# Summation Characterization of the Recessive Solution for Half-Linear Difference Equations

- Ondřej Došlý
^{1}Email author and - Simona Fišnarová
^{2}

**2009**:521058

https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/521058

© O. Došlý and S. Fišnarová. 2009

**Received: **24 June 2009

**Accepted: **24 August 2009

**Published: **11 October 2009

## Abstract

## Keywords

## 1. Introduction

We consider the second-order half-linear difference equation

where
are real-valued sequences and
and we investigate properties of its*recessive solution*.

Qualitative theory of (1.1) was established in the series of the papers of ehák [1–5] and it is summarized in [6, Chapter 3]. It was shown there that the oscillation theory of (1.1) is very similar to that of the linear equation

which is the special case in (1.1). We will recall basic facts of the oscillation theory of (1.1) in the following section.

The concept of the recessive solution of (1.1) has been introduced in [7]. There are several attempts in literature to find a summation characterization of this solution, see [8] and also related references [9, 10], which are based on the asymptotic analysis of solutions of (1.1). However, this approach requires the sign restriction of the sequence and additional assumptions on the convergence (divergence) of certain infinite series involving sequences and see Proposition 2.1 in the following section. Here we use a different approach which is based on estimates for a certain nonlinear function which appears in the Picone-type identity for (1.1).

The recessive solution of (1.1) is a discrete counterpart of the concept of the principal solution of the half-linear differential equation

which attracted considerable attention in recent years, we refer to the work in [11–15] and the references given therein.

Let us recall the main result of [11] whose discrete version we are going to prove in this paper.

Proposition 1.1.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we recall elements of the oscillation theory of (1.1). Section 3 is devoted to technical statements which we use in the proofs of our main results which are presented in Section 4. Section 5 contains formulation of open problems in our research.

## 2. Preliminaries

Oscillatory properties of (1.1) are defined using the concept of the generalized zero which is defined in the same way as for (1.2), see, for example, [6, Chapter 3],or [16, Chapter 7]. A solution
of (1.1) has a *generalized zero* in an interval
if
and
. Since we suppose that
(oscillation theory of (1.1) generally requires only
), a generalized zero of
in
is either a "real" zero at
or the sign change between
and
. However, (1.1) is said to be *disconjugate* in a discrete interval
if the solution
of (1.1) given by the initial condition
,
has no generalized zero in
. However, (1.1) is said to be *nonoscillatory* if there exists
such that it is disconjugate on
for every
and is said to be *oscillatory* in the opposite case.

If is a solution of (1.1) such that in some discrete interval then is a solution of the associated Riccati type equation

where
is the inverse function of
and
is the conjugate number to
. Moreover, if
has no generalized zero in
then
,
. If we suppose that (1.1) is nonoscillatory, among all solutions of (2.1) there exists the so-called*distinguished* solution
which has the property that there exists an interval
such that any other solution
of (2.1) for which
,
, satisfies
,
. Therefore, the distinguished solution of (2.1) is, in a certain sense, minimal solution of this equation near
and sometimes it is called the*minimal* solution of (2.1). If
is the distinguished solution of (2.1), then the associated solution of (1.1) given by the formula

is said to be the *recessive solution* of (1.1), see [7]. Note that in the linear case
a solution
of (1.2) is recessive if and only if

At the end of this section, for the sake of comparison, we recall the main results of [8, 17], where summation characterizations of recessive solutions of (1.1) are investigated using the asymptotic analysis of the solution space of (1.1).

Proposition 2.1.

In cases (i) and (iii), the previous proposition gives*necessary and sufficient condition* for a solution
to be recessive. The reason why under assumptions in (i) or (iii) it is possible to formulate such a condition is that there is a substantial difference in asymptotic behavior of recessive and dominant solutions (i.e., solutions which are linearly independent of the recessive solution). This difference enables to "separate" the recessive solution from dominant ones and to formulate for it a necessary and sufficient condition (2.4). We refer to [8, 17] and also to [9, 10] for more details.

## 3. Technical Results

Throughout the rest of the paper we suppose that (1.1) is nonoscillatory and is its solution. Denote

and define the function

Lemma 3.1.

- (i)
- (ii)
- (iii)
- (iv)

Proof.

The statements (i), (ii) are consequences of [18, Lemma 2.5].

that is, the statement holds according to the statement (iii) of this lemma.

Lemma 3.2.

Let be defined by (3.1), (3.2) and suppose that for large . Then one has the following inequalities for large .

Proof.

in some left neighborhood of .

Next we distinguish between the cases and .

hence is decreasing on and in view of (3.22) it means that and consequently from (3.21) also is positive for . Hence, (3.14) holds.

hence is increasing for and from (3.22) we have that and hence also is negative for . This means that (3.15) is satisfied.

## 4. Main Results

Theorem 4.1.

then is the recessive solution.

Proof.

Condition (4.1) implies that there exists such that and either or is not defined. This means that (from (4.4)). On the other hand, (4.3) together with (4.4) and the fact that is increasing with respect to on imply that for Since for we have for a contradiction.

Theorem 4.2.

then is not the recessive solution.

Proof.

and suppose that this solution satisfies the condition , being sufficiently small (will be specified later). Hence and we have to show that for , that is, for

Moreover, since is increasing with respect to on we obtain from (4.12) that for Hence for and hence also for

## 5. Applications and Open Problems

*every*solution of (1.1) for which for large . To justify this conjecture, consider the function

so inequalities (3.9), (3.10) are no longer valid in this case. Numerical computations together with a closer examination of the graph of the function lead to the following conjecture.

Conjecture 5.1.

To explain this conjecture in more details, consider the case , the case can be treated analogically. We have (we skip the index , only indices different from are written explicitly)

where If , the direct substitution yields

We substitute , , then , that is, . Hence we have

Hence

Next we prove that for . Denote , then we need to prove the inequality for . A standard investigation of the graph of the function shows that the required inequality really holds, so we have

By a similar computation we find that

These computations lead to the conjecture that attains its global minimum at a point in if and at a point in if . Numerical computations suggest that this minimum is , where .

Having proved inequalities (5.4), Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 could be proved for any positive with in the same way as in the previous section, it is only sufficient to replace by .

(ii)A typical example of (1.1) to which Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 apply is (1.1) with

since under these assumption all positive solutions of (1.1) are decreasing, see [19]. However, one can apply*indirectly* Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 also to (1.1) with

(and
, otherwise (1.1) would be oscillatory, see [16, Theorem 8.2.14] ), even if all positive solutions of (1.1) are*increasing* in this case. The method which enables to overcome this difficulty is the so-called*reciprocity principle*, which can be explained as follows.

Suppose that
in (1.1) and let
. Then by a direct computation one can verify that
solves the so-called*reciprocal equation:*

Moreover, if does not change its sign for large , (1.1) is nonoscillatory if and only if (5.14) is nonoscillatory, see [9]. The following statement relates recessive solutions of (1.1) and (5.14). A similar statement can be found in [9], but our proof differs from that given in [9].

Theorem 5.2.

Suppose that (1.1) is nonoscillatory and (5.12) or (5.13) holds. If a solution of (1.1) is recessive, then is the recessive solution of (5.14).

Proof.

and is any other solution of (5.15). Consequently, is the distinguished solution of (5.15) and hence is the recessive solution of (5.14).

Now suppose that (5.12) holds. Then all solutions of (2.1) satisfying for large are negative (see [19]), that is, . Then using the same argument as in the first part of the proof we have for large for any solution of (5.15), that is, is the recessive solution of (5.14).

(iii)In [18], we posed the question whether the sequence is the recessive solution of the difference equation

Now we can give the affirmative answer to this question for . It is shown in [18] that

both as . The sequence is a solution of the equation

which is reciprocal to (5.19) and is a solution of the equation

which is reciprocal to (5.21) and differs from (5.19) only by the shift in the sequence . Since

assumption (5.12) is satisfied (with , , and instead of , , and , resp.), hence positive solutions of (5.21) are decreasing, that is, Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 apply to this case. By a direct computation, we have

This means, by Theorem 4.1, that if , then is the recessive solution of (5.21) and hence is the recessive solution of (5.22). Consequently, is the recessive solution of (5.19) if .

## Declarations

### Acknowledgments

This research is supported by the Grant 201/07/0145 of the Czech Grant Agency of the Czech Republic, and the Research Project MSM0022162409 of the Czech Ministry of Education.

## Authors’ Affiliations

## References

- Řehák P:
**Hartman-Wintner type lemma, oscillation, and conjugacy criteria for half-linear difference equations.***Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*2000,**252**(2):813-827. 10.1006/jmaa.2000.7124MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Řehák P:
**Oscillatory properties of second order half-linear difference equations.***Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal*2001,**51**(2):303-321. 10.1023/A:1013790713905MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Řehák P:
**Generalized discrete Riccati equation and oscillation of half-linear difference equations.***Mathematical and Computer Modelling*2001,**34**(3-4):257-269. 10.1016/S0895-7177(01)00059-0MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Řehák P:
**Oscillation criteria for second order half-linear difference equations.***Journal of Difference Equations and Applications*2001,**7**(4):483-505. 10.1080/10236190108808284MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Řehák P: Oscillation and nonoscillation criteria for second order linear difference equations. Fasciculi Mathematici 2001, (31):71-89.Google Scholar
- Agarwal RP, Bohner M, Grace SR, O'Regan D:
*Discrete Oscillation Theory*. Hindawi, New York, NY, USA; 2005.View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Došlý O, Řehák P:
**Recessive solution of half-linear second order difference equations.***Journal of Difference Equations and Applications*2003,**9**(1):49-61.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Cecchi M, Došlá Z, Marini M: Nonoscillatory half-linear difference equations and recessive solutions. Advances in Difference Equations 2005, (2):193-204.Google Scholar
- Cecchi M, Došlá Z, Marini M: Reciprocity principle and asymptotic properties of solutions of half-linear difference equations. submittedGoogle Scholar
- Cecchi M, Došlá Z, Marini M, Vrkoč I:
**Asymptotic properties for half-linear difference equations.***Mathematica Bohemica*2006,**131**(4):347-363.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Došlý O, Elbert Á:
**Integral characterization of the principal solution of half-linear second order differential equations.***Studia Scientiarum Mathematicarum Hungarica*2000,**36**(3-4):455-469.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Cecchi M, Došlá Z, Marini M:
**Half-linear equations and characteristic properties of the principal solution.***Journal of Differential Equations*2005,**208**(2):494-507. 10.1016/j.jde.2004.04.004MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Cecchi M, Došlá Z, Marini M:
**Corrigendum to: "Half-linear equations and characteristic properties of the principal solution".***Journal of Differential Equations*2006,**221**(1):272-274. 10.1016/j.jde.2005.10.020MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Cecchi M, Došlá Z, Marini M:
**Limit and integral properties of principal solutions for half-linear differential equations.***Archivum Mathematicum*2007,**43**(1):75-86.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Elbert Á, Kusano T:
**Principal solutions of non-oscillatory half-linear differential equations.***Advances in Mathematical Sciences and Applications*1998,**8**(2):745-759.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Došlý O, Řehák P:
*Half-linear Differential Equations, North-Holland Mathematics Studies*.*Volume 202*. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 2005.Google Scholar - Cecchi M, Došlá Z, Marini M:
**On recessive and dominant solutions for half-linear difference equations.***Journal of Difference Equations and Applications*2004,**10**(9):797-808. 10.1080/10236190310001634785MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Došlý O, Fišnarová S:
**Linearized Riccati technique and (non-)oscillation criteria for half-linear difference equations.***Advances in Difference Equations*2008,**2008:**-18.Google Scholar - Li W-T:
**Classification schemes for nonoscillatory solutions of two-dimensional nonlinear difference systems.***Computers & Mathematics with Applications*2001,**42**(3–5):341-355.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar

## Copyright

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.