1. Introduction
In partial differential equations theory, multipoint boundary conditions are those which the solutions of multiple-parameter differential equations should satisfy. In recent decades, more and more mathematicians turned their attention to nonlinear boundary value problems (BVPs) in resonance cases and non-resonance cases. For some non-resonance cases, we recommend readers to [
1,
2,
3,
4], and for resonance cases to [
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12] and the references therein. In [
8], Feng first obtained the existence of one solution of semilinear three-point BVPs at resonance by making use of the coincidence degree theory of Mawhin. Then, as an extension of [
8], Ma [
9] first developed the upper and lower solution method to obtain some multiplicity results. Motivated by [
9], Bai [
6] researched a four-point boundary value problem, and proved the existence and multiplicity results by making use of the method of upper and lower solutions established by the coincidence degree theorem. Subsequently, various boundary value conditions were studied.
V.A. Il’in and E.I. Moiseev in [
1] studied Sturm–Liouville operator of the first kind of nonlocal boundary value problem, which originated from the famous work of A. V. Bitsadze and A. A. Samarskogo [
3]: In the Euclidean
n-dimensional space with orthogonal Cartesian coordinates
, the elliptic linear differential equation on the
-dimensional piecewise smooth Lyapunov surface is transformed into a nonlocal problem of an ordinary differential equation when solving a partial differential equation by the separation of variables method. When the state variable is
n-dimensional, consideration of the general fractional model will naturally involve the model of the problem considered in this paper.
To our best knowledge, before P.D. Phung [
13], almost all articles on resonance BVPs were focused on a single second-order equation with the dimension of Ker
. For a second-order equation boundary value problem system with
, the dimension of Ker
L will be between 0 and
; it will not be as easy as dim Ker
to establish projections
Q for matrices
B and
C with different properties. For the case of
, Zhang in [
12] considered a three-point BVP at resonance for nonlinear fractional differential equations:
and obtained two existence results using the coincidence degree theory. In [
13]. P.D. Phung first researched the following resonant three-point BVPs in
:
where
is an
n-order zero vector, the matrix
A satisfies one of the following conditions:
In [
14], P.D. Phung removed the restriction on matrix
A and studied the solvability of the same problem as in [
13]. Then, P.D. Phung [
15] used similar methods to study the following three-point boundary conditions in the fractional differential equations at resonance:
Recently, the solvability of integer or fractional differential equations with a wide range of boundary value conditions at resonance in
has been researched. We direct readers to [
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21] for details.
For nearly a decade, the resonant boundary value problem with
n equations has been studied by an increasing number of mathematicians. However, we found that the following two problems have not been addressed. First, Zhang in [
12] studied the resonance boundary value problem of two equations, but used the same boundary value conditions for different state variables
u and
v, so the study was similar to that of a single equation and could not be easily extended to the case of
n dimensions. Therefore, in this study we consider the characterization of different constraints on different state variables, in other words, we introduce matrices to control the constraints on state variables so that the expression of the equation can be richer. However, other works [
13,
14,
15,
16,
20,
21] under the condition of zero boundary value (similar to
) studied
n equations of the problem. Gupta in [
10] proposed that many multi-point boundary value problems can be transformed into four-point boundary value problems under certain conditions, so studying four-point BVPs is more meaningful. The four-point boundary value condition does not contain zero boundary value, which makes the structure of irreversible operators and the construction of projection
P and
Q more complicated than that of three-point BVPs. Therefore, it is more meaningful to introduce a matrix to study four-point boundary value problems in mathematics.
Motivated by the above ideas, we consider the following fractional-order equations with a new boundary value condition in
:
where
,
,
;
B,
C are two
n-order nonzero square matrices,
represents the Caputo differentiation, and
satisfies Carathéodory conditions. In this situation, Ker
L may become a polynomial set with vector coefficients and the construction of projectors will be somewhat complex. We say
satisfies Carathéodory conditions, that is,
- (A1)
is measurable on [0, 1] for all .
- (A2)
is continuous on , for a.e. .
- (A3)
The function is Lebesgue integrable on for all compact set .
The problem in (
1) and (
2) is in resonance, meaning that the following linear homogeneous boundary value problem has nontrivial solutions:
By (
3), there is
Combining with (
4), we can get the following equations:
Clearly, the resonance condition is
From the calculation formula of block matrix determinant, we can know that
if and only if
Condition (
5) can be divided into three cases:
, , ;
, ;
, , .
The paper is organized as follows. In
Section 2, we state several notations and definitions. In
Section 3 and
Section 4, two main theorems (see Theorem 2 and 3) are established for the solvability of problem (
1) and (
2) under resonance cases
and
, respectively. It is worth mentioning that, inspired by [
14], in
Section 4, we remove the restriction on the matrix
C, and give the existence theorem of the solution of the problem only under the most basic resonance conditions (refer to
).
2. Preliminaries
First, we recall some related definitions and lemmas of fractional calculus; we refer the readers to [
22] for more properties.
Definition 1. The α–order Riemann–Liouville fractional integral of function u is defined asand the right side of the equation is defined at . Definition 2. The α–order Caputo fractional derivative of function is defined asas long as the right side of the equation is defined at . Lemma 1 ([22]). If , then the fractional differential equationhas a unique solution The following lemma is also very important for subsequent research.
Lemma 2 ([22]). Let and .
- (1)
Let and u be a continuous function, then - (2)
Let u be an absolute continuous function of times differentiable, then
Let X, Y be two Banach spaces, we call L: dom a Fredholm mapping of index zero if
- (E1)
Im L is closed in Y and has codimension of finite dimension;
- (E2)
Tthe dimension of Ker L is equal to the codimension of Im L.
If L satisfies (E1) and (E2), then there will be two projectors , satisfies Ker Q = Im L, Im P = Ker L. Therefore, we can get the straight-sum decomposition: Y = Im Im Q, X = Ker Ker P. Here, by we denote the inverse of and by the generalized inverse of L.
We call NL-compact on ( is an open bounded subset of X with , when it satisfies
- (F1)
is bounded;
- (F2)
is completely continuous.
Theorem 1 ([23]). Let L be a Fredholm operator of index zero and N() be L-compact. Suppose the following conditions are satisfied:
for all ;
for all ;
deg(, , where : Im Ker L is an isomorphism, and is a projection as above.
Then, the equation has at least one solution in dom L .
By
we denote the norm of space
, where
is the maximum norm. Additionally, by
we denote the Lebesgue norm of
. Set
Then, define map
by setting
for
,
3. Existence Results for Case (1)
Now, we show the solvability of BVP (
1), (
2) when
,
,
. Furthermore, suppose the matrices
C satisfy the following conditions:
- (H1)
is reversible;
- (H2)
is reversible;
- (H3)
,
where
is an
n-order zero matrix. From (
12) we can know
where
, and from (H3) we have
Let
then
Define a mapping
as
where
Lemma 3. The operator L is a Fredholm operator with an index of zero.
Proof. For
,
so linear operator
Q is a continuous projector. For
, one has
; this shows that
Ker
Q. In fact, Im
L = Ker
Q.
Let and it is easy to verify Im L. Thus, Im L + Im Q. For every Im Q have the form , . At this time, if Im L, then . Hence, Im L ⊕ Im Q. Combine with codim Im dim Im dim Ker L, so L satisfies (E1) and (E2), and the index of the Fredholm operator L is zero. □
Define another projector
by
For
Ker
L, one has
and
This shows that
Im
P. Conversely, for every
Im
P, there is
such that
. Thus,
Hence, Ker
L = Im
P. Clearly,
Ker
P ⊕ Ker
L. In fact, Ker
P ∩ Ker
.
Define a mapping
Im
Ker
P ∩ dom
L as
Lemma 4. andwhere , stand for the max-norm of matrices. Proof. Let
Im
L. It is clear that
and
, such that
dom
L. Furthermore
This shows that
Ker
P. So, the definition of
is reasonable.
For
Ker
P ∩ dom
L, from (
11), one has
Conversely, for
Im
L, one has
. Thus,
.
Again, since
combining with (
16), one has
Thus, we have
. □
Define an operator
by
Proof. We divide the proof into two parts. The first part is bounded continuous. The second part is completely continuous. Indeed, for
, there exists a function
s.t. for every
and a.e.
Combining with (
13), one has
where
Thus,
is bounded. Obviously,
is continuous.
For all
, one has
Combining (
20), (
22), and (
23), we have
That is,
is uniformly bounded in
X. Now we only need to prove
is equicontinuous in
X to end the proof of Lemma 5. For
, one has
and
Thus,
is equicontinuous in X. In summary,
N is
L-compact. □
We will use the following assumptions:
- (M1)
For all
,
, there exist three functions
, s.t.
and
where
D is the constant given in (
17).
- (M2)
For
dom
L, if there exist
, s.t.
then
- (M3)
Let
If there exist
s.t.
then either
stands for the scalar product in .
Theorem 2. If assumptions (M1)–(M3) are satisfied, then Problem (1), (2) has at least one solution in X. Proof. Set
. For
, one has
Im
Ker
Q. Thus,
From (M2), there exist
s.t.
, thus
Furthermore
Note that
is the identity operator. Combining with (
27), one has
where
D was given in (
16). Combining (
19), (
28), and (M1), we get
Therefore, it can be obtained that
From (
29) and (
28), one has
Hence
is bounded in
X.
Set
. Assuming
, one has
,
. Thus
Then, from assumption (M2), one has
Therefore,
is a bounded subset.
Set . We divide the proof into the following two steps:
For
one has
If , then , such that Ker Im L. Thus we have , so .
If
, suppose
. Then, from (M3) obtain that
So, we have a contradiction. Thus
.
For , using same arguments as in Step 1 above, we can deduce that . Thus we can show that , are two bounded subsets.
Now, let
and
. According to the above arguments, we know that both conditions
and
of Theorem 1 are satisfied. In order to prove
, we use isomorphic mapping
to construct the homotopy operator by
Hence
Therefore,
of Theorem 1 is satisfied. Theorem 2 is proved. □
4. Existence Results for Case (2)
Now, we show the solvability of BVP (
1), (
2) when
,
. In this case, the boundary value condition degenerates to
Unlike
Section 3, this section removes the restriction on matrix
C and uses the generalized inverse to conduct research under the most basic resonance conditions, inspired by [
14]. Now we study the BVP (
1) and (
30) using Theorem 1. We use the same notations as in
Section 3.
. In this case,
Let
and
be the
–
of
. From [
24] we can get the following conclusions, which are necessary for our subsequent research:
- (
;
- (
;
- (
Im Im ;
- (
Im Ker .
From (
12), we have
Define a linear operator
by
Then
Define an operator
as
where
Then for
, we can get
In fact
By similar arguments to Lemma 2.5 in [
14], we have that the index of the Fredholm operator
L is zero.
Define an operator
as
If
Ker
L, one has
Im
, thus there exists
suct that
So,
Im
. Conversely, if
Im
, from
we can know that
Ker
. Again, since Ker
∩ Ker
, then
Ker
⊕ Ker
L.
Define a mapping
Im
Ker
dom
L as
Through checking calculation, we can get
dom
L and
Ker
. Thus the definition of
is reasonable.
Letting
Ker
dom
L, one has
Similarly, for
Im
L, we have
. Then we can deduce that
.
Denote
By the similar proof process as in Lemma 4 and Lemma 5, we know that
and
is completely continuous.
Now we give the following assumptions:
- (M)
For all
,
, we have
where
are three positive functions satisfying
, and
is the constant given in (
34).
- (M)
Then, there exist and , s.t. .
- (M)
There exist
, s.t. for every
with
and
, either
where
stands for scalar product in
.
Theorem 3. If assumptions (M)–(M) are satisfied, BVP (1) and (30) has at least one solution in X. Proof. We use the same definitions of , and as in Theorem 2.
For
, we have that
Im
Ker
. Similarly, we can show
In fact,
Using assumption (M
), we can deduce that
and
Then with the similar proof process in Theorem 2 we can know that
and
Combining (
38) and (
39) we can deduce that
Hence
is a bounded subset of
X.
For
, one has
,
. Combining with
Im
L, we can get
From assumptions (M
), we get
Such that
is bounded in
X.
In order to prove both and are bounded, we also divide the proof process into two steps:
Assuming
one has
, where
∩ Ker
. Thus we have
If , then , such that Ker Im L. Thus we have , so .
If
, suppose
. From (B3) we get
Therefore, we have
.
For , through a similar proof process as in Step 1, we can deduce that .
Thus, and are two bounded subsets in X.
Let the definitions of bounded open subset
and homotopy
be the same as in Theorem 2. Then we can deduce that
of Theorem 1 is also satisfied. By Theorem 1, Equations (
1) and (
30) must have a solution in
. □
5. Examples
In this section, we present two examples to illustrate our main results in
Section 3 and
Section 4.
Example 1. Consider the following boundary value problem:
where , are defined asfor all . Clearly,
,
and
. Denote
, define function
By (
41), (
42), and (
43),
f satisfies Carathéodory conditions.
Now we show that the other conditions of Theorem 3 hold. Choose positive integrable functions
Then we have
By some simple computation, we get
Hence, (M1) is satisfied.
In order to check (M2), one has
for all
and all
. Letting
be a positive constant, we have
where
. If
, there is
This shows that when
, one has
because Im
.
Finally, we check (M3). Let
. Denote
. So
Then there is
So
and
In fact, if
, this is obviously true. If
, letting
, one has
. Again, since
So, the formula above has no real root, which means
. Thus, by Theorem 2, BVP (
40) has at least one solution.
Example 2. Consider the following boundary value problem:
We use the same
as in Example 1 and
,
are defined as
We can easily check that assumption (M
) is satisfied. When
, from the definition of
f, one has
and
. According to a similar proof process as Example 1, one has
because Im
. Finally, we check (M
). Letting
, one has
So
and
where
. Thus,
, by Theorem 3, (
43) has at least one solution.