}t}{r^{1/\alpha}(t)} < \infty; $$  (H_{2}):

\(q\in\mathcal{C}([t_{0},\infty),\mathbb {R})\) is nonnegative and does not vanish eventually;
 (H_{3}):

the delay function \(\tau\in\mathcal{C}^{1}([t_{0}, \infty),\mathbb {R})\) is strictly increasing, \(\tau(t)\le t\), and \(\lim_{t\to\infty}\tau(t) = \infty\).
By a solution of Eq. (1.1), we mean a nontrivial function \(y\in\mathcal{C}^{1}([T_{y},\infty),\mathbb {R})\) with \(T_{y} \ge t_{0}\), which has the property \(y', r (y'' )^{\alpha}\in \mathcal{C}^{1}([T_{y},\infty),\mathbb {R})\), and satisfies (1.1) on \([T_{y},\infty)\). We only consider those solutions of (1.1) which exist on some halfline \([T_{y},\infty)\) and satisfy the condition \(\sup\{ \vert y(t) \vert :T\le t<\infty\}>0\) for any \(T\geq T_{y}\).
A solution y of (1.1) is said to be oscillatory if it is neither eventually positive nor eventually negative. Otherwise, it is nonoscillatory. The equation itself is termed oscillatory if all its solutions oscillate.
From the early years of the 18th century, differential equations of thirdorder have been used for modeling various phenomena in several areas of the applied sciences. The first step in this direction was taken by J. Bernoulli in 1696 who formulated the famous isoperimetric problem and, five years later, gave the solution that depends upon a thirdorder differential equation [8]. Since then, these equations have shown to be particularly important in the modeling of several physical phenomena, including the interactions between charged particles, in an external electromagnetic field [21], the entryflow phenomenon [11], the propagation of action potentials in squid neurons [16] and others.
Although the importance of thirdorder equations in applications had been realized very early, the majority of the work on the qualitative behavior of those equations has been carried out only relatively recently, in the last three decades. For a review of key results up to 2014, we refer the reader to the recent monographs [17, 18].
The study of qualitative properties of differential equations of the form (1.1) and their particular cases or generalizations has become the subject of extensive research; see, for example, [1,2,3,4,5,6, 9, 10, 15, 19, 20] and the references cited therein. Mostly, Eq. (1.1) has been investigated under the assumption
In this case, by generalizing a familiar Kiguradze lemma, see [12, Lemma 1.1] or [13, Lemma 2], it follows that there are only two possibilities for a nonoscillatory, say positive, solution y of (1.1), namely cases (I) and (III) of Lemma 1 below. If, however, the integral in (1.2) is convergent, an additional case for nonoscillatory solutions must be considered.
For closely related results having in common that the function \(r(t)\) satisfies condition (1.2), we refer the reader to [1, 3,4,5,6, 10, 19, 20].
The main objective of this work is to establish results for the solutions of (1.1) to be oscillatory or almost oscillatory under the crucial condition (H_{1}). We postulate new sufficient conditions for oscillations and/or property A (see Definition 1), which improve, simplify and complement some existing results reported in the literature. Finally, we test the strength of our criteria on Euler type equations.
Preliminaries, definitions and existing results
At first, we constrain the structure of possible nonoscillatory, let us say positive solutions of (1.1).
Lemma 1
Let y be an eventually positive solution of (1.1). Then there exists \(t_{1} \in[t_{0},\infty)\) such that y satisfies one of the following cases:

(I)
\(y > 0\), \(y' >0\), \(y'' > 0\),

(II)
\(y > 0\), \(y' >0\), \(y'' < 0\),

(III)
\(y > 0\), \(y' <0\), \(y'' > 0\),
for \(t\ge t_{1}\).
Proof
The proof is straightforward and hence we omit it. □
Notation and definitions
Throughout the paper, we will use the following notation:
and
Remark 1
All functional inequalities considered in the paper are supposed to hold eventually, that is, they are satisfied for all t large enough.
Remark 2
Note that if y is a solution of (1.1), then \(x = y\) is also a solution of (1.1). Thus, regarding nonoscillatory solutions of (1.1), we only need to consider the eventually positive ones.
Definition 1
We say that (1.1) has property A if any solution y of (1.1) is oscillatory or satisfies \(\lim_{t\to\infty}y(t) = 0\). In such case, some authors say that Eq. (1.1) is almost oscillatory.
Definition 2
We say that (1.1) has property P, if any nonoscillatory, say positive, solution y of (1.1) satisfies case (III) of Lemma 1.
Motivation
In the sequel, we state and discuss in detail a triplet of related results for (1.1) under the assumptions (H_{0})–(H_{3}), which are considered to be the primary motivation of the paper.
Grace et al. [9] studying the oscillatory behavior of (1.1) using comparison principles and established the following result, which we present below for the reader’s convenience.
Theorem A
(See [9, Theorem 3])
Assume that there exist two functions \(\xi(t)\) and \(\eta(t)\in C ^{1}([t_{0},\infty),\mathbb {R})\) such that
If
for any \(T\ge t_{0}\),
and
then (1.1) is oscillatory.
It is useful to note that conditions (2.1), (2.2) and (2.3) eliminate solutions satisfying cases (I)–(III) of Lemma 1, respectively.
Making further use of comparison principles with firstorder delay equations, Agarwal et al. [2] established the following oscillation result for (1.1) with \(\alpha= 1\).
Theorem B
(See [2, Corollary 1])
Assume that \(\alpha= 1\) and there exist two functions \(\xi, \sigma\in C^{1}([t_{0},\infty),\mathbb {R})\) such that \(\xi(t)>t\), \(\xi(t)\) is nondecreasing, \(\tau(\xi(\xi(t)))< t\), \(\sigma(t)\) is nondecreasing, and \(\sigma(t)>t\). If for all \(t_{2}>t_{1}\ge t_{0}\)
and
then (1.1) is oscillatory.
In fact, both Theorems A and B strongly depend on the right choice of the auxiliary functions in lim inftype conditions. Since there is no general rule for this choice, the application of such criteria may become difficult.
Using a different technique based on reducing the studied equation into a firstorder Riccatitype inequality, which is generally considered as one of the most valuable tools in the oscillation theory, Li et al. [15] provided the following criterion for property A of (1.1).
Theorem C
(See [15, Theorem 1])
Assume that
and
for some \(\ell\in(0,1)\) and for sufficiently large \(T_{\ell}\ge t _{0}\), \(t_{2}\ge T_{\ell}\). If, moreover,
holds for some \(k\in(0,1)\) and for sufficiently large \(t_{3}\ge t _{0}\), then (1.1) has property A.
Here, condition (2.7) works to ensure that any solution of type (III) converges to zero as t approaches infinity, while conditions (2.8) and (2.9) eliminate solutions of type (I) and (II), respectively.
It is well known that the Euler equation
has property A if \(q_{0}>2/(3\sqrt{3})\). However, Theorem C obviously fails to apply to (2.10) due to (2.7).
Even though the abovementioned oscillation results were shown using different techniques, they all have in common that the desired property is ensured by means of three conditions independent from each other, eliminating solutions of particular cases. The aim in this paper is to provide new oscillation criteria for (1.1) that would significantly improve, complement, and simplify Theorems A–C. An advantage of our approach is that it reduces the number of conditions ensuring that all solutions of the studied equation oscillate. A similar issue has been considered recently in [7] for linear thirdorder equations of the form
under the conditions
Main results
Nonexistence of solutions of type (I) and (II)
We start with a simple condition ensuring the nonexistence of solutions of type (I). As will be shown later, this condition is already included in those eliminating solutions of type (II).
Lemma 2
Let y be an eventually positive solution of (1.1). If
then case (I) in Lemma 1 cannot hold.
Proof
Assume for the sake of contradiction that y satisfies case (I) of Lemma 1 and pick \(t_{1}\in[t_{0},\infty)\) such that \(y(\tau(t))>0\) for \(t\ge t_{1}\). Since \(y'\) is increasing, we have
Thus,
Clearly, there is \(t_{2}\ge t_{1}\) such that, for any \(k\in(0,1)\) and \(t\ge t_{2}\),
Integrating (1.1) from \(t_{2}\) to t and using (3.1) in the resulting inequality, we get
which leads to a contradiction. The proof is complete. □
Next, we state some useful properties of the type (II) solutions, which are useful when proving the main results.
Lemma 3
Let y be an eventually positive increasing solution of (1.1). If
then y satisfies case (II) in Lemma 1 for \(t\ge t_{1}\) and, moreover,

(a)
\(y(t)\ge ty'(t)\) and \(y(t)/t\) is decreasing for \(t\ge t_{2}\), and \(\lim_{t\to\infty}y(t)/t = y' = 0\),

(b)
\(y'(t)\ge \pi(t) r^{1/\alpha}(t)y''(t)\) and \(y'(t)/\pi(t)\) is increasing for \(t\ge t_{2}\),
where \(t_{2}\ge t_{1}\) is large enough.
Proof
Since y is increasing, by Lemma 1, y satisfies either case (I) or case (II) for \(t\ge t_{1}\), where \(t_{1}\in[t_{0},\infty)\) is such that \(y(\tau(t))>0\) for \(t\ge t_{1}\).
At first, note that because of the assumption (H_{1}), condition (3.4) implies that (3.1) holds. Thus, by Lemma 2, y satisfies case (II) for \(t\ge t_{1}\).
Since \(y'(t)\) is decreasing, there exists a finite limit \(\lim_{t\to\infty}y'(t) = \lambda\ge0\). We claim that \(\lambda= 0\). If not, then \(y'(t)\ge\lambda> 0\) for \(t\ge t_{1}\). Proceeding similarly as in the proof of Lemma 2, we obtain (3.3). From the fact that \(r(t) (y''(t) )^{\alpha}\) is negative, we get
Integrating the above inequality from \(t_{2}\) to t, we have
which is a contradiction. Hence \(\lambda= 0\). By l’Hospital’s rule, we find
On the other hand, it follows from the monotonicity of \(y'\) that
In view of (3.5), there is a \(t_{2}\ge t_{1}\) such that
for \(t\ge t_{2}\). So,
which implies that
To show case (b), it suffices to note that
in view of which
The proof is complete. □
Now, we can proceed to present various simple criteria for property P for (1.1).
Theorem 1
If
then (1.1) has property P.
Proof
Assume for the sake of contradiction that y satisfies case (I) or (II) of Lemma 1 for \(t\ge t_{1}\). Since y is increasing, there exists a \(t_{2}\ge t_{1}\) such that \(y(t)\ge y(t_{1}) =: \ell\) for \(t\ge t_{2}\). Integrating (1.1) from \(t_{2}\) to t, we get
From (H_{1}) and (3.6), however, we see that
If we assume that y is of (I)type, then (3.8) contradicts the positivity of \(r(t) (y''(t) )^{\alpha}\).
Assume now that y satisfies case (II). Using the fact that \(r(t) (y''(t) )^{\alpha}<0\) in (3.7), we are led to
Integrating (3.9) from \(t_{2}\) to t, we obtain
which, in view of (3.6), contradicts the positivity of \(y'(t)\). The proof is complete. □
The next result is based on a comparison with a firstorder delay inequality. This result, in connection with the results from Sect. 3.2, can be viewed as an improved and simplified alternative of Theorem B. In contrast to that theorem, we stress that the next theorem does not require the existence of auxiliary functions (as in condition (2.5)) and, moreover, the nonexistence of solutions of type (I) and (II) is ensured by means of only one condition.
Theorem 2
If
then (1.1) has property P.
Proof
Assume for the sake of contradiction that y satisfies case (I) or (II) of Lemma 1 for \(t\ge t_{1}\). Obviously, it is necessary for the validity of (3.10) that (3.4) holds. By Lemma 3, we conclude that y satisfies case (II) and the asymptotic properties (a) and (b) of the Lemma for \(t\ge t_{2}\ge t_{1}\). Therefore,
for \(t\ge t_{2}\). From (1.1), we get
Integrating the above inequality from \(t_{2}\) to t and using the fact that \(y'\) is decreasing, we have
that is,
where we set \(x(t):= y'(t)>0\). However, by [14, Theorem 2.1.1], the inequality (3.12) does not possess a positive solution, which is a contradiction to our initial assumption. The proof is complete. □
A principle like the one we used in the proof of Theorem 2 always requires \(\tau(t)< t\). The results presented in the sequel, however, apply also in the case when \(\tau(t) = t\).
Theorem 3
Assume that (3.4) holds. If
then (1.1) has property P.
Proof
Assume for the sake of contradiction that y satisfies case (I) or (II) of Lemma 1 for \(t\ge t_{1}\). At first, note that \(\lim_{t\to\infty}\pi(t) = 0\) holds due to (H_{1}), which together with (3.13) implies (3.1). By Lemma 3, we conclude that y satisfies case (II) and the asymptotic properties (a) and (b) of the lemma for \(t\ge t_{2}\ge t_{1}\).
Proceeding as in the proof of Theorem 2, we arrive at (3.11). Using the monotonicity of \(r(t) (y''(t) ) ^{\alpha}\) and Lemma 3 (b) in (3.11), we find that
or
However, the above inequality contradicts (3.13). The proof is complete. □
Theorem 4
Assume that (3.4) holds. If there exists a nondecreasing function \(\rho\in \mathcal{C}^{1}([t_{0},\infty),(0,\infty))\) such that
for any \(T\in[t_{0},\infty)\), then (1.1) has property P.
Proof
Assume for the sake of contradiction that y satisfies case (I) or (II) of Lemma 1 for \(t\ge t_{1}\). By Lemma 3, we conclude that y satisfies case (II) and the asymptotic properties (a) and (b) of the lemma for \(t\ge t_{2}\ge t_{1}\).
Let us define the Riccatitype function
By differentiating \(w(t)\) and using the monotonicity of \(y'\), we see that
Integrating (1.1) from \(t_{2}\) to t and using the fact that \(y(\tau(t))/\tau(t)\) is decreasing, we get
Since \(\lim_{t\to\infty}y(t)/t = 0\), there is \(t_{3}>t_{2}\) such that
for \(t\ge t_{3}\). Combining (3.16) and (3.17), we arrive at
or
for \(t\ge t_{3}\). Combining (3.18) and (3.15), we obtain
Integrating the above inequality from \(t_{3}\) to t, we get
a contradiction. The proof is complete. □
Letting \(\rho(t) = 1/\pi(t)\), the following consequence is immediate.
Corollary 1
Assume that (3.4) holds. If
for any \(T\in[t_{0},\infty)\), then (1.1) has property P.
Theorem 5
Assume that (3.4) holds. If there exists a function \(\delta \in\mathcal{C}^{1}([t_{0},\infty), (0,\infty))\) such that
for any \(T\in[t_{0},\infty)\), then (1.1) has property P.
Proof
Assume for the sake of contradiction that y satisfies case (I) or (II) of Lemma 1 for \(t\ge t_{1}\). By Lemma 3, we conclude that y satisfies case (II) and the asymptotic properties (a) and (b) of the lemma for \(t\ge t_{2}\ge t_{1}\).
Define the Riccatitype function as
From Lemma 3, we have
which implies that \(w\ge0\) on \([t_{1},\infty)\). Differentiating (3.20) and using (1.1) and the definition of w, we obtain
Using that \(y'(t) \ge \pi(t)r^{1/\alpha}(t)y''(t)\) in the above inequality, we arrive at
Then using the inequality stated in [22, Lemma 2.3], namely,
with
we find that
Integrating (3.23) from \(t_{2}\) to t, we are led to
Using (3.20) in the last inequality, we have
On the other hand, from (3.21), it follows that
Substituting the above estimate into (3.24), we obtain
Multiplying (3.25) by \(\pi^{\alpha}(t)\tau^{\alpha }(t)/\delta (t)\) and taking the limsup on both sides of the resulting inequality, we arrive at contradiction to (3.19). The proof is complete. □
Finally, we turn our attention to the existing result presented in the introductory section, namely Theorem C. By careful observation, it is easy to show that condition (2.8) is redundant.
Theorem 6
If (2.9) holds for some \(k\in(0,1)\) and for sufficiently large \(t_{3}\ge t_{0}\), then (1.1) has property P.
Proof
Following the proof of [15, Theorem 1], we remark that (2.8) eliminates solutions of type (I) and (2.9) those of type (II). It is enough to note that it is necessary for the validity of (2.9) that
which in view of (H_{1}) implies (3.1). By Lemma 2, solutions of type (I) do not exist.
The proof is complete. □
Remark 3
We note that in the proof of Theorem C, a weaker version of (a) of Lemma 3 was used for solutions of type (II), namely, \(y(t)\ge k y'(t)\) for \(k\in(0,1)\) and t large enough. Assuming that condition (3.4) holds, one can easily provide a stronger version of the above theorem with \(k = 1\).
Convergence to zero and/or nonexistence of solutions of type (III)
Lemma 4
Let y be a solution of (1.1) satisfying case (III) of Lemma 1. If
or
then \(\lim_{t\to\infty}y(t) = 0\).
Proof
Pick \(t_{1}\in[t_{0},\infty)\) such that \(y(\tau(t))>0\) for \(t\ge t_{1}\). Since y is a positive decreasing solution, there exists a finite limit \(\lim_{t\to\infty}y(t) = \lambda\ge0\). Assume for the sake of contradiction that \(\lambda>0\). Integrating (1.1) from \(t_{1}\) to t and taking into account that (3.27) holds, we have
which is a contradiction. Thus \(\lim_{t\to\infty}y(t) = 0\). To show that the same conclusion holds in the case where
we refer the reader to [15, Theorem 1]. The proof is complete. □
Theorem 7
Let y be an eventually positive solution of (1.1). If
then case (III) in Lemma 1 is impossible.
Proof
Pick \(t_{1}\in[t_{0},\infty)\) such that \(\tau(t)\ge t_{1}\) for \(t\ge t_{1}\). It follows from the monotonicity of \(r(t) (y''(t) ) ^{\alpha}\) that, for \(v\ge u\),
Integrating the last inequality again from u to \(v\ge u\) in u, we get
Integrating (1.1) from \(\tau(t)\) to t and using (3.30) with \(u = \tau(s)\) and \(v = \tau(t)\), we get
Dividing the above inequality by \(r(\tau(t)) (y''(\tau (t)) ) ^{\alpha}\) and taking the lim sup on both sides of the resulting inequality as \(t\to\infty\), we are led to a contradiction. The proof is complete. □
Applications
Property A
Combining Theorems 1–5 with Lemma 4, one can easily provide fundamentally new criteria for property A of (1.1).
Theorem 8
If (3.6) holds, then (1.1) has property A.
Proof
It is enough to note that (H_{1}) along with (3.6) implies (3.27). □
Theorem 9
If (3.10) and either (3.27) or (3.28) hold, then (1.1) has property A.
Theorem 10
If (3.4), (3.13) and either (3.27) or (3.28) hold, then (1.1) has property A.
Theorem 11
If (3.4) holds and there exists a nondecreasing function ρ \(\in\mathcal{C}^{1}([t_{0},\infty),(0,\infty))\) such that (3.14) and either (3.27) or (3.28) hold, then (1.1) has property A.
Theorem 12
If (3.4) holds and there exists a function \(\delta\in \mathcal{C}^{1}([t_{0},\infty), (0,\infty))\) such that (3.19) and either (3.27) or (3.28) hold, then (1.1) has property A.
Oscillation
We are now interested in the situation in which all solutions of Eq. (1.1) are oscillatory. To attain this goal, we combine Theorems 1–6 with Theorem 7.
Theorem 13
Assume that all assumptions of Theorem 1 (2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and (3.29) hold. Then (1.1) is oscillatory.
Examples
Example 1
Let us consider the Euler type equation
where \(\lambda\in(0,1)\) and \(q_{0}>0\).
First, we present criteria for Property P of (\(E_{x}\)) following from Theorems 1–6.

Theorem 2 requires
$$ q_{0} \lambda\ln \biggl(\frac{1}{\lambda} \biggr) > \frac{1}{\mathrm {e}}. $$(4.1) 
Theorem 3 or Theorem 5 with \(\rho(t) = \pi(t)\tau(t)\) requires
$$ q_{0} \lambda> 1 . $$(4.2) 
Theorem 4 (Corollary 1) or Theorem 6 (Remark 3) requires
$$ q_{0} \lambda> \frac{1}{4}. $$(4.3)
Among conditions (4.1)–(4.3), we remark that (4.1) is more efficient for small values of λ, while (4.3) for larger ones. Since Lemma 4 is satisfied, we conclude that (\(E_{x}\)) has property A if any of conditions (4.1)–(4.3) hold. Note that Theorem C does not apply due to (2.7).
Second, we apply Theorem 7 for the nonexistence of positive decreasing solutions of (\(E_{x}\)), which requires
Finally, by Theorem 13, we conclude that (\(E_{x}\)) is oscillatory if any of conditions (4.1)–(4.3) and (4.4) hold.
Conclusions
In the present paper, several new oscillation results for Eq. (1.1) have been presented, which further improve, complement and simplify existing criteria introduced in the paper as Theorems A–C.
In Sect. 3.1, we provided various criteria for the nonexistence of solutions of type (I) and (II). In particular, Theorem 1 serves as a single condition alternative to Theorem A, while Theorem 2 offers a single condition criterion, which is based on similar principles (compared with firstorder delay equations) as Theorem B, but does not require the existence of auxiliary functions. By a simple refinement in the proof of Theorem C, we have shown that (2.8) is unnecessary and can be removed. We have also pointed out how a stronger version with \(k = 1\) can be attained. Using different substitutions as in the proof of Theorem C, we have presented more general results for the nonexistence of solutions of type (I) and (II).
In Sect. 3.2, we were dealing with the asymptotic properties and nonexistence of solutions of type (III) of Lemma 1. In that section, we extended (2.7) from Theorem C to be applied on (2.10). Furthermore, we provided a new criterion for the nonexistence of such solutions.
Finally, we have combined the results from Sects. 3.1 and 3.2 to obtain new results for oscillation and/or property A of (1.1).
References
Agarwal, R., Grace, S., Smith, T.: Oscillation of certain thirdorder functional differential equations. Adv. Math. Sci. Appl. 16(1), 69–94 (2006)
Agarwal, R.P., Bohner, M., Li, T., Zhang, C.: Oscillation of thirdorder nonlinear delay differential equations. Taiwan. J. Math. 17(2), 545–558 (2013)
Agarwal, R.P., Bohner, M., Li, T., Zhang, C.: A philostype theorem for thirdorder nonlinear retarded dynamic equations. Appl. Math. Comput. 249, 527–531 (2014)
Agarwal, R.P., Grace, S.R., O’Regan, D.: On the oscillation of certain functional differential equations via comparison methods. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 286(2), 577–600 (2003)
Baculíková, B., Džurina, J.: Oscillation of thirdorder nonlinear differential equations. Appl. Math. Lett. 24(4), 466–470 (2011)
Chatzarakis, G.E., Grace, S.R., Jadlovská, I.: Oscillation criteria for thirdorder delay differential equations. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2017(1), 330 (2017)
Džurina, J., Jadlovská, I.: Oscillation of thirdorder differential equations with noncanonical operators. Appl. Math. Comput. 336, 394–402 (2018)
Fraser, C.G.: Isoperimetric problems in the variational calculus of Euler and Lagrange. Hist. Math. 19(1), 4–23 (1992)
Grace, S.R., Agarwal, R.P., Pavani, R., Thandapani, E.: On the oscillation of certain thirdorder nonlinear functional differential equations. Appl. Math. Comput. 202(1), 102–112 (2008)
Hassan, T.S.: Oscillation of thirdorder nonlinear delay dynamic equations on time scales. Math. Comput. Model. 49(7–8), 1573–1586 (2009)
Jayaraman, G., Padmanabhan, N., Mehrotra, R.: Entry flow into a circular tube of slowly varying crosssection. Fluid Dyn. Res. 1(2), 131–144 (1986)
Kiguradze, I.T., Chanturia, T.A.: Asymptotic Properties of Solutions of Nonautonomous Ordinary Differential Equations. Mathematics and Its Applications (Soviet Series), vol. 89. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1993) Translated from the 1985 Russian original
Kusano, T., Naito, M.: Comparison theorems for functionaldifferential equations with deviating arguments. J. Math. Soc. Jpn. 33(3), 509–532 (1981)
Ladde, G.S., Lakshmikantham, V., Zhang, B.G.: Oscillation Theory of Differential Equations with Deviating Arguments. Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 110. Dekker, New York (1987)
Li, T., Zhang, C., Baculíková, B., Džurina, J.: On the oscillation of thirdorder quasilinear delay differential equations. Tatra Mt. Math. Publ. 48, 117–123 (2011)
McKean, H.P.: Nagumo’s equation. Adv. Math. 4(3), 209–223 (1970)
Padhi, S., Pati, S.: Theory of ThirdOrder Differential Equations. Springer, New Delhi (2014)
Saker, S.: Oscillation Theory of Delay Differential and Difference Equations: Second and Third Orders. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing (2010)
Saker, S., Džurina, J.: On the oscillation of certain class of thirdorder nonlinear delay differential equations. Math. Bohem. 135(3), 225–237 (2010)
Şenel, M.T., Utku, N.: Oscillation criteria for thirdorder neutral dynamic equations with continuously distributed delay. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2014(1), 220 (2014)
Vreeke, S.A., Sandquist, G.M.: Phase space analysis of reactor kinetics. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 42(3), 295–305 (1970)
Wu, H., Erbe, L., Peterson, A.: Oscillation of solution to secondorder halflinear delay dynamic equations on time scales. Electron. J. Differ. Equ. 2016, 71 (2016)
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the editors and three anonymous referees for the careful reading of the original manuscript and useful comments that helped to improve the presentation of the results and accentuate important details. The work on this research has been supported by the grant project KEGA 035TUKE4/2017.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Funding
Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The authors contributed equally and significantly in writing this paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Chatzarakis, G.E., Džurina, J. & Jadlovská, I. Oscillatory and asymptotic properties of thirdorder quasilinear delay differential equations. J Inequal Appl 2019, 23 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s1366001919670
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s1366001919670
MSC
 34C10
 34K11
Keywords
 Quasilinear differential equation
 Delay
 Thirdorder
 Oscillation