On the Asymptotic Behavior of Second Order Quasilinear Difference Equations ()
Received 15 June 2016; accepted 26 August 2016; published 29 August 2016

1. Introduction
In 1996, PJY Wang and R.P. Agarwal [25] considered the quasilinear equation
(1)
and obtained oscillation criteria for the Equation (1).
In 1996, E. Thandapani, M.M.S. Manuel and R.P. Agarwal [26] have studied the quasi-linear difference equation
(2)
In 2000, Pon Sundaram and E. Thandapani [27] considered the following quasi-linear functional difference equation
(3)
and they have established necessary and sufficient conditions for the solutions of Equation (3) to have various types of nonoscillatory solutions. Further they have established some new oscillation conditions for the oscillation of solutions of Equation (3).
In 1997, E. Thandapani and R. Arul [28] studied, the following quasi-linear equation
(4)
They established necessary and sufficient conditions for the solutions of (4) to have various type of nono- scillatory solutions.
In 2004, E. Thandapani et al. [29] studied the equation
(5)
and established conditions for the existence of non-oscillatory solutions.
S.S. Cheng and W.T. Patula [30] studied the difference equation
(6)
where
and proved an existence theorem for Equation (6).
In 2002, M. Mizukanmi et al. [1] discussed the asymptotic behavior of the following equation
(7)
Discrete models are more suitable for understanding the problems in Economics, genetics, population dynamics etc. In the qualitative theory of difference equations asymptotic behavior of solutions plays a vital role. Motivated by this, we consider the discrete analogue of (7) of the form
(8)
where
,
and
is the forward difference operator defined by
![]()
We assume the following conditions on Equation (8)
1)
and
are positive constants
2)
is a real sequence such that
for all
.
For simplicity, we often employ the notation
![]()
interms of which Equation (8) can be expressed in
![]()
By a solution of Equation (8), we mean a real sequence
, together with
exists and satisfies Equation (8) for all
.
We here call Equation (8) super-homogeneous or sub-homogeneous according as α < β or α > β If α = β Equation (8) is often called half-linear. Our attention is mainly paid to the super-homogeneous and sub-homo- geneous cases, and the half-linear is almost excluded from our consideration.
2. The Classification of All Solutions of Equation (8)
To classify all solutions of Equation (8), we need the following lemma.
Lemma 1. Let
be a local solutions of Equation (8) near
and
, be its right
maximal interval of existence. Then we have either
near w or
near w. That is
does
not charge strictly its sign infinitely many times as
.
The classification of all (local) solutions of Equation (8) are given on the basis of Lemma 1. Since the proof is easy, we leave it to the reader.
Proposition 1. Each local solution
of Equation (8) falls into exactly one of the following six types.
1) Singular solution of the first kind: type
there exist a
such that
![]()
2) Decaying solution: type (D),
can be continued to ¥, and satisfies
for all large n, and
![]()
3) Asymptotically constant solution: type (AC)
can be continued to ¥, and satisfies
for all large n and
![]()
4) Asymptotically linear solution: type (AL)
can be continued to ¥ and satisfies
for all large n and
![]()
5) Asymptotically super-linear solution: type (AS)
can be continued to ¥ and satisfies
for all large n and
![]()
6) Singular solution of second kind: type
has the finite escape time; that is, there exists a
such that
![]()
3. Main Results for the Super-Homogeneous Equations
Before we list our main results for the case
. Throughout this section we assume that ![]()
Theorem 2. Equation (8) has no solution of type
.
Theorem 3. Equation (8) has a solution of type (D) if and only if
(9)
Theorem 4. Equation (8) has a solution of type (AC) if and only if
(10)
Theorem 5. Equation (8) has a solution of type (AL) if and only if
(11)
Theorem 6. Equation (8) has a solution of type (AS) if (11) holds.
Theorem 7. Equation (8) does not have solutions of type (AS) if there are constants
and
satisfying
(12)
and
(13)
Remark 1. The set of all pairs
satisfying inequalities (13) is not empty. In fact, the pair
belongs to it.
Theorem 8. Equation (8) has a solutions of type
.
Remark 2. Theorem 7 has the same conclusion that these are not solutions of type (AS). However, Theorem 7 is still valid for the case that p is nonnegative. For example, it is formed by this extended version of Theorem 7 that the equation
![]()
does not have solutions of type (AS).
Example 1 Let
, consider the Equation (8) with ![]()
(14)
For this equation, we have the following results:
1) Equation (14) has a solution of type (D) if and only if
(Theorem 3).
2) Equation (14) has a solution of type (AC) if and only if
(Theorem 4).
3) Equation (14) has a solution of type (AL) if and only if
(Theorem 5).
4) Equation (14) has a solution of type (AS) if and only if
(Theorem 6).
4. Main Results for the Sub-Homogeneous Equation
Below we list our main results for the case
. Throughout this section we assume that
.
Theorem 9. Equation (8) has a solutions of type
.
Theorem 10. Equation (8) has a solution of type (D) if
(15)
Theorem 11. Equation (8) does not have solutions of type (D) if
(16)
Theorem 12. Equation (8) does not have solutions of type (D) if there are constants
and
satisfying
(17)
and
(18)
Remark 3. The set of all pairs
satisfying inequalities (18) is not empty. In fact, the pair
![]()
belongs to it.
Theorem 13. Equation (8) has a solution of type (AC) if and only if (15) holds.
Theorem 14. Equation (8) has a solution of type (AL) if and only if
![]()
Theorem 15. Equation (8) has a solution of type (AS) if and only if
(19)
Theorem 16. Equation (8) has no solutions of type
.
Example 2. Let
and consider the Equation (14) again.
We have the following results:
1) Equation (14) has a solution of type (D) if and only if
(Theorem 10 and 11).
2) Equation (14) has a solution of type (AC) if and only if
(Theorem 14).
3) Equation (14) has a solution of type (AL) if and only if
(Theorem 15).
4) Equation (14) has a solution of type (AS) if and only if
(Theorem 16).
5. Auxillary Lemma
In this section, we collect axillary lemmas, which are mainly concerned with local solution of Equation (8). A comparison lemma of the following type is useful, and will be used in many places.
Lemma 2. Suppose that
are such that
for
. Let
and
be solutions of the equations
![]()
respectively. If
and
, then
and
for a < n ≤ b.
Proof. We have
(20)
(21)
By the hypotheses we have
in some right neighborhood of a. If
for some point in a < n ≤ b, we can find a c such that a < c ≤ b satisfying
for a < n < c and
. But, this yields a contradiction, because
![]()
Hence we see that
for
. Returning to (20), we find that
for
. The proof is complete. ![]()
The uniqueness of local solutions with non-zero initial data can be easily proved. That is, for given
,
and
, Equation (8) has a unique local solution
satisfying
,
provided that
. The uniqueness of the trivial solution can be concluded for the case
.
Lemma 3. Let α ≤ β and
. If
is a local solution of Equation (1) satisfying
then
for
.
Proof. Assume the contrary. We may suppose that
for
. Then, we can find
such that
satisfying
and
for
. Summing (8), we obtain
![]()
![]()
We therefore have
(22)
(23)
Put
. We see that
for
and w is nondecreas- ing. From (22) and (23), we can get
![]()
![]()
Let
. Then from this observation we see that
![]()
where
![]()
Consequently, we have
(24)
If α = β, from (24), we have
,
. This is a contradiction because
. If α < β, from
(24) we have
,
. This is also a contraction because
.
The proof is complete.
Lemma 4. Let
. Then all local solutions of Equation (8) can be continued to ¥ and
, that is, all solutions of Equation (8) exist on the whole interval
.
Proof. Let
be a local solution of Equation (8) is a neighborhood of
. Suppose the contrary that the right maximal interval of existence of
is of the form
,
. Then, it is easily seen that
. Summing (8) twice, we have
![]()
where
and
. Accordingly,
![]()
Put
. Then,
![]()
Put moreover
. Then, as in the proof of Lemma 3, we have
(25)
where
. Since
, there is a
such that
such that
for
. Therefore it follows from (25) that
(26)
Let
. Then, using discrete Gronwall’s inequality, we see that
, which is a contradiction.
Next let
. Then (26) implies that
![]()
Since
, we have
. This is a contradiction too. Hence
can be continued to ¥. The continuability to the left end point
is verified in a similar way. The proof is complete. ![]()
The following lemma establishes more than is stated in Theorem 8. Accordingly the proof of Theorem 8 will be omitted.
Lemma 5. Let
and
and
be given. Then there exists an
such that the right maximal interval of existence of each solution
of Equation (1) satisfying
and
is a finite interval
,
, and
.
Proof. Let
be fixed, and put
. There is an
satisfying
![]()
We first claim that the solution of Equation (8) with the initial condition
,
does not exist on
; that is
blow up at some
. To see this suppose the contrary that
exists at least
. By the definition of m, we have
![]()
Summing the inequality form N to
yields
![]()
and hence
![]()
![]()
![]()
Finally, summing the above inequality both sides from N to
, we obtain
![]()
which is a contradiction to the choice of M. Hence
must blow up at some
,
.
If
and
, then Lemma 2 implies that
on the common interval of existence of y and z and therefore
blows up at some point before
. The proof is complete. ![]()
6. Nonnegative Nonincreasing Solutions
The main objective of this section is to prove the following theorem.
Theorem 17. For each
, the problem
![]()
has exactly one solution
such that
is defined for
and satisfies
(27)
Furthermore, if
is a solution for
of Equation (1) satisfying
and
![]()
then
![]()
Remark 4.
1) In the case
, employing Lemma 3, we can strengthen (27) to the property that
(28)
2) In the case
, all local solutions of Equation (8) can be continued to the whole interval
Hence in this case property (6.2) always holds for all solutions
with
and
[resp
].
The property of nonnegative nonincreasing solutions
described in Theorem 17 will play important roles through the paper. This section is entirely derided to proving Theorem 17. To this end we prepare several lemmas.
Lemma 6. Let
and t be a bounded function on
. Then, the two point boundary value problem
(29)
has a solution.
Proof. Let
be a constant such that
![]()
We first claim that with each
, we can associate a unique constant
satisfying
(30)
Further this
satisfies
(31)
To see this let
be fixed, and consider the function
![]()
If
, then
. If
, then
. Since
I is a strictly increasing continuous function, there is a unique constant
satisfying
, namely (30). Then (31) is clearly satisfied.
By (31), we see that there is a constant
satisfying
for all
. Choose
so large that
![]()
Consider the Banach space BN of all real sequences
with the supernum norm
.
Now we define the set
and the mapping
by
![]()
and
![]()
respectively. Then the boundary value problem (29) is equivalent to finding a fixed element of
. We show that F has a fixed element in Y (via) the Schavder fixed point theorem
![]()
Hence F maps Y into itself.
Next, to see the continuity of F, assume that
be a sequence converging to
uniformly in
. We must prove that
converges to
uniformly in
. As a first step, we show that
. Assume that this is not the case. Then because of the boundedness of
,
there is a subsequence
satisfying
for some finite value
. Noting the relation
![]()
We have
![]()
This contradicts the uniqueness of the number
. Hence
. Then we find similarly that
uniformly on
.
It will be easily seen that the sets
![]()
are uniformly bounded on
. Then
is compact.
From the above observations we see that F has a fixed element in Y. Then this fixed element is a solution of boundary value problem (29) is easily proved. The proof is now complete.
Lemma 7. Let
and
. Then the two point boundary value problem
(32)
has a solution
such that
and
for
.
Proof. Define the bounded function f on
by
![]()
By Lemma 6, the boundary value problem
![]()
has a solution y.
We show that y satisfies
for
. If this is not the case, we can find an interval
such that
on
and
. The definition of f implies that y
satisfies the equation
on
. Hence
is a linear function on
.
Obviously that this is a contradiction. We see therefore that
on
.
Since
and
on
, by the definition of t, we find that ![]()
on
. Hence
, which implies that y is a desired solution of problem (32). The proof is complete. ![]()
Proof of Theorem 17. The uniqueness of
satisfying the properties mentored here is easily established as in the proof Lemma 2. Therefore we prove only the existence of such a
.
By Lemma 7, for each
, we have a solution
of the boundary value problem
![]()
satisfying
and
for
let us extend each
over the interval
by defining
for
. Below we show that
contains a subsequence converging to a desired solution of (8).
As a first step, we prove that
(33)
In fact, if this is not case, then
for some i. Since
. Lemma 2 implies that
for
. Putting
, we have
a con-
tradiction. Accordingly (33) holds, and so
exists, since
on ![]()
for any
,
is uniformly bounded on each compact subinterval of
. Noting that
is nondecreasing and nonpositive on
, we have
![]()
Hence
is equicontinuous on each compact subinterval of
. From these consideration we
find that there is a subsequence
and a function
satisfying
uni-
formly on each compact subinterval of
. Finally we shall show that
is a desired solution of Equation (8). Let
be fixed arbitrarily. For all sufficiently large
’s we have
![]()
letting
, we obtain
![]()
Taking difference in this above equality, we are that
solves Equation (8) on
. That
satisfies (27) is evident. The proof of Theorem 17 is complete.
7. Proofs of Main Results for the Super-Homogeneous Equations
Throughout this section, we assume that
.
Proof of Theorem 2. The theorem is an immediate consequence of the uniqueness of the trivial solution (Lemma 3).
Proof of Theorem 4. Necessity Part: Let
be a positive solution of Equation (8) for
of type
(AC). It is easy to see that
and
as
. Hence summing (8) twice, we have
![]()
from which we find that
![]()
This is equivalent to (10).
Sufficiency Part: Let (10) hold. Fix an
and choose
so that
![]()
We introduce the Banach space
of all bounded, real sequences
with norm
.
Define the set
and the mapping
by
![]()
We below show via the Schauder-Tychonoff fixed point theorem that F has at least one fixed element in Y. Firstly, let
. Then
![]()
Thus
, and hence
. Secondly, to see the continuity of F, let
be a sequence in Y covering to
uniformly on each compact subinterval of
since
is bounded for
and
![]()
The Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem implies that
uniformly on each compact subinterval of
since for
,
![]()
The set
is uniformly bounded on
. This implies that
is compact.
From there observations we find that F has a proved element y in Y such that
. That this y is a solution of Equation (1) of type (AC) is easily proved. The proof is complete.
Proof of Theorem 3. Sufficiency Part: Let
be a solution of Equation (8) satisfying
for
. The existence of such a solution is ensured by Theorem 17. Obviously,
is either of type (D) or type (AC). Theorem 4 shows that under assumption (9), Equation (8) does not posses solutions of type (AC). Hence
must be of type (D).
Necessity Part: Let
be a positive solution of Equation (8) for
of type (D). Clearly
satisfies
![]()
To verify (9), suppose the contrary that (9) fails to hold. Then, nothing that
is decreasing for
, we have
![]()
Accordingly,
![]()
The left hand side tends to ¥ as
because of
, where as the right hand side tends to 0 as
. This contradiction verifies (9). The proof is complete.
Proof of Theorem 5. Necessity Part: Let
be a positive solution of Equation (8) near ¥ of type (AL). There is a constant
and
satisfying
(34)
Summation of Equation (8) from
to
yields
![]()
Since
, this in equality implies that
(35)
Combining (35) with (34), we find that (11) holds.
Sufficiency Part: We fix
arbitrarily, and choose
large enough so that
![]()
Let
be the Banach space as in the proof Theorem 4. Define the set
as follows
![]()
The mapping
defined by
![]()
As in the proof of the sufficiency part of Theorem 4, we can show that F has a fixed element
by the Schavder-Tyehonoff fixed point Theorem
![]()
Taking D twice for this formula we see that
is a positive solution of Equation (8) for
.
L’Hospital’s rule shows that
. Thus
is a solution of Equation (8) of type (AL). The proof
is complete.
Lemma 8. Let
. If (11) holds, then there is a positive solution of Equation (8) for
of type (AL) satisfying
.
Proof. By Theorem 5, there is an (AL)-type positive solution
of Equation (8) defined in some neigh-
borhood of
. Let
be a positive solution of Equation (8) for ![]()
satisfying
and
,
for
. Take a
such that
and
for
. By Lemma 2 if
is sufficiently elver to
, then the solution
of Equation (8) with
and
exists at least on
and satisfies
![]()
Then Lemma 2 again implies that
as long as
exists. Since
and
exists for
, this means that
exists for
and satisfies
,
. Then we have
![]()
Noting that
is the unique solution of (8) satisfying
and passing through the point
we have
. Therefore
is of type (AL). The proof is complete.
Proof of Theorem 6. For
, we denote by
, the unique solution of Equation (8) with in initial condition
and
. The maximal interval of existence of
may be finite or infinite.
Define the set
by
![]()
We know by Lemma 8 that
and by Lemma 5 that
for all sufficiently large
. Hence
exists. For
there are three possibilities:
1) ![]()
2)
and
is of type (AS)
3)
and
is of type
.
To prove the theorem, we below show that case (b) occurs. For simplicity, we write
for
below.
Suppose that the case (a) occurs. Then
and
. By condition
(11) we can find a
satisfying
![]()
Choose
close enough to
so that
exists at least on
and
. Then, for such a
,
can be extended to
, and satisfies
. In fact, if this is not the case, there is
satisfying
for
and
. It follows therefore that
for
. Summing the Equation (8) (with
) for
yields
![]()
This contradiction implies that
exists for
and satisfies
. These observations show that
, which contradicts the definition of
. Hence case (a) does not occur.
Next, suppose that case (c) occurs. Let
be the point such that
. By Le- mma 5, there is an
such that solution
of Equation (8) satisfying
,
must
blow up at some finite
. For sufficiently small
, we have
![]()
. Then if
is sufficiently close to
, then
can be continued at least to
, and satisfies
,
. Then, even through
can be continued to N,
blows up at some finite point by the definition of M. This fact shows that such a
does not belong to S, contradicting the definition of
, again. Consequently case (b) occurs, and hence the proof of Theorem 6 is complete.
Proof of Theorem 7. The proof is done by contradiction. Let
be a solution of Equation (1) of type (AS). We suppose that
exists for
and satisfies
(36)
Put
. Then
![]()
Now, we employ the Young inequality of the form
(37)
in the last inequality. It follows therefore that
![]()
where
is a constant. We rewrite is inequality as
![]()
Noting (7.3) and condition (13), we obtain
![]()
where
is a constant. Dividing both sides by
and summing from n to
¥, we have
![]()
because
. Consequently, we have
![]()
Letting
, we get a contradiction to assumption (12). This completes the proof.
As was mentioned in Section 5, the proof of Theorem 8 is omitted. In fact, a more general result is proved in Lemma 5.
8. Proofs of Main Results for the Sub-Homogeneous Equations
Throughout this section, we assume that
.
Proof of Theorem 9. Let
be fixed so that
and put
![]()
Then there are constants
and
satisfying
![]()
![]()
and
![]()
Consider the Banach space
of all real sequences
with sup norm
. Define
the subset Y of
by
![]()
and
![]()
We show that the hypothesis of the Schavder fixed point theorem is satisfied for Y and F. Let
. Then, obviously
for
. Moreover
![]()
Hence
. The continuity of F and the boundedness of the sets FY and
can be easily established. Accordingly there is a
satisfying
. By taking difference twice, we find that
is a solution of Equation (1) for
and that
for
and
. Now, we put
![]()
It is easy to see that
is a solution of equation (8) for
and is of type
. The proof is complete.
Theorems 14 and 15 can be proved easily as in the proofs of Theorems 4 and 5 respectively. We therefore omit the proofs.
Proof of Theorem 10. By our assumption we can find a positive solution
of Equation (8) sat-
isfying
Since
, we see by Lemma 4 that each
exists for
. We show that the
sequence
has the limit function
, and it gives rise to a positive solution of Equation (8) of type (D).
We first claim that
(38)
If this is not true, then
for some
and
. This means however that there are two nonnegative nonincreasing solutions of Equation (8) passing through the point
. This contradiction to
Theorem 17. We therefore have (38) and so
exists observe that
satisfies
![]()
Letting
, we obtain via the dominated convergence theorem
![]()
We see that
is a nonnegative solution of Equation (8) satisfying
. It remains to prove that
for n ≥ n0 Fix N > n0 arbitrarily. The proof of Theorem 2 implies that there is a solution
for
and
for
. We claim that
(39)
In fact, if this fails to hold, then
![]()
By this means, as before, that there are two nonnegative nonincreasing solution fo Equation (8) passing through the point
. This contradiction shows that (39) holds. Hence by letting
in (39) we have
for
. Since
is arbitrary, we see that
for
. The proof is complete.
Proof of Theorem 11. The proof is done by contradiction. Let
be a positive solution of equation (8) for
of type (D). Using (16). We obtain from Equation (8)
(40)
where
is a positive constant. We fix a
arbitrary and consider inequality (42) only on the interval
for a moment. A summation of (42) from n to 2N, given
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
From which, we have
![]()
(41)
We can find a constant
satisfying
![]()
Therefore (43) implies that
![]()
from which we have
![]()
Letting
, we have a contradiction. The proof is complete.
Proof of Theorem 12. The proof is done by contradiction. Let
be a solution of Equation (8) of type (D). We notice first that
(42)
In fact, since
, we can compute as follows
![]()
Therefore (42) holds.
We may suppose that for some
and ![]()
(43)
But
. Then
![]()
proceeding as in the proof of Theorem 8, we obtain
![]()
where
is a constant. We obtain from (43) and assumption (18)
![]()
where
is a constant. Dividing both sides by
and summing from n to ¥, we have
![]()
that is,
![]()
Letting
, we get a contradiction to assumption (17) by (42). The proof is complete.
Proof of Theorem 16. Sufficiency Part: By Theorem 17 and (2) of Remark 6.2, there is a positive solution
of equation (8) satisfying
. This
is either of type (AL) or of type (AS). But by Theorem 15, we see that
must be of type (AS).
Necessity Part: Let
be a positive solution of Equation (8) for
of type (AS). To prove (19), we
suppose the contrary that
. As in the proof of Lemma 5.3, we have
![]()
where
and
let
. It follows that
![]()
where
is a constant. put
. We then have
![]()
Since
is of type (AS),
is unbounded for
and so is
. Accordingly, there is a
, satisfying
for
. Thus
![]()
Since
, this implies the boundedness of w, which is a contraction. Hence, we must have (19). The proof is complete.
Theorem 16 is clear because of all solutions of equation (8) with
exist for
[see Lemma 5].