Skip to main content

Homoclinic orbits for second order Hamiltonian systems with asymptotically linear terms at infinity

Abstract

In this paper, by using some different asymptotically linear conditions from those previously used in Hamiltonian systems, we obtain the existence of nontrivial homoclinic orbits for a class of second order Hamiltonian systems by the variational method.

MSC:37J45, 37K05, 58E05.

1 Introduction and main result

We consider the following second order Hamiltonian system:

u (t)A(t)u(t)+H ( t , u ( t ) ) =0,tR,
(1.1)

where H C 1 (R× R N ,R) is T-periodic in t, H(t,x) denotes its gradient with respect to the x variable, and A(t) is the T-periodic N×N matrix that satisfies

A(t)C ( R , R N 2 ) ,
(1.2)

and it is symmetric and positive definite uniformly for t[0,T]. We say that a solution u(t) of (1.1) is homoclinic (with 0) if u(t) C 2 (R, R N ) such that u(t)0 and u (t)0 as |t|. If u(t)0, then u(t) is called a nontrivial homoclinic solution.

Let G(t,u):= 1 2 (H(t,u),u)H(t,u). We assume:

(H1) H C 1 (R× R N ,R) is T-periodic in t, and H(t,u)0, (t,u)R× R N .

(H2) There are some constants c, R 1 >0 and μ>2 such that |H(t,u)|c | u | μ 1 if |u| R 1 .

(H3) There is a constant V>0 such that

H(t,u)= 1 2 V | u | 2 +F(t,u),|F(t,u)|=o ( | u | ) as |u|.

(H4) G(t,u)0, (t,u)R× R N , and there exist α(1,2), c 1 , c 2 >0, and R 2 > R 1 such that

G(t,u) c 1 | u | μ if |u| R 1 ,G(t,u) c 2 | u | α if |u| R 2 .

Let

a 0 := max t R sup u R N , | u | = 1 ( A ( t ) u , u ) .

Now, our main result reads as follows.

Theorem 1.1 If (1.2) and (H1)-(H4) with V> a 0 hold, then (1.1) has a nontrivial homoclinic orbit.

Example 1.1 Let

H(t,u)= { ( 1 2 V h ( t ) ) | u | μ if  | u | 1 , 1 2 V | u | 2 h ( t ) | u | α if  | u | 1 ,

where h C 1 (R,R) is T-periodic in t, 0< inf t R h(t) sup t R h(t)< 1 2 V and μ>2>α>1. It is not hard to check that the above function satisfies (H1)-(H4).

We will use the following theorem to prove our main result.

Theorem A ([1])

Let E be a Banach space equipped with the norm and let J R + be an interval. We consider a family ( I λ ) λ J of C 1 -functionals on E of the form

I λ (u)=A(u)λB(u),

where B(u)0, uE and such that either A(u)+ or B(u)+ as u+. We assume there are two points ( v 1 , v 2 ) in E such that setting

Γ= { γ C ( [ 0 , 1 ] , E ) , γ ( 0 ) = v 1 , γ ( 1 ) = v 2 }

we have, λJ,

c λ := inf γ Γ max t [ 0 , 1 ] I λ ( γ ( t ) ) >max { I λ ( v 1 ) , I λ ( v 2 ) } .

Then, for almost every λJ, there is a sequence { v n }E such that

{ v n } is bounded, I λ ( v n ) c λ and I λ ( v n )0in the dual  E 1  of E.

In recent decades, many authors are devoted to the existence and multiplicity of homoclinic orbits for second order Hamiltonian systems with super or asymptotically linear terms by critical point theory, see [222] and the references therein. Many authors [27, 9, 1113, 15, 1719] have studied the existence of homoclinic orbits of (1.1) by considering the following so-called global Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz condition on H due to Ambrosetti and Rabinowitz (e.g., [3]): there exists a constant μ>2 such that

0<μH(t,u) ( H ( t , u ) , u ) ,u R N {0},
(1.3)

where (,) denotes the inner product in R N , and the corresponding norm is denoted by ||. Roughly speaking the role of (1.3) is to insure that all Palais-Smale sequences for the corresponding function of (1.1) at the mountain-pass level are bounded. By removing or weakening the condition (1.3), some authors studied the homoclinic orbits of (1.1). For example, Zou and Li [22] proved that the system (1.1) has infinitely many homoclinic orbits by using the variant fountain theorem; Chen [8] obtained the existence of a ground state homoclinic orbit for (1.1) by a variant generalized weak linking theorem due to Schechter and Zou. Ou and Tang [16] obtained the existence of a homoclinic solution of (1.1) by the minimax methods in the critical point theory. For second order Hamiltonian systems without periodicity, we refer the readers to [2022] and so on.

The rest of our paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we give some preliminary lemmas, which are useful in the proof of our result. In Section 3, we give the detailed proof of our result.

2 Preliminary lemmas

Throughout this paper we denote by L q the usual L q (R, R N ) norm and C for generic constants.

In what follows, we always assume (1.2) and (H1)-(H4) with V> a 0 hold. Let E:= H 1 (R, R N ) under the usual norm

u E 2 = + ( | u | 2 + | u | 2 ) dt.

Thus E is a Hilbert space and it is not difficult to show that E C 0 (R, R N ), the space of continuous functions u on such that u(t)0 as |t| (see, e.g., [18]). We will seek solutions of (1.1) as critical points of the functional I associated with (1.1) and given by

I(u):= 1 2 + ( | u | 2 + ( A ( t ) u , u ) ) dt + H(t,u)dt.

We define a new norm

u 2 := + ( ( A ( t ) u , u ) + | u | 2 ) dt,

and its corresponding inner product is denoted by ,. By (1.2), can and will be taken as an equivalent norm on E. Hence I can be written as

I(u):= 1 2 u 2 + H(t,u)dt.
(2.1)

The assumptions on H imply that I C 1 (E,R). Moreover, critical points of I are classical solutions of (1.1) satisfying u (t)0 as |t|. Thus u is a homoclinic solution of (1.1). Let us show that I has a mountain-pass geometry. Since I(0)=0 this is a consequence of the two following results.

Lemma 2.1 I(u)= 1 2 u 2 +o( u 2 ) as u0.

Proof By (H2) and (H3), we know for any ε>0 there exists a C ε >0 such that

|H(t,u)|ε|u|+ C ε | u | p 1 ,(t,u)R× R N ,
(2.2)

where p>2. It follows from 1 2 (H(t,u),u)H(t,u) (see (H4)) that

|H(t,u)| ε 2 | u | 2 + C ε 2 | u | p ,(t,u)R× R N .
(2.3)

By (2.3) and the Sobolev embedding theorem, we deduce that

+ |H(t,u)|dt ε 2 u 2 +C u p ,

which implies the conclusion. □

Lemma 2.2 There is a function vE with v0 satisfying I(v)0.

Proof Let

d 2 : = N + e 2 α t 2 d t , 0 < α < V a 0 , w α , i ( t ) : = 1 d e α t 2 , i = 1 , , N and w α ( t ) : = ( w α , 1 ( t ) , , w α , N ( t ) ) .

Obviously, w α , i (t):= 1 d 2αt e α t 2 , i=1,,N. Straightforward calculations show that

w α L 2 =1and w α L 2 2 =α.
(2.4)

For every tR, |s w α |+ as s. It follows from (H3) that

lim s H ( t , s w α ) s 2 = lim s H ( t , s w α ) s 2 | w α | 2 | w α | 2 = 1 2 V | w α | 2 ,a.e. tR,

which together with (2.4), the definition of a 0 (above Theorem 1.1) and the Fatou lemma implies

lim s I ( s w α ) s 2 = 1 2 w α L 2 2 + 1 2 + ( A ( t ) w α , w α ) d t lim s + H ( t , s w α ) s 2 d t 1 2 α + a 0 2 w α L 2 2 lim s + H ( t , s w α ) s 2 d t = 1 2 α + a 0 2 1 2 V < 0 .

Therefore, we can choose v:=s w α with s big enough such that vE with v0 satisfying I(v)0. □

We define on E the family of functionals

I λ (u):= 1 2 u 2 λ + H(t,u)dt,λ[1,2].
(2.5)

Lemma 2.3 The family ( I λ ) with λ[1,2] satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem  A. In particular for almost every λ[1,2] there is a bounded sequence { v j }E satisfying

I λ ( v j ) c λ and I λ ( v j )0.

Proof For the vE obtained in Lemma 2.2, we have I λ (v)0. It follows from (H1) that I λ (v)I(v)0, λ[1,2]. By the proof in Lemma 2.1, we have

+ H(t,u)dt=o ( u 2 ) as u0.
(2.6)

Let

Γ:= { γ C ( [ 0 , 1 ] , E ) : γ ( 0 ) = 0  and  γ ( 1 ) = v } ,

then it follows from (2.5) and (2.6) that

c λ := inf γ Γ max s [ 0 , 1 ] I λ ( γ ( s ) ) >0,λ[1,2].

An application of Theorem A now completes the proof. □

Lemma 2.4 If { u j }E vanishes and is bounded, then

lim j + G(t, u j )dt=0.

Proof It is known that if { u j } vanishes, then u j 0 in L q (R, R N ) for all q(2,), which together with (2.2), (2.3), and the Hölder inequality implies

+ ( H ( t , u j ) , u j ) ε u j L 2 2 + C ε u j L p p 0

and

+ H(t, u j )dt ε 2 u j L 2 2 + C ε 2 u j L p p 0.

Therefore, the proof follows from the definition of G. □

Lemma 2.5 If { u j } is bounded in E and satisfies

0< lim j I λ ( u j ) c λ and I λ ( u j )0,

then up to a subsequence, u j u λ 0 with I λ ( u λ ) c λ and I λ ( u λ )=0.

Proof Note that { u j } is bounded and

+ G(t, u j )dt= I λ ( u j ) 1 2 I λ ( u j ) u j lim j I λ ( u j )>0,

it follows from Lemma 2.4 that { u j } does not vanish, i.e., there are r,δ>0 and a sequence { s j }R such that

lim j B r ( s j ) u j 2 dtδ,
(2.7)

where B r ( s j ):=[ s j r, s j +r]. The fact that { u j } is bounded implies that u j u λ in E and u j u λ in L loc 2 (R, R N ) (see [23]) after passing to a subsequence, thus we get u λ 0 by (2.7). By I λ ( u j )0 and the fact I λ is weakly sequentially continuous [24], we have

I λ ( u λ )v= lim j I λ ( u j )v=0,vE.

It implies that I λ ( u λ )=0.

Observe that (H4) implies G(t,u)0 for all (t,u)R× R N , which together with the Fatou lemma and I λ ( u λ )=0 implies

c λ lim j ( I λ ( u j ) 1 2 I λ ( u j ) u j ) = lim j λ + G ( t , u j ) d t λ + G ( t , u λ ) d t = I λ ( u λ ) 1 2 I λ ( u λ ) u λ = I λ ( u λ ) .

Therefore, the proof is finished. □

By Lemmas 2.3 and 2.5, we deduce the existence of a sequence {( λ j , u j )}[1,2]×E such that:

λ j 1  and  { λ j }  is decreasing , u j 0 , I λ j ( u j ) c λ j  and  I λ j ( u j ) = 0 .
(2.8)

Since

1 2 u j 2 λ j + H(t, u j )dt c λ j and u j 2 = λ j + ( H ( t , u j ) , u j ) dt,

we have

+ G(t, u j )dt c λ j λ j .

Clearly c λ j λ j is increasing and bounded by c= c 1 , and it follows that

+ G(t, u j )dtc,jN.
(2.9)

Lemma 2.6 The sequence { u j } obtained in (2.8) is bounded.

Proof Since H C 1 (R× R N ,R) is T-periodic in t, by (H4) and (H3), respectively,

{ t R : | u j | R 1 } G ( t , u j ) d t = { t R : R 1 | u j | R 2 } { t R : | u j | R 2 } G ( t , u j ) d t c 1 { t R : | u j | R 1 } | u j | α d t
(2.10)

and

{ t R : | u j | R 1 } |H(t, u j )|| u j |dt c 2 { t R : | u j | R 1 } | u j | 2 dt
(2.11)

for some positive constants c 1 and c 2 . Note that (2.8) implies

I λ j ( u j ) 1 2 I λ j ( u j ) u j λ j C,

thus it follows from (H4) and (2.10) that

C I λ j ( u j ) 1 2 I λ j ( u j ) u j λ j = R G ( t , u j ) d t = { t R : | u j | R 1 } G ( t , u j ) d t + { t R : | u j | R 1 } G ( t , u j ) d t c 1 { t R : | u j | R 1 } | u j | μ d t + c 1 { t R : | u j | R 1 } | u j | α d t .
(2.12)

Take s(0, α 2 ), then by (2.12), the Hölder inequality, and the Sobolev imbedding theorem,

{ t R : | u j | R 1 } | u j | 2 d t = { t R : | u j | R 1 } | u j | 2 s | u j | 2 ( 1 s ) d t ( { t R : | u j | R 1 } | u j | α ) 2 s α ( { t R : | u j | R 1 } | u j | 2 α ( 1 s ) α 2 s ) α 2 s α C 1 u j 2 ( 1 s )
(2.13)

for some positive constant C 1 , where 2 α ( 1 s ) α 2 s 2. Note that I λ j ( u j ) u j =0, it follows from (H2), (2.11)-(2.13), the Hölder inequality and the Sobolev imbedding theorem that

u j 2 = λ j R ( H ( t , u j ) , u j ) d t C 2 { t R : | u j | R 1 } | H ( t , u j ) | | u j | d t + C 2 { t R : | u j | R 1 } | H ( t , u j ) | | u j | d t C 3 { t R : | u j | R 1 } | u j | μ 1 | u j | d t + C 3 { t R : | u j | R 1 } | u j | 2 d t C 4 + C 3 C 1 u j 2 ( 1 s )
(2.14)

for some positive constants C 2 , C 3 , and C 4 , where 0<2(1s)<2. Therefore, (2.14) implies that { u j } is bounded and the proof is finished. □

3 Proof of main result

We are now in a position to prove our main result.

Proof of Theorem 1.1 { u j } is bounded by Lemma 2.6, so we can assume u j u and u j u a.e. tR, up to a subsequence. By (2.8), we have

lim j I ( u j )φ= lim j ( I λ j ( u j ) φ + ( λ j 1 ) + ( H ( t , u j ) , φ ) d t ) =0,φE.

Note that

lim j I( u j )= lim j ( I λ j ( u j ) + ( λ j 1 ) + H ( t , u j ) d t ) .

We distinguish two cases: either lim sup j I λ j ( u j )>0 or lim sup j I λ j ( u j )0. If the first case holds, we get lim sup j I( u j )>0 and the result follows from Lemma 2.5. If lim sup j I λ j ( u j )0, we define the sequence { z j }E by z j = t j u j with t j [0,1] satisfying

I λ j ( z j )= max t [ 0 , 1 ] I λ j (t u j ).
(3.1)

(If for a jN, t j defined by (3.1) is not unique we choose the smaller possible value.) Since { u j } is bounded, { z j } is bounded. Note that I λ j ( z j ) z j =0, jN, thus

λ j + G(t, z j )dt= I λ j ( z j ) 1 2 I λ j ( z j ) z j = I λ j ( z j ).
(3.2)

On the other hand it is easily seen, following the proof of Lemma 2.1, that I λ j (u)u= u 2 +o( u 2 ) as u0, uniformly in jN. Therefore, since I λ j ( u j )=0, there is θ>0 such that u j θ, jN. Recording that lim sup j I λ j ( u j )0, then we obtain from Lemma 2.1 and (3.1) lim inf j I λ j ( z j )>0, and from (3.2) it follows that

lim inf j + G(t, z j )dt=lim inf j I λ j ( z j )>0.

It follows from the fact { z j } is bounded and Lemma 2.4 that { z j } does not vanish, so { u j } does not vanish. The proof of u0 and I (u)=0 is similar to the proof of Lemma 2.5. □

References

  1. 1.

    Jeanjean L:On the existence of bounded Palais-Smale sequences and application to a Landesman-Lazer type problem set on R N . Proc. R. Soc. Edinb., Sect. A 1999, 129: 787–809. 10.1017/S0308210500013147

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Alves CO, Carrião PC, Miyagaki OH: Existence of homoclinic orbits for asymptotically periodic systems involving Duffing-like equation. Appl. Math. Lett. 2003, 16(5):639–642. 10.1016/S0893-9659(03)00059-4

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Ambrosetti A, Rabinowitz PH: Dual variational methods in critical point theory and applications. J. Funct. Anal. 1973, 14(4):349–381. 10.1016/0022-1236(73)90051-7

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Ambrosetti A, Coti Zelati V: Multiple homoclinic orbits for a class of conservative systems. Rend. Semin. Mat. Univ. Padova 1993, 89: 177–194.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Caldiroli P, Montecchiari P: Homoclinic orbits for second order Hamiltonian systems with potential changing sign. Commun. Appl. Nonlinear Anal. 1994, 1(2):97–129.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Carrião PC, Miyagaki OH: Existence of homoclinic solutions for a class of time-dependent Hamiltonian systems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1999, 230(1):157–172. 10.1006/jmaa.1998.6184

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Coti Zelati V, Rabinowitz PH: Homoclinic orbits for second order Hamiltonian systems possessing superquadratic potentials. J. Am. Math. Soc. 1991, 4(4):693–727. 10.1090/S0894-0347-1991-1119200-3

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Chen G: Superquadratic or asymptotically quadratic Hamiltonian systems: ground state homoclinic orbits. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 2014. 10.1007/s10231-014-0403-9

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ding Y, Girardi M: Periodic and homoclinic solutions to a class of Hamiltonian systems with the potentials changing sign. Dyn. Syst. Appl. 1993, 2(1):131–145.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Ding Y, Lee C: Homoclinics for asymptotically quadratic and superquadratic Hamiltonian systems. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71: 1395–1413. 10.1016/j.na.2008.10.116

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Flavia A: Periodic and homoclinic solutions to a class of Hamiltonian systems with indefinite potential in sign. Boll. Unione Mat. Ital., B 1996, 10(2):303–324.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Izydorek M, Janczewska J: Homoclinic solutions for a class of the second order Hamiltonian systems. J. Differ. Equ. 2005, 219(2):375–389. 10.1016/j.jde.2005.06.029

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Korman P, Lazer AC: Homoclinic orbits for a class of symmetric Hamiltonian systems. Electron. J. Differ. Equ. 1994., 1994: Article ID 1

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Lv X, Lu S, Yan P: Existence of homoclinic solutions for a class of second-order Hamiltonian systems. Nonlinear Anal. 2010, 72: 390–398. 10.1016/j.na.2009.06.073

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Omana W, Willem M: Homoclinic orbits for a class of Hamiltonian systems. Differ. Integral Equ. 1992, 5(5):1115–1120.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Ou ZQ, Tang CL: Existence of homoclinic solution for the second order Hamiltonian systems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2004, 291(1):203–213. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2003.10.026

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Paturel E: Multiple homoclinic orbits for a class of Hamiltonian systems. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 2001, 12(2):117–143. 10.1007/PL00009909

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Rabinowitz PH: Homoclinic orbits for a class of Hamiltonian systems. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb., Sect. A 1990, 114: 33–38. 10.1017/S0308210500024240

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Rabinowitz PH, Tanaka K: Some results on connecting orbits for a class of Hamiltonian systems. Math. Z. 1991, 206(3):473–499.

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Wang J, Zhang F, Xu J: Existence and multiplicity of homoclinic orbits for the second order Hamiltonian systems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2010, 366: 569–581. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2010.01.060

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Wei J, Wang J: Infinitely many homoclinic orbits for the second order Hamiltonian systems with general potentials. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2010, 366: 694–699. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2009.12.024

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Zou W, Li S: Infinitely many homoclinic orbits for the second-order Hamiltonian systems. Appl. Math. Lett. 2003, 16: 1283–1287. 10.1016/S0893-9659(03)90130-3

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Ding YH Interdiscip. Math. Sci. 7. In Variational Methods for Strongly Indefinite Problems. World Scientific, Singapore; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Willem M: Minimax Theorems. Birkhäuser, Basel; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Research was supported by the Tianyuan Fund for Mathematics of NSFC (Grant No. 11326113) and the Key Project of Natural Science Foundation of Educational Committee of Henan Province of China (Grant No. 13A110015).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guanwei Chen.

Additional information

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, G. Homoclinic orbits for second order Hamiltonian systems with asymptotically linear terms at infinity. Adv Differ Equ 2014, 114 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1847-2014-114

Download citation

Keywords

  • homoclinic orbits
  • second order Hamiltonian systems
  • asymptotically linear
  • variational method