Forced Oscillation of Nonlinear Impulsive Hyperbolic Partial Differential Equation with Several Delays ()
1. Introduction
The theory of partial functional differential equations can be applied to many fields, such as biology, population growth, engineering, control theory, physics and chemistry, see the monograph [1] for basic theory and applications. The oscillation of partial functional differential equations has been studied by many authors see, for example [2] - [7] , and the references cited therein.
The theory of impulsive partial differential systems makes its beginning with the paper [8] in 1991. In recent years, the investigation of oscillations of impulsive partial differential systems has attracted more and more attention in the literature see, for example [9] - [13] . Recently, the investigation on the oscillations of impulsive partial differential systems with delays can be found in [14] - [19] .
To the best of our knowledge, there is little work reported on the oscillation of second order impulsive partial functional differential equation with delays. Motivated by this observation, in this paper we study the oscillation of nonlinear forced impulsive hyperbolic partial differential equation with several delays of the form
(1)
with the boundary conditions
(2)
(3)
and the initial condition
(4)
Here
is a bounded domain with boundary
smooth enough and
is the Laplacian in the
Euclidean N-space
,
is a unit exterior normal vector of
,
, 
In the sequal, we assume that the following conditions are fulfilled:
(H1)
,
is a positive constant,
are class of functions which are
piece wise continuous in t with discontinuities of first kind only at
and left continuous at ![]()
(H2)
;
is a positive constant,
is a positive constant, for
and
![]()
(H3)
and their derivatives
are piecewise continuous in t with discontinuities of first kind only at
and left continuous at
![]()
(H4) ![]()
and there exist positive constants
and
such that for ![]()
![]()
![]()
Let us construct the sequence
where
and
![]()
By a solution of problem (1), (2) ((1),(3)) with initial condition (4), we mean that any function
for which the following conditions are valid:
1. If
then ![]()
2. If
then
coincides with the solution of the problem (1) and (2) ((3)) with initial condition.
3. If
, then
coincides with the solution of the problem (1) and (2) ((3)).
4. If
, then
coincides with the solution of the problem (2) ((3)) and the following equations
![]()
![]()
or
![]()
Here the number
is determined by the equality ![]()
We introduce the notations:
![]()
![]()
![]()
The solution
of problem (1), (2) ((1),(3)) is called nonoscillatory in the domain G if it is either eventually positive or eventually negative. Otherwise, it is called oscillatory.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2, deals with the oscillatory properties of solutions for the problem (1) and (2). In Section 3, we discuss the oscillatory properties of solutions for the problem (1) and (3). Section 4 presents some examples to illustrate the main results.
2. Oscillation Properties of the Problem (1) and (2)
To prove the main result, we need the following lemmas.
Lemma 2.1. Suppose that
is the minimum positive eigenvalue of the problem
![]()
![]()
and
is the corresponding eigenfunction of
. Then
and
Proof. The proof of the lemma can be found in [20] . ![]()
Lemma 2.2. Let
be a positive solution of the problem (1), (2) in G. Then the functions
![]()
are satisfies the impulsive differential inequality
(5)
(6)
(7)
where
![]()
has an eventually positive solution.
Proof. Let
be a positive solution of the problem (1), (2) in G. Without loss of generality, we may assume that there exists a
such that
for
![]()
For
multiplying Equation (1) with
, which is the same as that in Lemma 2.1 and then integrating (1) with respect to x over
yields
![]()
By Green’s formula, and the boundary condition we have
![]()
where
is the surface element on
.
Also from condition (H2), and Jenson’s inequality we can easily obtain
![]()
![]()
Thus,
Hence we obtain the following differential inequality
![]()
![]()
where
![]()
For
from (1) and condition (H4), we obtain
![]()
![]()
According to
we obtain
![]()
![]()
Hence, we obtain that
is a positive solution of impulsive differential inequalities (5)-(7).
This completes the proof. ![]()
Lemma 2.3. Let
be a positive solution of the problem (1), (2) in G. If we further assume that
and the impulsive differential inequality (5), and
(8)
(9)
(10)
have no eventually positive solution, then each nonzero solution of the problem (1)-(2) is oscillatory in the domain G.
Proof. Let
be a positive solution of the problem (1), (2) in G. Without loss of generality, we may assume that there exists a
such that
, for ![]()
From Lemma 2.2, it follows that the function
is an eventually positive solution of the inequality (5) which is a contradictions.
If
for
then the function
![]()
is a positive solution of the following impulsive hyperbolic equation
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
and satisfies
![]()
![]()
where
![]()
For
from (1) and condition (H4), we obtain
![]()
![]()
According to
we obtain
![]()
![]()
Thus, it follows that the function
is a positive solution of the inequality (8)-(10) for
which is also a contradiction. This completes the proof. ![]()
Now, if we set
in the proof of Lemma 2.3, then we can obtain the following lemma.
Lemma 2.4. Let
be a positive solution of the problem (1), (2) in G. If we further assume that
and the impulsive differential inequality (5), and
(11)
(12)
(13)
has no eventually positive solution, then each nonzero solution of the problem (1), satisfying the boundary condition
![]()
is oscillatory in the domain G.
Proof. Let
be a positive solution of the problem (1), (2) in G. Without loss of generality, we may assume that there exists a
such that
for
![]()
From Lemma 2.2, it follows that the function
is an eventually positive solution of the inequality (5) which is a contradiction.
If
for
then the function
is a positive solution of the following impulsive hyperbolic equation
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
and satisfies
![]()
![]()
For
from (1) and condition (H4), we obtain
![]()
![]()
According to
we obtain
![]()
![]()
Thus it follows that the function
is a positive solution of the inequality (11)-(13) for
which is also a contradiction. This completes the proof. ![]()
Lemma 2.5. Assume that
(A1) the sequence
satisfies
;
(A2)
is left continuous at
for ![]()
(A3) for
and ![]()
![]()
![]()
where
,
and
are constants. PC denote the class of piecewise continuous function from
to
, with discontinuities of the first kind only at ![]()
Then
![]()
Proof. The proof of the lemma can be found in [21] . ![]()
Lemma 2.6. Let
be an eventually positive (negative) solution of the differential inequality (11)-(13).
Assume that there exists
such that
for
If
(14)
hold, then
for
where ![]()
Proof. The proof of the lemma can be found in [22] . ![]()
We begin with the following theorem.
Theorem 2.1. If condition (14), and the following condition
(15)
hold, where
![]()
then every solution of the problem (1), (2) oscillates in G.
Proof. Let
be a nonoscillatory solution of (1), (2). Without loss of generality, we can assume that there exists
such that
for ![]()
From Lemma 2.4, we know that
is a positive solution of (11)-(13). Thus from Lemma 2.6, we can find that
for ![]()
For
define
![]()
Then we have
We may assume that
thus we have that for ![]()
(16)
(17)
(18)
Substitute (16)-(18) into (11) and then we obtain,
![]()
Hence we have
![]()
or
![]()
From above inequality and condition
it is easy to see that the function
is nonincreasing for
Thus
for
which implies that
![]()
From (12)-(13), we obtain
![]()
and
![]()
![]()
Let
![]()
Then according to Lemma 2.5, we have
![]()
Since
the last inequality contradicts condition (15). This completes the proof. ![]()
3. Oscillation Properties of the Problem (1) and (3)
Next we consider the problem (1) and (3). To prove our main result we need the following lemmas.
Lemma 3.1. Suppose that
is the smallest positive eigen value of the problem
![]()
and
is the corresponding eigen function of
. Then
and ![]()
Proof. The proof of the lemma can be found in [20] . ![]()
Lemma 3.2. Let
be a positive solution of the problem (1), (3) in G. Then the function
![]()
are satisfies the impulsive differential inequality
(19)
(20)
(21)
where
![]()
has the eventually positive solution
![]()
Proof. Let
be a positive solution of the problem (1), (3) in G. Without loss of generality, we may assume that there exists a
such that
for
![]()
For
multiplying equation (1) with
, which is the same as that in
Lemma 3.1 and then integrating (1) with respect to x over
yields
![]()
By Green’s formula, and the boundary condition we have
![]()
where
is the surface element on
.
From condition (H2), we can easily obtain
![]()
![]()
The proof is similar to that of Lemma 2.1 and therefore the details are omitted. ![]()
Lemma 3.3. Let
be a positive solution of the problem (1), (3) in G. If we further assume that
and the impulsive differential inequality (19), and
(22)
(23)
(24)
have no eventually positive solution, then each nonzero solution of the problem (1), (3) is oscillatory in the domain G.
Proof. The proof is similar to Lemma 2.3, and hence the details are omitted. ![]()
Futhermore, if we set
, then we have the following lemma.
Lemma 3.4. Let
be a positive solution of the problem (1), (3) in G. If we further assume that
and the impulsive differential inequality (19), and
(25)
(26)
(27)
has no eventually positive solution, then each nonzero solution of the problem (1), satisfying the boundary condition
![]()
is oscillatory in the domain G.
Proof. The proof is similar to Lemma 2.4, and hence the details are omitted. ![]()
Using the above lemmas, we prove the following oscillation result.
Theorem 3.1. If condition (14) and the following condition
(28)
hold, where
![]()
then every solution of the problem (1), (3) oscillates in G.
Proof. Let
be a nonoscillatory solution of (1), (3). Without loss of generality, we can assume that there exists
such that
for ![]()
From Lemma 3.4, we know that
is a positive solution of (25)-(27). Thus from Lemma 2.6, we can find that
for ![]()
For
define
![]()
Then we have
We may assume that
thus we have that for ![]()
(29)
(30)
(31)
We substitute (29)-(31) into (25) and can obtain the following inequality,
![]()
then we have
![]()
From (26)-(27), we can obtain
![]()
It follows that
![]()
![]()
Let
![]()
Then according to Lemma 2.5, we have
![]()
Since
the last inequality contradicts (28). This completes the proof. ![]()
Theorem 3.2. If condition (14) and the following condition
(32)
hold for some
, then every solution of the problem (1), (3) oscillates in G.
Proof. The proof is obvious and hence the details are omitted. ![]()
4. Examples
In this section, we present some examples to illustrate the main results.
Example 4.1. Consider the impulsive differential equation
(33)
and the boundary condition
(34)
Here
and taking ![]()
Moreover
![]()
so (14) holds. We take
, then
![]()
thus
![]()
Hence (28) holds. Therefore all conditions of Theorem 3.1 are satisfied. Hence every solution of the problem (33), (34) oscillates in
In fact
is one such solution of the problem (33) and (34).
Example 4.2. Consider the impulsive differential equation
(35)
and the boundary condition
(36)
Here ![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
and taking
It is easy to check that the conditions of Theorem 2.1 are satisfied. Therefore, every solution
of the problem (35), (36) oscillates in
In fact
is one such solution of the problem (35) and (36).
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Prof. E. Thandapani for his support to complete the paper. Also the authors express their sincere thanks to the referee for valuable suggestions.