Next Article in Journal
Moderate Averaged Deviations for a Multi-Scale System with Jumps and Memory
Previous Article in Journal
Search for Damped Oscillating Structures from Charged Pion Electromagnetic Form Factor Data
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Existence for Nonlinear Fourth-Order Two-Point Boundary Value Problems

1
Department of Mathematics, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, TX 78363-8202, USA
2
Department of Electrical Engineering, Electronics and Automation, Faculty of Engineering and Pedagogy of Sliven, Technical University of Sofia, 8800 Sliven, Bulgaria
3
Department of Qualification and Professional Development of Teachers of Sliven, Technical University of Sofia, 8800 Sliven, Bulgaria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Dynamics 2023, 3(1), 152-170; https://doi.org/10.3390/dynamics3010010
Submission received: 11 February 2023 / Revised: 6 March 2023 / Accepted: 9 March 2023 / Published: 13 March 2023

Abstract

:
The present paper is devoted to the solvability of various two-point boundary value problems for the equation y ( 4 ) = f ( t , y , y , y , y ) , where the nonlinearity f may be defined on a bounded set and is needed to be continuous on a suitable subset of its domain. The established existence results guarantee not just a solution to the considered boundary value problems but also guarantee the existence of monotone solutions with suitable signs and curvature. The obtained results rely on a basic existence theorem, which is a variant of a theorem due to A. Granas, R. Guenther and J. Lee. The a priori bounds necessary for the application of the basic theorem are provided by the barrier strip technique. The existence results are illustrated with examples.

1. Introduction

This paper studies the solvability in C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] of boundary value problems (BVPs) for the equation
y ( 4 ) = f ( t , y , y , y , y ) , t ( 0 , 1 ) ,
where f ( t , y , u , v , w ) is a scalar function defined on [ 0 , 1 ] × D y × D u × D v × D w , and D y , D u , D v , D w R .
We show sufficient conditions for the existence of solutions of (1) satisfying one of the following boundary conditions (BCs)
y ( 0 ) = A , y ( 1 ) = B , y ( 0 ) = C , y ( 0 ) = D ,
y ( 0 ) = A , y ( 0 ) = B , y ( 0 ) = C , y ( 1 ) = D ,
y ( 0 ) = A , y ( 0 ) = B , y ( 1 ) = C , y ( 1 ) = D ,
or
y ( 0 ) = A , y ( 0 ) = B , y ( 0 ) = C , y ( 1 ) = D ,
where A , B , C , D R . It is established that the considered problems have positive or non-negative, monotone, convex or concave solutions.
It is well known that boundary value problems for fourth-order differential equations arise as models studying the deformations of an elastic beam, which is one of the basic structures in architecture, used often in the design of bridges and various structures.
The solvability of fourth-order BVPs with various two-point BCs has been studied by many authors.
Various BVPs for equations of the type
y ( 4 ) = f ( t , y ) , t ( 0 , 1 ) ,
have been studied by A. Cabada et al. [1], J. Caballero et al. [2], J. Cid et al. [3], G. Han and Z. Xu [4], J. Harjani et al. [5], G. Infante and P. Pietramala [6], J. Li [7] (here, the nonlinearity f ( t , y ) may be singular at the ends of the interval and at y = 0 ), B. Yang [8] and C. Zhai and C. Jiang [9].
J. Liu and W. Xu [10] and D. O’Regan [11] (in this work, the function f ( t , y , u ) admit singularities at the ends t = 0 , 1 , at y = 0 and/or at u = 0 ) and Q. Yao [12] has studied boundary value problems for equations of the form
y ( 4 ) = f ( t , y , y ) .
In [11], the homogeneous conditions (3) are among the considered boundary conditions.
Many authors have considered BVPs for equations of the type
y ( 4 ) = f ( t , y , y ) , t ( 0 , 1 ) ,
see Z. Bai et al. [13], D. Brumley et al. [14], M. Del Pino and R. Manasevich [15], A. El-Haffaf [16] (with homogeneous boundary conditions (2)), P. Habets and M. Ramalho [17], R. Ma [18] and D. O’Regan [19]. In the last work, the function f ( t , y , v ) may be singular at the ends of the interval, at y = 0 and/or at v = 0 .
The solvability of boundary value problems for the more general equations
y ( 4 ) = f ( t , y , y , y ) , t ( 0 , 1 ) ,
has been studied in [16] (with homogeneous boundary conditions (2)), [20,21,22], where the main nonlinearity f ( t , y , u , v ) may be singular at t = 0 , 1 , y = 0 , u = 0 and v = 0 .
BVPs for equations of the form (1) with various two-point boundary conditions have been considered by R. Agarwal [23], Z. Bai [24], C. De Coster et al. [25], J. Ehme et al. [26], D. Franco et al. [27], A. Granas et al. [28], Y. Li and Q. Liang [29], Y. Liu and W. Ge [30], R. Ma [31], F. Minhós et al. [32], B. Rynne [33], F. Sadyrbaev [34] and Q. Yao [35]. Moreover, the BCs in [23,34] are
y ( 0 ) = A , y ( 0 ) = B , y ( 1 ) = C , y ( 1 ) = D ,
in the work [24], they are of the form
y ( 0 ) = y ( 1 ) = y ( 0 ) = y ( 1 ) = 0 ,
the authors of [24,31] consider the conditions
y ( 0 ) = y ( 1 ) = y ( 0 ) = y ( 1 ) = 0 ,
and those of [29,32,33] consider
y ( 0 ) = y ( 1 ) = y ( 0 ) = y ( 1 ) = 0 .
The boundary conditions in [25] are periodic, and in [28,33], they are
y ( 0 ) = y ( 1 ) = y ( 0 ) = y ( 1 ) = 0 ,
and of the form
y ( 0 ) = y ( 1 ) = y ( 0 ) = y ( 1 ) = 0
in [30]. BVPs with boundary conditions either (6), (7),
y ( 0 ) = y ( 0 ) = y ( 1 ) = y ( 1 ) = 0
or
y ( 0 ) = y ( 0 ) = y ( 1 ) = y ( 1 ) = 0
have been studied in [31]. In [34], the boundary conditions are generally nonlinear, and in [26,27], they are of the type
g 1 ( x ¯ ) = 0 , g 2 ( x ¯ ) = 0 , h 1 ( x ~ ) = 0 , h 2 ( x ~ ) = 0 ,
where the functions g i , h i , i = 1 , 2 , are continuous, x ¯ = ( x ( 0 ) , x ( 1 ) , x ( 0 ) , x ( 1 ) , x ( 0 ) , x ( 1 ) ) in both papers, x ~ = x ¯ in [26], and x ~ = ( x ( 0 ) , x ( 1 ) , x ( 0 ) , x ( 1 ) , x ( 0 ) , x ( 1 ) , x ( 0 ) , x ( 1 ) ) in [27].
Results guaranteeing positive solutions can be found in [2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,14,18,20,21]. In [9], the most recent of these articles, the following nonlinear fourth-order two-point boundary value problem
y ( 4 ) = f ( t , y ) , t ( 0 , 1 ) ,
y ( 0 ) = y ( 0 ) = y ( 1 ) = y ( 1 ) + g ( y ( 1 ) ) = 0 ,
is considered under the assumption that there exist two suitable real numbers b > a 0 and a non-negative function l C ( 0 , 1 ) L 1 [ 0 , 1 ] such that the function f : ( 0 , 1 ) × [ 0 , b ] R is continuous and | f ( t , y ) | l ( t ) for ( t , x ) ( 0 , 1 ) × [ 0 , b ] , and the function g : [ 0 , b ] ( 0 , ) is continuous and increasing. The authors establish that this problem has two nontrivial solutions x * , y * C [ 0 , 1 ] with a t 2 x * y * b t 2 , t [ 0 , 1 ] , which are limits of sequences with first terms x 0 ( t ) = a t 2 and y 0 ( t ) = b t 2 , respectively.
A classic tool for studying the solvability of initial and boundary value problems is the lower and upper solutions technique. It was probably E. Picard [36], in 1893, who first used an initial version of this technique to study a first-order initial boundary value problem. This idea was further developed later by G. Scorca Dragoni [37]. The lower and upper solutions technique is often used together with so-called growth conditions imposed on the main nonlinearity of the differential equation. S. Bernstein [38], in 1912, first used such a condition to establish the solvability of a second-order boundary value problem with Dirichlet boundary conditions. Subsequently, his idea was further developed by a number of mathematicians, with M. Nagumo [39] being the first to do this in 1937. In a series of papers of recent decades, R. Agarwal and D. O’Regan, see for example [40], study the solvability of various nonsingular and singular initial and boundary value problems under the assumption that the main nonlinearity does not change its sign.
Except for [9], where the function f ( t , y ) is defined and continuous on a bounded set of the form ( 0 , 1 ) × [ a , b ] , in the mentioned works, the main nonlinearity is defined and continuous with respect to the dependent variables on unbounded sets, [1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10,11,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,32,33,34,41,42,43], or is a Carathéodory function on an unbounded set, see [6,31,35]. Various existence and uniqueness results are obtained under assumptions that the considered boundary value problem admits lower and upper solutions [1,7,13,16,17,24,26,27,32,34], under assumptions that the main nonlinearity is positive or non-negative [2,3,5,6,7,8,10,14,18,19,20,21], and under Nagumo-type growth conditions [24,26,27,32,34], non-resonance conditions [15,25], and monotone conditions [7,24]. Maximum principles and various applications of the Green function are used in [1,17] and [2,3,6,8,10,14,16,29,41,43,44], respectively.
We use other tools. In [45], under a barrier strips condition, we study the solvability of BVPs for (1) with BCs, including y ( 1 ) = C . In the present paper, we extend the list of BVPs considered in [45], imposing a different barrier strips condition, which is adapted to the new BC for the third derivative. Barrier strip conditions have also been used by W. Qin [42] for studying the solvability of a three-point BVP for Equation (1).
Our results rely on the following assumptions:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
There exist constants F i , L i , i = 1 , 2 , with the following properties:
F 2 < F 1 A L 1 < L 2 , [ F 2 , L 2 ] D w ,
f ( t , y , u , v , w ) 0 for ( t , y , u , v , w ) [ 0 , 1 ] × D y × D u × D v × [ L 1 , L 2 ] ,
f ( t , y , u , v , w ) 0 for ( t , y , u , v , w ) [ 0 , 1 ] × D y × D u × D v × [ F 2 , F 1 ] .
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
There exist constants m k M k , k = 0 , 3 ¯ , with the properties: [ m 0 ε , M 0 + ε ] D y , [ m 1 ε , M 1 + ε ] D u , [ m 2 ε , M 2 + ε ] D v , [ m 3 ε , M 3 + ε ] D w , where ε > 0 is a sufficiently small and f ( t , y , u , v , w ) is continuous on the set [ 0 , 1 ] × J with
J = [ m 0 ε , M 0 + ε ] × [ m 1 ε , M 1 + ε ] × [ m 2 ε , M 2 + ε ] × [ m 3 ε , M 3 + ε ] .
In Lemma 1, we will see that the strips [ 0 , 1 ] × [ L 1 , L 2 ] and [ 0 , 1 ] × [ F 2 , F 1 ] from (H 1 ) control the behavior of y ( t ) on [ 0 , 1 ] and, in this way, guarantee a priori bounds for y ( t ) . These strips are called barrier ones—see P. Kelevedjiev [46]; more details on the nature of the barrier technique are presented in Section 5. Note also that (H 1 ) and (H 2 ) allow the sets D y , D u , D v and D w to be bounded and the nonlinearity f to be continuous only on a bounded subset of its domain.
The barrier idea can be used in various variants. One of the possibilities is to replace the constants F i , L i , i = 1 , 2 , from (H 1 ) by continuous functions having suitable monotonicity. Such curvilinear strips have been used in P. Kelevedjiev [47] for second-order two-point boundary value problems. Of course, the strips [ 0 , 1 ] × [ L 1 , L 2 ] and [ 0 , 1 ] × [ F 2 , F 1 ] from (H 1 ) can be replaced by the segments [ 0 , 1 ] × { L 1 } and [ 0 , 1 ] × { F 1 } ; see again [47]. A disadvantage of barrier segments is that the right side of the equation must not become zero on them. Barrier segments have also been used by I. Rachůnková and S. Staněk [48] and R. Ma [49] for studying the solvability of various BVPs. Discontinuous barrier strips, curvilinear strips and barrier segments can also be useful; see [47].
Our basic existence result is stated in Section 2. There, we also give auxiliary results, which guarantee a priori bounds for each eventual solution y ( t ) C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] to the families of BVPs for
y ( 4 ) = λ f ( t , y , y , y , y ) , λ [ 0 , 1 ] , t ( 0 , 1 ) , ( 1 ) λ
with BCs either (2)–(4) or (5); these a priori bounds are necessary for the application of the basic existence theorem. Moreover, the barrier condition (H 1 ) first provides the a priori bound for y ( t ) , and those for y ( t ) , y ( t ) and y ( t ) are a consequence of it. The existence results are stated in Section 3. They are based on the simultaneous use of (H 1 ) and (H 2 ) and guarantee not just a solution to the considered boundary value problems but also solutions with important properties such as an invariant sign, increasing, decreasing, convexity, and concavity. In Section 4, we illustrate the application of the obtained existence theorems with examples.

2. Basic Existence Results, Auxiliary Results

Following [45], we first introduce the notation needed to formulate the basic existence theorem.
Consider the BVP
y ( 4 ) + s 3 ( t ) y + s 2 ( t ) y + s 1 ( t ) y + s 0 ( t ) y = f ( t , y , y , y , y ) , t ( 0 , 1 ) , V i ( y ) = r i , i = 1 , 4 ¯ ,
where s i C [ 0 , 1 ] , i = 0 , 3 ¯ , f : [ 0 , 1 ] × D y × D u × D v × D w R ,
V i ( y ) j = 0 3 [ a i j y ( j ) ( 0 ) + b i j y ( j ) ( 1 ) ] , r i R , i = 1 , 4 ¯ ,
and the constants a i j and b i j are such that j = 0 3 ( a i j 2 + b i j 2 ) > 0 for i = 1 , 4 ¯ .
Consider also the family of BVPs
y ( 4 ) + s 3 ( t ) y + s 2 ( t ) y + s 1 ( t ) y + s 0 ( t ) y = g ( t , y , y , y , y , λ ) , t ( 0 , 1 ) , V i ( y ) = r i , i = 1 , 4 ¯ ,
where λ [ 0 , 1 ] , g : [ 0 , 1 ] × D y × D u × D v × D w × [ 0 , 1 ] R , and s i ( t ) , i = 0 , 3 ¯ , V i , r i , i = 1 , 4 ¯ , are as above.
Finally, introduce the sets
B C = { y ( t ) , t [ 0 , 1 ] : V i ( y ) = r i , i = 1 , 4 ¯ } , B C 0 = { y ( t ) , t [ 0 , 1 ] : V i ( y ) = 0 , i = 1 , 4 ¯ } ,
C B C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] = C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] B C , C B C 0 4 [ 0 , 1 ] = C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] B C 0 .
We are ready to formulate our basic existence result. It is similar to Theorem 5.1 (Chapter I) and Theorem 1.2 (Chapter V) of [28].
Theorem 1.
Assume that:
(i) 
For λ = 0 , the problem (10) has a unique solution y 0 C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] .
(ii) 
Problems (10) and (11) are equivalent when λ = 1 .
(iii) 
The map Λ h : C B C 0 4 [ 0 , 1 ] C [ 0 , 1 ] defined by the left side of (10), i.e.,
Λ h y = y ( 4 ) + s 3 ( t ) y + s 2 ( t ) y + s 1 ( t ) y + s 0 ( t ) y ,
is one-to-one.
(iv) 
Each solution y C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] to family (11) satisfies the bounds
m k y ( k ) ( t ) M k , t [ 0 , 1 ] , k = 0 , 4 ¯ ,
where the constants < m k , M k < , k = 0 , 4 ¯ , are independent of λ and y.
(v) 
There is a sufficiently small ε > 0 such that [ m 0 ε , M 0 + ε ] D y , [ m 1 ε , M 1 + ε ] D u , [ m 2 ε , M 2 + ε ] D v , [ m 3 ε , M 3 + ε ] D w , and the function g ( t , y , u , v , w , λ ) is continuous for ( t , y , u , v , w , λ ) [ 0 , 1 ] × J × [ 0 , 1 ] , where the set J is as in(H 2 ), and the constants m k , M k , k = 0 , 3 ¯ , are as in (iv).
Then BVP (10) has at least one solution in C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] .
We skip the proof, it can be found in [45].
Our first auxiliary result guarantees a priori bounds for the third derivatives of all eventual C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] -solutions to the families of BVPs (1.1) λ , (2)–(5).
Lemma 1.
Let y C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] be a solution to some of the families of BVPs (1) λ , (2)–(5) and(H 1 ) hold. Then
F 1 y ( t ) L 1 for t [ 0 , 1 ] .
Proof. 
Suppose that
T = { t [ 0 , 1 ] : L 1 < y ( t ) L 2 }
is a non-empty set. Then, bearing in mind that y ( 0 ) L 1 and y ( t ) is continuous on [ 0 , 1 ] , we conclude that there exists an α T such that
y ( 4 ) ( α ) > 0 .
For α , we have
y ( 4 ) ( α ) = λ f ( α , y ( α ) , y ( α ) , y ( α ) , y ( α ) ) ,
since y ( t ) is a solution to (1) λ . In addition,
( α , y ( α ) , y ( α ) , y ( α ) , y ( α ) ) T × D y × D u × D v × ( L 1 , L 2 ] .
In view of (8), this means that
λ f ( α , y ( α ) , y ( α ) , y ( α ) , y ( α ) ) 0 for λ [ 0 , 1 ] ,
i.e.,
y ( 4 ) ( α ) 0 .
The obtained contradiction shows that the set T is empty and so
y ( t ) L 1 for t [ 0 , 1 ] .
Similarly, assuming, on the contrary, that
T + = { t [ 0 , 1 ] : F 2 y ( t ) < F 1 }
is a non-empty set and using (9), we arrive at a contradiction, which implies
F 1 y ( t ) , t [ 0 , 1 ] .
Lemma 2.
Assume that(H 1 ) holds. Then the bounds
| y ( t ) | | B | + | C | + | D | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } ,
| y ( t ) | | B | + | C | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } ,
| y ( t ) | | B | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | }
are valid in the interval [ 0 , 1 ] for each solution y C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] to (1) λ , (2).
Proof. 
By the Lagrange mean value theorem, for each t [ 0 , 1 ) , there exists a γ ( t , 1 ) such that
y ( 1 ) y ( t ) = y ( γ ) ( 1 t ) , t [ 0 , 1 ) ,
| y ( t ) | | y ( γ ) | ( 1 t ) + | y ( 1 ) | , t [ 0 , 1 ) .
However, | y ( γ ) | max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } , by Lemma 1, and y ( 1 ) = B . Therefore, we obtain (13).
Using the mean value theorem again, we conclude that for each t ( 0 , 1 ] , there is a δ ( 0 , t ) such that
y ( t ) y ( 0 ) = y ( δ ) t , t ( 0 , 1 ] ,
| y ( t ) | | y ( 0 ) | + | y ( δ ) | t , t ( 0 , 1 ] ,
and using (13), we establish (12).
Finally, applying the mean value theorem on y ( t ) at intervals ( 0 , t ) for each t ( 0 , 1 ] , and using (12), we establish the bound for | y ( t ) | .
Lemma 3.
Assume that(H 1 ) holds. Then the bounds
| y ( t ) | | B | + | D C | + | C | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } ,
| y ( t ) | | B | + | D C | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } ,
| y ( t ) | | B | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | }
are valid in the interval [ 0 , 1 ] for each solution y C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] to (1) λ , (3).
Proof. 
Following the proof of Lemma 2, we obtain the bound for | y ( t ) | . Next, consider that there exists a ν ( 0 , 1 ) with the property y ( ν ) = D C . Further, for each t [ 0 , ν ) , there exists a γ ( t , ν ) such that
y ( ν ) y ( t ) = y ( γ ) ( ν t ) , t [ 0 , ν ) ,
| y ( t ) | | y ( γ ) | ( ν t ) + | y ( ν ) | , t [ 0 , ν ) ,
from which, using the established estimate for | y ( γ ) | , we obtain
| y ( t ) | | D C | + | B | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } , t [ 0 , ν ] .
We can proceed analogously to see that this bound is also valid in the interval [ ν , 1 ] .
For each t ( 0 , 1 ] , again by the mean value theorem, there exists a δ ( 0 , t ) such that
y ( t ) y ( 0 ) = y ( δ ) t , t ( 0 , 1 ] ,
| y ( t ) | | y ( 0 ) | + | y ( δ ) | t , t ( 0 , 1 ] ,
and using (14), we establish the a priori bound for | y ( t ) | .
Lemma 4.
Assume that(H 1 ) holds. Then the bounds
| y ( t ) | | B | + | C B | + | D | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } ,
| y ( t ) | | B | + | C B | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } ,
| y ( t ) | | C B | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | }
are valid in the interval [ 0 , 1 ] for each solution y C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] to (1) λ , (4).
Proof. 
Clearly, there exists a ν ( 0 , 1 ) for which y ( ν ) = C B . Further, for each t [ 0 , ν ) there exists a γ ( t , ν ) for which
y ( ν ) y ( t ) = y ( γ ) ( ν t ) , t [ 0 , ν ) ,
| y ( t ) | | y ( γ ) | ( ν t ) + | y ( ν ) | , t [ 0 , ν ) ,
from where, using | y ( γ ) | max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } , which Lemma 1 gives, we obtain
| y ( t ) | | C B | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } for t [ 0 , ν ] .
This estimate is also valid in the interval [ ν , 1 ] , and it is established with similar reasoning.
Following the proof of Lemma 2, establish the assertion for | y ( t ) | .
Finally, for each t [ 0 , 1 ) , there exists a δ ( t , 1 ) for which
y ( 1 ) y ( t ) = y ( δ ) ( 1 t ) , t [ 0 , 1 ) ,
which gives the assertion for | y ( t ) | .
Lemma 5.
Assume that(H 1 ) holds. Then the bounds
| y ( t ) | | B | + | C | + | D C B | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } ,
| y ( t ) | | B | + | D C B | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } ,
| y ( t ) | | D C B | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | }
are valid in the interval [ 0 , 1 ] for each solution y C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] to (1) λ , (5).
Proof. 
By the Lagrange mean value theorem, there is a μ ( 0 , 1 ) for which y ( μ ) = D C , and there is a ν ( 0 , μ ) such that y ( ν ) = D C B . Further, again by the mean value theorem, for each t [ 0 , ν ) , there is a γ ( t , ν ) such that
y ( ν ) y ( t ) = y ( γ ) ( ν t ) , t [ 0 , ν ) ,
| y ( t ) | | y ( γ ) | ( ν t ) + | y ( ν ) | , t [ 0 , ν ) .
However, from Lemma 1, we know that | y ( γ ) | max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } . Consequently
| y ( t ) | | D C B | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } , t [ 0 , ν ] .
By similar reasoning, one finds that this estimate also holds in the interval t [ ν , 1 ] .
As in the proofs of Lemmas 2 and 3, respectively, establish the bounds for | y ( t ) | and | y ( t ) | .
Lemma 6.
Assume that A 0 , B , C , D 0 and(H 1 ) holds for L 1 0 . Then the bounds
D y ( t ) B + C + D F 1 ,
C y ( t ) B + C F 1 ,
B y ( t ) B F 1
are valid in the interval [ 0 , 1 ] for each solution y C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] to (1) λ , (2).
Proof. 
We have
F 1 y ( t ) L 1 0 for t [ 0 , 1 ] ,
by Lemma 1. Then,
t 1 F 1 d s t 1 y ( s ) d s t 1 L 1 d s , t [ 0 , 1 ) ,
from where we obtain consecutively
F 1 ( 1 t ) y ( 1 ) y ( t ) L 1 ( 1 t ) for t [ 0 , 1 ] ,
F 1 B y ( t ) 0 , t [ 0 , 1 ] ,
which yields (16). Next, we integrate (16) from 0 to t ( 0 , 1 ] and obtain (15). Finally, by an integration of (15) from 0 to t ( 0 , 1 ] , we obtain the assertion for y ( t ) .
Lemma 7.
Assume that A , B 0 , C , D 0 and(H 1 ) holds for L 1 0 . Then the bounds
min { C , D } y ( t ) C + | D C | B F 1 ,
D + B C + F 1 y ( t ) D B C F 1 ,
B + F 1 y ( t ) B
are valid in the interval [ 0 , 1 ] for each solution y C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] to (1) λ , (3).
Proof. 
In view of Lemma 1, we have
F 1 y ( t ) L 1 0 for t [ 0 , 1 ] .
Then
0 t F 1 d s 0 t y ( s ) d s 0 t L 1 d s , t ( 0 , 1 ] ,
F 1 F 1 t y ( t ) B L 1 t 0 , t ( 0 , 1 ] ,
which yields (17). Further, use the fact that there exists a ν ( 0 , 1 ) such that y ( ν ) = D C to establish consecutively
t ν ( B + F 1 ) d s t ν y ( s ) d s t ν B d s , t [ 0 , ν ) ,
( B + F 1 ) ( ν t ) y ( ν ) y ( t ) B ( ν t ) , t [ 0 , ν ] ,
B + F 1 y ( ν ) y ( t ) 0 , t [ 0 , ν ] ,
since 0 ν t 1 ,
D C y ( t ) D B C F 1 , t [ 0 , ν ] .
Similarly from
ν t ( B + F 1 ) d s ν t y ( s ) d s ν t B d s , t ( ν , 1 ] ,
establish
B + D C + F 1 y ( t ) D C , t [ ν , 1 ] .
As a result, keeping in mind that B , F 1 0 , we obtain
B + D C + F 1 y ( t ) D B C F 1 for t [ 0 , 1 ] ,
from where it follows
| y ( t ) | max { | B + D C + F 1 | , | D B C F 1 | } | B | + | D C | + | F 1 | = | D C | B F 1
for t [ 0 , 1 ] .
Now, by the mean value theorem, for any t ( 0 , 1 ] there exists a γ ( 0 , t ) such that
y ( t ) y ( 0 ) = y ( γ ) t ,
from where it follows
| y ( t ) | C + | D C | B F 1 , t [ 0 , 1 ] .
Since B 0 , y ( t ) is concave on [ 0 , 1 ] in view of (17). In addition, y ( 0 ) = C 0 and y ( 1 ) = D 0 , which means
y ( t ) min { C , D } 0 o n [ 0 , 1 ] ,
from where the assertion for y ( t ) follows. □
Lemma 8.
Assume that A , D 0 , B , C 0 and(H 1 ) holds for F 1 0 . Then the bounds
D y ( t ) D + | B | + | C B | + L 1 ,
( | B | + | C B | + L 1 ) y ( t ) max { B , C } ,
C B L 1 y ( t ) C B + L 1
are valid in the interval [ 0 , 1 ] for each solution y C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] to (1) λ , (4).
Proof. 
For some ν ( 0 , 1 ) , we have y ( ν ) = y ( 1 ) y ( 0 ) , i.e., y ( ν ) = C B . Now using the bounds for y ( t ) from Lemma 1, we obtain consecutively
t ν F 1 d s t ν y ( s ) d s t ν L 1 d s , t [ 0 , ν ) ,
F 1 ( ν t ) y ( ν ) y ( t ) L 1 ( ν t ) , t [ 0 , ν ] ,
0 y ( ν ) y ( t ) L 1 , t [ 0 , ν ] ,
C B L 1 y ( t ) C B , t [ 0 , ν ] .
Similarly, from
ν t F 1 d s ν t y ( s ) d s ν t L 1 d s , t ( ν , 1 ] ,
establish
C B y ( t ) C B + L 1 , t [ ν , 1 ] .
Thus,
C B L 1 y ( t ) C B + L 1 for t [ 0 , 1 ] ,
since L 1 0 .
Now, for each t ( 0 , 1 ] , by the mean value theorem, there is a γ ( 0 , t ) such that
y ( t ) y ( 0 ) = y ( γ ) t , t ( 0 , 1 ] ,
which means
| y ( t ) | | B | + | C B | + L 1 for t [ 0 , 1 ] .
However, from y ( t ) F 1 0 on [ 0 , 1 ] it follows that y ( t ) is convex on [ 0 , 1 ] , which means that y ( t ) max { B , C } on [ 0 , 1 ] and so
( | B | + | C B | + L 1 ) y ( t ) max { B , C } 0 for t [ 0 , 1 ] .
To establish the bound for y ( t ) , we integrate from t [ 0 , 1 ) to 1 the inequality
( | B | + | C B | + L 1 ) y ( t ) 0 .
Lemma 9.
Assume that A 0 , B , C 0 , D > C and(H 1 ) holds for L 1 0 and D C B F 1 . Then the bounds
C y ( t ) D F 1 ,
B y ( t ) D C F 1 ,
D C B + F 1 y ( t ) D C B F 1
are valid in the interval [ 0 , 1 ] for each solution y C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] to (1) λ , (5).
Proof. 
From the proof of Lemma 5, we know that there exists a ν ( 0 , 1 ) such that y ( ν ) = D C B . Now the integration (18) of the estimates for y ( t ) that Lemma 1 guarantees gives us
F 1 y ( ν ) y ( t ) 0 , t [ 0 , ν ] ,
F 1 D C B y ( t ) 0 , t [ 0 , ν ] ,
and
D C B y ( t ) D C B F 1 , t [ 0 , ν ] .
On the other hand, the integration (19) gives
D C B + F 1 y ( t ) D C B , t [ ν , 1 ] .
Bearing in mind that F 1 0 , on the whole interval [ 0 , 1 ] , we obtain
D C B + F 1 y ( t ) D C B F 1 ,
which means y ( t ) 0 for t [ 0 , 1 ] because of the assumption D C B F 1 and so y ( t ) is non-decreasing on the interval [ 0 , 1 ] . Then, in view of the boundary condition y ( 0 ) = B , we have
y ( t ) B for t [ 0 , 1 ] .
Thus, the bound for y ( t ) from Lemma 5 takes the form
B y ( t ) B + | D C B | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } , t [ 0 , 1 ] ,
and
B y ( t ) D C F 1 , t [ 0 , 1 ] ,
because due to F 1 L 1 0 the condition D C B F 1 also implies D C B 0 .
Further, from y ( t ) B 0 , it follows that y ( t ) is non-decreasing. This fact, together with the bound for | y ( t ) | from Lemma 5, gives
C y ( t ) | B | + | C | + | D C B | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } , t [ 0 , 1 ] ,
from where the assertion for y ( t ) follows. □

3. Existence Results

Theorem 2.
Assume that(H 1 ) holds, and(H 2 ) holds for
M 0 = | B | + | C | + | D | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } , m 0 = M 0 ,
M 1 = | B | + | C | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } , m 1 = M 1 ,
M 2 = | B | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } , m 2 = M 2 , m 3 = F 1 , M 3 = L 1 .
Then problem (1), (2) has a solution in C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] .
Proof. 
We easily check that (i) of Theorem 1 holds for (1) 0 , (2). Obviously, BVPs (1), (2) and (1) 1 , (2) are the same. Thus, (ii) is also satisfied. To verify (iii) for the map Λ h = y , we establish that for each z C [ 0 , 1 ] , the problem
y ( 4 ) = z ( t ) , t ( 0 , 1 ) ,
y ( 0 ) = 0 , y ( 1 ) = 0 , y ( 0 ) = 0 , y ( 0 ) = 0 ,
has a unique solution y ( t ) in C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] . Next, according to Lemma 2 and Lemma 1, each solution y C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] to family (1) λ , (2) is such that
m k y ( i ) ( t ) M k , t [ 0 , 1 ] , k = 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 .
Now, from the continuity of f ( t , y , u , v , w ) on [ 0 , 1 ] × J , it follows that there exist constants m 4 and M 4 for which
m 4 λ f ( t , y , u , v , w ) M 4 w h e n ( t , y , u , v , w ) [ 0 , 1 ] × J a n d λ [ 0 , 1 ] .
In view of (20), for each solution y C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] to (1) λ , (2) we have ( y ( t ) , y ( t ) , y ( t ) , y ( t ) ) J for t [ 0 , 1 ] . Thus,
m 4 λ f ( y ( t ) , y ( t ) , y ( t ) , y ( t ) ) M 4 w h e n t [ 0 , 1 ] a n d λ [ 0 , 1 ]
and Equation (1) λ gives
m 4 y ( 4 ) ( t ) M 4 , t [ 0 , 1 ] .
This and (20) imply that (iv) holds for (1) λ , (2). Finally, (v) follows from the continuity of f on the set J . Therefore, we can apply Theorem 1 to conclude that the assertion is true. □
Theorem 3.
Assume that A 0 , B , C , D 0 ( C , D > 0 ). Assume also that(H 1 ) holds for L 1 0 and(H 2 ) holds for
m 0 = D , M 0 = B + C + D F 1 ,
m 1 = C , M 1 = B + C F 1 ,
m 2 = B , M 2 = B F 1 , m 3 = F 1 , M 3 = L 1 .
Then problem (1), (2) has a non-negative (positive), non-decreasing (increasing), convex solution in C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] .
Proof. 
Lemma 6 implies
m k y ( k ) ( t ) M k , t [ 0 , 1 ] , k = 0 , 1 , 2 ,
and Lemma 1 yields
m 3 y ( t ) M 3 , t [ 0 , 1 ] .
Further, as in the proof of Theorem 2, we establish that problem (1), (2) has a solution y ( t ) C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] . Since y ( t ) D 0 ( y ( t ) D > 0 ) , y ( t ) C 0 ( y ( t ) C > 0 ) and y ( t ) B 0 for t [ 0 , 1 ] , this solution has the specified properties. □
Theorem 4.
Assume that(H 1 ) holds, and(H 2 ) holds for
M 0 = | B | + | D C | + | C | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } , m 0 = M 0 ,
M 1 = | B | + | D C | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } , m 1 = M 1 ,
M 2 = | B | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } , m 2 = M 2 , m 3 = F 1 , M 3 = L 1 .
Then problem (1), (3) has a solution in C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] .
Proof. 
It differs from that of Theorem 2 only in that now Lemma 3 guarantees
m k y ( k ) ( t ) M k , t [ 0 , 1 ] , k = 0 , 1 , 2 .
Theorem 5.
Assume that A 0 , B 0 , D C 0 ( D C > 0 ). Assume also that(H 1 ) holds for L 1 0 and D C ( B + F 1 ) , and(H 2 ) holds for
m 0 = C , M 0 = D B F 1 ,
m 1 = B + D C + F 1 , M 1 = D B C F 1 ,
m 2 = B + F 1 , M 2 = B , m 3 = F 1 , M 3 = L 1 .
Then problem (1), (3) has a non-negative (positive), non-decreasing, concave solution in C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] .
Proof. 
From Lemma 7 for every solution y C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] to family (1) λ , (3), we have
min { C , D } y ( t ) C + | D C | B F 1 for t [ 0 , 1 ] ,
i.e.,
C y ( t ) D B F 1 for t [ 0 , 1 ] ,
since D C . Therefore,
m k y ( i ) ( t ) M k , t [ 0 , 1 ] , k = 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 ,
by Lemma 7 and Lemma 1. Further, essentially the same reasoning as in Theorem 2 establishes that problem (1), (3) is solvable in C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] . Since m 0 = C 0 ( m 0 > 0 ) , m 1 = B + D C + F 1 0 and M 2 = B 0 , the solution has the desired properties. □
Theorem 6.
Assume that(H 1 ) holds, and(H 2 ) holds for
M 0 = | B | + | C B | + | D | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } , m 0 = M 0 ,
M 1 = | B | + | C B | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } , m 1 = M 1 ,
M 2 = | C B | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } , m 2 = M 2 , m 3 = F 1 , M 3 = L 1 .
Then problem (1), (4) has a solution in C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] .
Proof. 
It follows the proof of Theorem 2. Now Lemma 4 guarantees the estimates
m k y ( k ) ( t ) M k , t [ 0 , 1 ] , k = 0 , 1 , 2 ,
for every solution y C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] to (1) λ , (4). □
Theorem 7.
Assume that A , D 0 ( D > 0 ) , C B 0 ( C B < 0 ) . Assume also that(H 1 ) holds for F 1 0 and C B + L 1 0 , and(H 2 ) holds for
m 0 = D , M 0 = D C + L 1 ,
m 1 = C L 1 , M 1 = B ,
m 2 = C B L 1 , M 2 = C B + L 1 , m 3 = F 1 , M 3 = L 1 .
Then problem (1), (4) has a non-negative (positive), non-increasing (decreasing), convex solution in C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] .
Proof. 
From Lemma 8 for every solution y C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] to family (1) λ , (4), we know
D y ( t ) D + | B | + | C B | + L 1 , t [ 0 , 1 ] ,
( | B | + | C B | + L 1 ) y ( t ) max { B , C } , t [ 0 , 1 ] ,
i.e.,
D y ( t ) D C + L 1 , t [ 0 , 1 ] ,
C L 1 y ( t ) B , t [ 0 , 1 ] ,
because C B 0 . Therefore,
m k y ( k ) ( t ) M k , t [ 0 , 1 ] , k = 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 ,
by Lemma 8 and Lemma 1. Further, as in the proof of Theorem 2, we establish that (1), (4) is solvable in C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] . Since m 0 = D 0 ( m 0 > 0 ) , M 1 = B 0 ( M 1 < 0 ) and M 2 = C B + L 1 0 , the solution has the desired properties. □
Theorem 8.
Assume that(H 1 ) holds, and(H 2 ) holds for
M 0 = | B | + | C | + | D C B | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } , m 0 = M 0 ,
M 1 = | B | + | D C B | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } , m 1 = M 1 ,
M 2 = | D C B | + max { | F 1 | , | L 1 | } , m 2 = M 2 , m 3 = F 1 , M 3 = L 1 .
Then problem (1), (5) has a solution in C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] .
Proof. 
It does not differ substantially from the proof of Theorem 2. Now Lemma 5 guarantees the bounds
m k y ( k ) ( t ) M k , t [ 0 , 1 ] , k = 0 , 1 , 2 .
Theorem 9.
Assume that A 0 , B , C 0 ( B , C > 0 ) , D > C . Assume also that(H 1 ) holds for L 1 0 and D C B F 1 , and(H 2 ) holds for
m 0 = C , M 0 = D F 1 ,
m 1 = B , M 1 = D C F 1 ,
m 2 = D C B + F 1 , M 2 = D C B F 1 , m 3 = F 1 , M 3 = L 1 .
Then problem (1), (5) has a non-negative (positive), non-decreasing (increasing), concave solution in C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] .
Proof. 
According to Lemma 9, for every eventual solution y C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] to family (1) λ , (5), we have
C y ( t ) D F 1 ,
B y ( t ) D C F 1 ,
D C B + F 1 y ( t ) D C B F 1
for t [ 0 , 1 ] , i.e.,
m k y ( k ) ( t ) M k , t [ 0 , 1 ] , k = 0 , 1 , 2 .
In addition, by Lemma 1,
m 3 y ( t ) M 3 , t [ 0 , 1 ] .
Further, as in the proof of Theorem 2, we verify that the conditions of Theorem 1 are fulfilled and so (1), (5) is solvable in C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] . Since m 0 = C 0 ( m 0 > 0 ) , m 1 = B 0 ( m 1 > 0 ) and m 2 0 , the solution has the properties from the conclusion of the theorem. □

4. Examples

Example 1.
Consider the boundary value problems for
y ( 4 ) = F ( t , y , y , y ) Q n ( y ) , t ( 0 , 1 ) ,
with BCs either (2)–(4) or (5). Here F : [ 0 , 1 ] × R 3 R is continuous and does not change its sign, and Q n ( w ) , n 2 , is a polynomial with simple zeros w 1 and w 2 such that w 1 < A < w 2 .
Clearly, there is a τ > 0 such that w 1 + τ A w 2 τ ,
Q n ( w ) 0 for w k = 1 2 ( w k τ , w k + τ ) { w k } .
Let, for concreteness,
Q n ( w ) > 0 o n ( w 1 τ , w 1 ) and Q n ( w ) < 0 o n ( w 2 , w 2 + τ ) ;
the other cases can be considered in a similar way. It is clear that for the considered case, we have
Q n ( w ) < 0 o n ( w 1 , w 1 + τ ) and Q n ( w ) > 0 o n ( w 2 τ , w 2 ) .
Now, if F ( t , y , u , v ) 0 on [ 0 , 1 ] × R 3 , then
F ( t , y , u , v ) Q n ( w ) 0 for ( t , y , u , v , w ) [ 0 , 1 ] × R 3 × [ w 1 τ , w 1 ]
and
F ( t , y , u , v ) Q n ( w ) 0 for ( t , y , u , v , w ) [ 0 , 1 ] × R 3 × [ w 2 , w 2 + τ ] ,
that is, (H 1 ) holds for F 2 = w 1 τ , F 1 = w 1 , L 1 = w 2 , L 2 = w 2 + τ , for example.
On the other hand, if F ( t , y , u , v ) 0 on [ 0 , 1 ] × R 3 , then
F ( t , y , u , v ) Q n ( w ) 0 for ( t , y , u , v , w ) [ 0 , 1 ] × R 3 × [ w 1 , w 1 + τ ]
and
F ( t , y , u , v ) Q n ( w ) 0 for ( t , y , u , v , w ) [ 0 , 1 ] × R 3 × [ w 2 τ , w 2 ]
and so (H 1 ) holds for F 2 = w 1 , F 1 = w 1 + τ , L 1 = w 2 τ , L 2 = w 2 , for example.
Since the right-hand side F ( t , y , u , v ) Q n ( w ) of the equation is a defined and continuous function on [ 0 , 1 ] × R 4 , i.e., D y = D u = D v = D w = R , (H 2 ) holds for each of the considered BVPs.
Therefore, we can apply Theorems 2, 4, 6 and 8 to BVPs (1),(2), (1),(3), (1),(4) and (1),(5), respectively, to conclude that each of them has at least one solution in C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] .
Example 2.
Consider the boundary value problem
y ( 4 ) = t ( y + 1 ) 100 y 2 400 y 2 400 y 2 625 y 2 , t ( 0 , 1 ) ,
y ( 0 ) = 3 , y ( 1 ) = 1 , y ( 0 ) = 1 , y ( 0 ) = 2 .
This problem is of the type (1), (2) with A = 3 , B = 1 , C = 1 and D = 2 . These values satisfy the condition of Theorem 3, so we will check its applicability.
The nonlinearity
f ( t , y , u , v , w ) = t ( w + 1 ) 100 y 2 400 u 2 400 v 2 625 w 2
is defined and continuous for
( t , y , u , v , w ) [ 0 , 1 ] × [ 10 , 10 ] × [ 20 , 20 ] × ( 20 , 20 ) × ( 25 , 25 ) ,
that is, D y = [ 10 , 10 ] , D u = [ 20 , 20 ] , D v = ( 20 , 20 ) and D w = ( 25 , 25 ) .
It is easily verified that
f ( t , y , u , v , w ) 0 for ( t , y , u , v , w ) [ 0 , 1 ] × [ 10 , 10 ] × [ 20 , 20 ] × ( 20 , 20 ) × [ 5 , 4 ]
and
f ( t , y , u , v , w ) 0 for ( t , y , u , v , w ) [ 0 , 1 ] × [ 10 , 10 ] × [ 20 , 20 ] × ( 20 , 20 ) × [ 1 , 0 ] ,
i.e., (H 1 ) is satisfied for F 2 = 5 , F 1 = 4 , L 1 = 1 and L 2 = 0 .
Next, determine the constants m k , M k , k = 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , from Theorem 3:
m 0 = D = 2 , M 0 = B + C + D F 1 = 8 ,
m 1 = C = 1 , M 1 = B + C F 1 = 6 ,
m 2 = B = 1 , M 2 = B F 1 = 5 ,
m 3 = F 1 = 4 , M 3 = L 1 = 1 .
Since [ 1.9 , 8.1 ] D y , [ 0.9 , 6.1 ] D u , [ 0.9 , 5.1 ] D v , [ 4.1 , 0.9 ] D w , (H 2 ) holds for the above constants m k , M k , k = 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , and ε = 0.1 , for example. Therefore, we can apply Theorem 3 to conclude that this problem has a positive, increasing, convex solution in C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] .
Example 3.
Consider the boundary value problem
y ( 4 ) = y + 20 sin ( y 1 ) , t ( 0 , 1 ) ,
y ( 0 ) = 2 , y ( 0 ) = 1 , y ( 0 ) = 1 , y ( 1 ) = 10 .
Now, the boundary values satisfy the requirement of Theorem 5 for them. In addition, it is not difficult to verify that
f ( t , y , u , v , w ) = v + 20 sin ( w 1 ) 0 for ( t , y , u , v , w ) [ 0 , 1 ] × R 2 × [ 20 , ) × [ 5 , 4 ]
and
f ( t , y , u , v , w ) = v + 20 sin ( w 1 ) 0 for ( t , y , u , v , w ) [ 0 , 1 ] × R 2 × [ 20 , ) × [ 1 , 0 ] ,
which means that (H 1 ) is satisfied for F 2 = 5 , F 1 = 4 , L 1 = 1 and L 2 = 0 . Moreover, the condition D C ( B + F 1 ) also holds.
We will check that (H 2 ) holds for the constants m k , M k , k = 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , from Theorem 5. Actually specifying the constants m k , M k , k = 0 , 1 , and m 3 and M 3 is not necessary because here D y = D u = D w = R and so the inclusions
[ m 0 ε , M 0 + ε ] D y , [ m 1 ε , M 1 + ε ] D u and [ m 3 ε , M 3 + ε ] D w
are always fulfilled for an arbitrarily fixed ε > 0 . Of interest to us are only the constants m 2 and M 2 . Since B = 1 and F 1 = 4 , then m 2 = B + F 1 = 5 , M 2 = B = 1 and obviously
[ 5 ε , 1 + ε ] D v , D v = [ 20 , ) ,
for sufficiently small ε > 0 . Thus, (H 2 ) is satisfied because f ( t , y , u , v , w ) is continuous on [ 0 , 1 ] × R 2 × [ 20 , ) × R and in particular on the set J .
According to Theorem 5, the considered problem has a positive, non-decreasing, concave solution in C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] .
Example 4.
Consider the problem
y ( 4 ) = ( 5 y ) 3 ln ( y 1 ) , t ( 0 , 1 ) ,
y ( 0 ) = 3 , y ( 0 ) = 1 , y ( 1 ) = 7 , y ( 1 ) = 1 .
Here, we will check the applicability of Theorem 7. From
f ( t , y , u , v , w ) = ( 5 w ) 3 ln ( w 1 ) 0 for ( t , y , u , v , w ) [ 0 , 1 ] × R 3 × [ 1.5 , 2 ]
and
f ( t , y , u , v , w ) = ( 5 w ) 3 ln ( w 1 ) 0 for ( t , y , u , v , w ) [ 0 , 1 ] × R 3 × [ 5 , 6 ]
it follows that (H 1 ) holds for F 2 = 1.5 , F 1 = 2 , L 1 = 5 and L 2 = 6 , for example. Since B = 1 and C = 7 , the condition C B + L 1 0 is also satisfied.
We have D y = D u = D v = R , and D w = ( 1 , ) . Therefore, only the constants m 3 = 2 and M 3 = 5 are interesting to us to see that
[ 1.9 , 5.1 ] D w
and to conclude that (H 2 ) holds for ε = 0.1 , for example, because f ( t , y , u , v , w ) is continuous on the set [ 0 , 1 ] × R 3 × ( 1 , ) .
Consequently, this problem has a positive, decreasing, convex solution in C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] by Theorem 7.
Example 5.
Consider the boundary value problem
y ( 4 ) = y + 20 sin ( y 1 ) , t ( 0 , 1 ) ,
y ( 0 ) = 2 , y ( 0 ) = 1 , y ( 0 ) = 1 , y ( 1 ) = 10 .
This problem is of the type (1), (5) with boundary values A = 2 , B = 1 , C = 1 and D = 10 , which satisfy the condition of Theorem 9.
As in Example 3, we establish that (H 1 ) and the requirement D C B F 1 of Theorem 9 are satisfied for F 2 = 5 , F 1 = 4 , L 1 = 1 and L 2 = 0 . Again, we are only interested in the constants m 2 = D C B + F 1 = 4 and M 2 = D C B F 1 = 12 to see that [ 4 ε , 12 + ε ] D v , D v = [ 20 , ) , for a sufficiently small ε > 0 . Because of the continuity of f ( t , y , u , v , w ) on the set [ 0 , 1 ] × R 2 × [ 20 , ) × R , (H 2 ) also is satisfied. Thus, we can apply Theorem 9 to conclude that the considered problem has a positive, increasing, concave solution in C 4 [ 0 , 1 ] .

5. Discussion

The barrier strips technique used in this paper was introduced in 1994 in [46]. This technique does not use the classical tools mentioned in the introduction. It is based on the assumption that the right-hand side of the equation has suitable different signs on suitable subsets of its domain. Subsequently, barrier strips are used by a number of authors investigating the solvability of various boundary value problems for differential, difference and fractional differential equations, as well as of functional boundary value problems for differential equations.
This paper shows how the barrier strips technique (based here on assumption (H 1 )) can be used not only to establish the solvability of the boundary value problems under consideration but also to establish the existence of solutions that have important properties, namely, solutions that are monotonous, convex or concave and do not change their sign.
In principle, the barrier strips technique provides an a priori estimate for the ( n 1 ) th derivative of initial and boundary value problems for nth-order equations. As a consequence, it provides a priori estimates for both the unknown function and its remaining derivatives if at least one value for all of them is known. Moreover, the type of barrier condition depends on what value of the variable is the known value of the ( n 1 ) th derivative—at the end of the set interval or at its interior point. All this makes the barrier strips technique applicable to a wide class of initial and boundary value problems.

Author Contributions

Investigation, R.A., G.M., and P.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cabada, A.; Cid, J.; Sanchez, L. Positivity and lower and upper solutions for fourth order boundary value problems. Nonlinear Anal. 2007, 67, 1599–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Caballero, J.; Harjani, J.; Sadarangani, K. Uniqueness of positive solutions for a class of fourth-order boundary value problems. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2011, 2011, 543035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cid, J.A.; Franco, D.; Minhós, F. Positive fixed points and fourth-order equations. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 2009, 41, 72–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Han, G.; Xu, Z. Multiple solutions of some nonlinear fourth-order beam equations. Nonlinear Anal. 2008, 68, 3646–3656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Harjani, J.; López, B.; Sadarangani, K. On positive solutions of a nonlinear fourth order boundary value problem via fixed point theorem in ordered sets. Dynam. Systems Appl. 2010, 19, 625–634. [Google Scholar]
  6. Infante, G.; Pietramala, P. A cantilever equation with nonlinear boundary conditions. Electron. J. Qual. Theory Differ. Equ. Spec. Ed. I 2009, 15, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, J. Positive solutions of singular fourth-order two-point boundary value problems. J. Appl. Math. Inform. 2009, 27, 1361–1370. [Google Scholar]
  8. Yang, B. Positive solutions for the beam equation under certain boundary conditions. Electron. J. Differ. Equ. 2005, 78, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  9. Zhai, C.; Jiang, C. Existence of nontrivial solutions for a nonlinear fourth-order boundary value problem via iterative method. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl. 2016, 9, 4295–4304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Liu, J.; Xu, W. Positive solutions for some beam equation boundary value problems. Bound. Value Probl. 2009, 2009, 393259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. O’Regan, D. 4th (and higher) order singular boundary-value-problems. Nonlinear Anal. 1990, 14, 1001–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yao, Q. Existence and multiplicity of positive solutions to a class of nonlinear cantilever beam equations. J. Syst. Sci. Math. Sci. 2009, 1, 63–69. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bai, Z.B.; Ge, W.G.; Wang, Y. The method of lower and upper solutions for some fourth-order equations. J. Inequal. Pure Appl. Math. 2004, 5, 13. [Google Scholar]
  14. Brumley, D.; Fulkerson, M.; Hopkins, B.; Karber, K. Existence of positive solutions for a class of fourth order boundary value problems. Int. J. Differ. Equ. Appl. 2016, 15, 105–115. [Google Scholar]
  15. Del Pino, M.A.; Manásevich, R.F. Existence for a fourth-order boundary value problem under a two parameter non-resonance condition. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 1991, 112, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. El-Haffaf, A. The upper and lower solution method for nonlinear fourth-order boundary value problem. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2011, 285, 012016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Habets, P.; Ramalho, M. A monotone method for fourth order boundary value problems involving a factorizable linear operator. Port. Math. 2007, 64, 255–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ma, R. Existence of positive solutions of a fourth-order boundary value problem. Appl. Math. Comput. 2005, 168, 1219–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. O’Regan, D. Solvability of some fourth (and higher) order singular boundary value problems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1991, 161, 78–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Ma, T.F. Positive solutions for a nonlocal fourth order equation of Kirchhoff type. Discret. Contin. Dyn. Syst. 2007, 1, 694–703. [Google Scholar]
  21. Yao, Q. Positive solutions and eigenvalue intervals of a nonlinear singular fourth-order boundary value problem. Appl. Math. 2013, 58, 93–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Elgindi, M.B.M.; Guan, Z. On the global solvability of a class of fourth-order nonlinear boundary value problems. Internat. J. Math. Math. Sci. 1997, 20, 257–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Agarwal, R.P. On fourth order boundary value problems arising in beam analysis. Differ. Integral Equ. 1989, 2, 91–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bai, Z.B. The upper and lower solution method for some fourth-order boundary value problems. Nonlinear Anal. 2007, 67, 1704–1709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. De Coster, C.; Fabry, C.; Munyamarere, F. Nonresonance conditions for fourth-order nonlinear boundary value problems. Int. J. Math. Sci. 1994, 17, 725–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Ehme, J.; Eloe, P.W.; Henderson, J. Upper and lower solution methods for fully nonlinear boundary value problems. J. Differ. Equ. 2002, 180, 51–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Franco, D.; O’Regan, D.; Perán, J. Fourth-order problems with nonlinear boundary conditions. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2005, 174, 315–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Granas, A.; Guenther, R.B.; Lee, J.W. Nonlinear Boundary Value Problems for Ordinary Differential Equations; Instytut Matematyczny Polskiej Akademi Nauk: Warszawa, Poland, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  29. Li, Y.; Liang, Q. Existence results for a fully fourth-order boundary value Problem. J. Funct. Spaces Appl. 2013, 2013, 641617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Liu, Y.; Ge, W. Solvability of two-point boundary value problems for fourth-order nonlinear differential equations at resonance. J. Anal. Its Appl.s 2003, 22, 977–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Ma, R. Existence and uniqueness theorem for some fourth-order nonlinear boundary value problems. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 2000, 23, 783–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Minhós, F.; Gyulov, T.; Santos, A.I. Existence and location result for a fourth order boundary value problem. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 2005, 2005, 662–671. [Google Scholar]
  33. Rynne, B.P. Infinitely many solutions of superlinear fourth order boundary value problems. Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 2002, 9, 303–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Sadyrbaev, F. Nonlinear fourth-order two-point boundary value problems. Rocky Mountain J. Math. 1995, 25, 757–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yao, Q. Solvability of a class of elastic beam equations with strong Carathéodory nonlinearity. Appl. Math. 2011, 56, 543–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Picard, E. Sur l’application des methods d’approximationes successives à l’etude de certaines equations differetielles ordinaries. J. Math. 1893, 9, 217–271. [Google Scholar]
  37. Scorca Dragoni, G. Il problema dei valori ai limiti studiato in grande per le equazioni differenziali del secondo ordine. Math. Ann. 1931, 105, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bernstein, S.N. Sur les equations du calcul des variations. Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup. 1912, 29, 431–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Nagumo, M. Uber die differentialgleihung y′′ = f(t, y, y). Proc. Phys.-Math. Soc. Jpn. 1937, 19, 861–866. [Google Scholar]
  40. Agarwal, R.P.; O’Regan, D. Existence theory of single and multiple solutions to singular positone boundary value problems. J. Differ. Equations 2001, 175, 393–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Polidoro, S.; Ragusa, M.A. Harnack inequality for hypoelliptic ultraparabolic equations with a singular lower order term. Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 2008, 24, 1011–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Qin, W. The existence of solutions for fourth-order three-point BVPs under barrier strips conditions. J. Shandong Univ. Sci. Technol. (Natural Sci.) 2008, 27. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  43. Ragusa, M.A. Elliptic boundary value problem in vanishing mean oscillation hypothesis. Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin. 1999, 40, 651–663. [Google Scholar]
  44. Bachar, I.; Maagli, H.; Eltayeb, H. Existence and iterative method for some Riemann fractional nonlinear boundary value problems. Mathematics 2019, 7, 961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Agarwal, R.P.; Kelevedjiev, P. On the solvability of fourth-order two-point boundary value problems. Mathematics 2020, 8, 603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Kelevedjiev, P. Existence of solutions for two-point boundary value problems. Nonlinear Anal. 1994, 22, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kelevedjiev, P. Solvability of two-point boundary value problems. Nonl. Anal. 1996, 27, 309–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rachůnková, I.; Staněk, S. Topological degree method in functional boundary value problems at resonance. Nonl. Anal. 1996, 27, 271–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ma, R. Existence theorems for a second order three-points boundary value problem. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1997, 212, 430–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Agarwal, R.; Mihaylova, G.; Kelevedjiev, P. Existence for Nonlinear Fourth-Order Two-Point Boundary Value Problems. Dynamics 2023, 3, 152-170. https://doi.org/10.3390/dynamics3010010

AMA Style

Agarwal R, Mihaylova G, Kelevedjiev P. Existence for Nonlinear Fourth-Order Two-Point Boundary Value Problems. Dynamics. 2023; 3(1):152-170. https://doi.org/10.3390/dynamics3010010

Chicago/Turabian Style

Agarwal, Ravi, Gabriela Mihaylova, and Petio Kelevedjiev. 2023. "Existence for Nonlinear Fourth-Order Two-Point Boundary Value Problems" Dynamics 3, no. 1: 152-170. https://doi.org/10.3390/dynamics3010010

APA Style

Agarwal, R., Mihaylova, G., & Kelevedjiev, P. (2023). Existence for Nonlinear Fourth-Order Two-Point Boundary Value Problems. Dynamics, 3(1), 152-170. https://doi.org/10.3390/dynamics3010010

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop