Open Access

New potential condition on homoclinic orbits for a class of discrete Hamiltonian systems

Advances in Difference Equations20142014:73

https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1847-2014-73

Received: 15 December 2013

Accepted: 10 February 2014

Published: 21 February 2014

Abstract

In the present paper, we establish an existence criterion to guarantee that the second-order self-adjoint discrete Hamiltonian system [ p ( n ) u ( n 1 ) ] L ( n ) u ( n ) + W ( n , u ( n ) ) = 0 has a nontrivial homoclinic solution, which does not need periodicity and coercivity conditions on L ( n ) .

MSC:39A11, 58E05, 70H05.

Keywords

homoclinic solutiondiscrete Hamiltonian systemcritical point

1 Introduction

Consider the second-order self-adjoint discrete Hamiltonian system
[ p ( n ) u ( n 1 ) ] L ( n ) u ( n ) + W ( n , u ( n ) ) = 0 ,
(1.1)

where n Z , u R N , u ( n ) = u ( n + 1 ) u ( n ) is the forward difference, p , L : Z R N × N and W : Z × R N R .

Discrete Hamiltonian systems can be applied in many areas, such as physics, chemistry, and so on. For more discussions on discrete Hamiltonian systems, we refer the reader to [1, 2].

As usual, we say that a solution u ( n ) of system (1.1) is homoclinic (to 0) if u ( n ) 0 as n ± . In addition, if u ( n ) 0 then u ( n ) is called a nontrivial homoclinic solution.

The existence and multiplicity of homoclinic solutions of system (1.1) or its special forms have been investigated by many authors. Papers [38] deal with the periodic case where p, L and W are periodic in n or independent of n. In contrast, if the periodicity is lost, because of lack of compactness of the Sobolev embedding, up to our knowledge, all existence results require a coercivity condition on L:
lim | n | [ inf x R N , | x | = 1 ( L ( n ) x , x ) ] = .
(1.2)

For example, see [914]. In the above mentioned papers, except [14], L was always required to be positive definite.

In this paper, we derive an existence result which does not need periodicity and coercivity conditions on L ( n ) . To state our results precisely, we make the following assumptions.
  1. (P)

    p ( n ) is N × N real symmetric positive definite matrix for all n Z .

     
  2. (L)
    L ( n ) is N × N real symmetric nonnegative definite matrix for all n Z , and there exist a positive integer N 0 Z and β > 0 such that
    min x R N , | x | = 1 ( L ( n ) x , x ) β , | n | N 0 ,
     
where here and in the sequel, ( , ) denotes the standard inner product in R N and | | is the induced norm.
  • (W1) W ( n , x ) is continuously differentiable in x for every n Z , W ( n , 0 ) = 0 , W ( n , x ) 0 for all ( n , x ) Z × R N .

  • (W2) lim | x | 0 W ( n , x ) | x | = 0 uniformly for all n Z .

  • (W3) lim | x | | W ( n , x ) | | x | 2 = uniformly for all n Z .

  • (W4) W ˜ ( n , x ) : = 1 2 ( W ( n , x ) , x ) W ( n , x ) 0 , ( n , x ) Z × R N , and there exist ε ( 0 , 1 ) , c 0 > 0 , and R 0 > 0 such that
    ( W ( n , x ) , x ) β ( 1 ε ) 2 | x | 2 , ( n , x ) Z × R N , | x | R 0
    and
    ( W ( n , x ) , x ) c 0 | x | 2 W ˜ ( n , x ) , ( n , x ) Z × R N , | x | R 0 .

Now, we are ready to state the main result of this paper.

Theorem 1.1 Assume that p, L and W satisfy (P), (L), (W1), (W2), (W3), and (W4). If there exist n 0 Z and x 0 R N such that
β 2 c 0 sup s 0 [ s 2 2 ( ( p ( n 0 ) + p ( n 0 + 1 ) + L ( n 0 ) ) x 0 , x 0 ) W ( n 0 , s x 0 ) ] ,
(1.3)

then system (1.1) possesses a nontrivial homoclinic solution.

In Theorem 1.1, we replace (L) and (W4) by the following assumptions:

(L′) L ( n ) is N × N real symmetric nonnegative definite matrix for all n Z , and it satisfies (1.2).

(W4′) W ˜ ( n , x ) : = 1 2 ( W ( n , x ) , x ) W ( n , x ) 0 , ( n , x ) Z × R N , and there exist c 0 > 0 and R 0 > 0 such that
( W ( n , x ) , x ) c 0 | x | 2 W ˜ ( n , x ) , ( n , x ) Z × R N , | x | R 0 .

Then we have the following corollary immediately.

Corollary 1.2 Assume that p, L and W satisfy (P), (L′), (W1), (W2), (W3) and (W4′). Then system (1.1) possesses a nontrivial homoclinic solution.

Remark 1.3 If W ( n , x ) satisfies the well-known global Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz superquadratic condition:

(AR) there exists μ > 2 such that
0 < μ W ( n , x ) ( W ( n , x ) , x ) , ( n , x ) Z × R N { 0 } ,
then there exists a constant C 0 > 0 such that
W ( n , x ) C 0 | x | μ , ( n , x ) Z × R N , | x | 1 ;
moreover W ˜ ( n , x ) > 0 for all ( n , x ) Z × ( R N { 0 } ) , and
( W ( n , x ) , x ) 2 μ μ 2 | x | 2 W ˜ ( n , x ) , ( n , x ) Z × R N , | x | 1 .
In addition, by virtue of (W2), there exists β 1 > 0 such that
( W ( n , x ) , x ) β 1 2 | x | 2 , ( n , x ) Z × R N , | x | 1 .
These show that (W3) and (W4) hold with R 0 = 1 , c 0 = 2 μ / ( μ 2 ) and β > β 1 . Let p ( n ) = I N and L ( n ) = λ n 2 / ( 1 + n 2 ) I N and choose n 0 = 0 and x 0 = ( 1 , 0 , , 0 ) R N . In view of Theorem 1.1, if
λ > max { 4 μ μ 2 sup s 0 [ s 2 W ( 0 , s x 0 ) ] , β 1 } ,

then system (1.1) possesses a nontrivial homoclinic solution.

Example 1.4 Let p ( n ) = I N , L ( n ) = [ 1 + λ n 2 / ( 1 + n 2 ) ] I N and
W ( n , x ) = | x | 2 ln ( 1 + | x | 2 ) .
(1.4)
Then
( W ( n , x ) , x ) = 2 | x | 2 ln ( 1 + | x | 2 ) + 2 | x | 4 1 + | x | 2 .
It is easy to see that W ˜ ( n , x ) 0 for all ( n , x ) Z × R N , and
( W ( n , x ) , x ) ( 2 ln 2 + 1 ) | x | 2 , ( n , x ) Z × R N , | x | 1 , ( W ( n , x ) , x ) 6 | x | 2 W ˜ ( n , x ) , ( n , x ) Z × R N , | x | 1 .
These show that (W3) and (W4) hold with R 0 = 1 , c 0 = 6 and β > 2 ( 2 ln 2 + 1 ) . We choose n 0 = 0 and x 0 = ( 1 , 0 , , 0 ) R N . Then
sup s 0 [ s 2 2 ( ( p ( n 0 ) + p ( n 0 + 1 ) + L ( n 0 ) ) x 0 , x 0 ) W ( n 0 , s x 0 ) ] = sup s 0 [ 3 s 2 2 s 2 ln ( 1 + s 2 ) ] < 6 ln 2 .

In view of Theorem 1.1, if λ 12 ( 6 ln 2 ) , then system (1.1) possesses a nontrivial homoclinic solution.

2 Preliminaries

Throughout this section, we always assume that p and L satisfy (P) and (L). Let
S = { { u ( n ) } n Z : u ( n ) R N , n Z } , E = { u S : n Z [ ( p ( n + 1 ) u ( n ) , u ( n ) ) + ( L ( n ) u ( n ) , u ( n ) ) ] < + } ,
and for u , v E , let
u , v = n Z [ ( p ( n + 1 ) u ( n ) , v ( n ) ) + ( L ( n ) u ( n ) , v ( n ) ) ] .
Then E is a Hilbert space with the above inner product, and the corresponding norm is
u = { n Z [ ( p ( n + 1 ) u ( n ) , u ( n ) ) + ( L ( n ) u ( n ) , u ( n ) ) ] } 1 / 2 , u E .
As usual, for 1 s < + , set
l s ( Z , R N ) = { u S : n Z | u ( n ) | s < + }
and
l ( Z , R N ) = { u S : sup n Z | u ( n ) | < + } ,
and their norms are defined by
u s = ( n Z | u ( n ) | s ) 1 / s , u l s ( Z , R N ) ; u = sup n Z | u ( n ) | , u l ( Z , R N ) ,

respectively.

Lemma 2.1 Suppose that (L) is satisfied. Then
u 1 β u + | s | N 0 1 | u ( s ) | , u E ,
(2.1)
and
u max { 2 β , 2 N 0 α } u , u E ,
(2.2)

where α = min | n | N 0 , | x | = 1 ( p ( n ) x , x ) .

Proof Since u E , it follows that lim | n | | u ( n ) | = 0 . Hence, there exists n Z such that u = | u ( n ) | . There are two possible cases.

Case (i). | n | N 0 . According to (L), one has
u 2 = | u ( n ) | 2 1 β | s | N 0 ( L ( s ) u ( s ) , u ( s ) ) 1 β u .
Case (ii). | n | < N 0 . Without loss of generality, we can assume that n 0 , then
u | u ( N 0 ) | + s = n N 0 1 | u ( s ) | [ 1 β | s | N 0 ( L ( s ) u ( s ) , u ( s ) ) ] 1 / 2 + N 0 α ( s = n N 0 1 α | u ( s ) | 2 ) 1 / 2 2 [ 1 β | s | N 0 ( L ( s ) u ( s ) , u ( s ) ) + N 0 α s = n N 0 1 ( p ( s + 1 ) u ( s ) , u ( s ) ) ] 1 / 2 max { 2 β , 2 N 0 α } u .
(2.3)

Cases (i) and (ii) imply that (2.1) and (2.2) hold. □

Now we define a functional Φ on E by
Φ ( u ) = 1 2 n Z [ ( p ( n + 1 ) u ( n ) , u ( n ) ) + ( L ( n ) u ( n ) , u ( n ) ) ] n Z W ( n , u ( n ) ) .
(2.4)
For any u E , there exists an n 1 N such that | u ( n ) | 1 for | n | n 1 . Hence, under assumptions (P), (L), (W1), and (W2), the functional Φ is of class C 1 ( E , R ) . Moreover,
Φ ( u ) = 1 2 u 2 n Z W ( n , u ) , u E
(2.5)
and
Φ ( u ) , v = u , v n Z ( W ( n , u ) , v ) , u , v E .
(2.6)

Furthermore, the critical points of Φ in E are solutions of system (1.1) with u ( ± ) = 0 , see [5, 6].

Let e = { e ( n ) } n Z E with e ( n 0 ) = x 0 and e ( n ) = 0 R N for n n 0 .

Lemma 2.2 Suppose that (L), (W1) and (W2) are satisfied. Then
sup { Φ ( s e ) : s 0 } sup s 0 [ s 2 2 ( ( p ( n 0 ) + p ( n 0 + 1 ) + L ( n 0 ) ) x 0 , x 0 ) W ( n 0 , s x 0 ) ] .
(2.7)
Proof From (2.4) and the definition of e, we get
Φ ( s e ) = s 2 2 n Z [ ( p ( n + 1 ) e ( n ) , e ( n ) ) + ( L ( n ) e ( n ) , e ( n ) ) ] n Z W ( n , s e ( n ) ) = s 2 2 [ ( p ( n 0 + 1 ) e ( n 0 ) , e ( n 0 ) ) + ( p ( n 0 ) e ( n 0 1 ) , e ( n 0 1 ) ) + ( L ( n 0 ) e ( n 0 ) , e ( n 0 ) ) ] W ( n 0 , s e ( n 0 ) ) = s 2 2 ( ( p ( n 0 ) + p ( n 0 + 1 ) + L ( n 0 ) ) x 0 , x 0 ) W ( n 0 , s x 0 ) .
(2.8)

Now the conclusion of Lemma 2.1 follows by (2.8). □

Applying the mountain-pass lemma without the (PS) condition, by standard arguments, we can prove the following lemma.

Lemma 2.3 Let W ( n , x ) 0 , ( n , x ) Z × R N . Suppose that (P), (L), (W1), (W2) and (W3) are satisfied. Then there exist a constant c ( 0 , sup s 0 Φ ( s e ) ] and a sequence { u k } E satisfying
Φ ( u k ) c , Φ ( u k ) ( 1 + u k ) 0 .
(2.9)
Lemma 2.4 Suppose that (P), (L), (W1), (W2), (W3), and (W4) are satisfied. Then any sequence { u k } E satisfying
Φ ( u k ) c > 0 , Φ ( u k ) , u k 0
(2.10)

is bounded in E.

Proof To prove the boundedness of { u k } , arguing by contradiction, suppose that u k . Let v k = u k / u k . Then v k = 1 . By virtue of (2.5), (2.6), and (2.10), we have
Φ ( u k ) 1 2 Φ ( u k ) , u k = n Z W ˜ ( n , u k ) = c + o ( 1 ) .
(2.11)
If δ : = lim sup k v k = 0 , then it follows from (L), (W4) and (2.11) that
| u k | < R 0 | ( W ( n , u k ) , u k ) | β 2 | u k | < R 0 | u k | 2 β 2 | s | N 0 | u k ( s ) | 2 + β 2 | s | < N 0 | u k ( s ) | 2 1 2 u k 2 + N 0 β u k 2 v k 2 [ 1 2 + o ( 1 ) ] u k 2
(2.12)
and
| u k | R 0 | ( W ( n , u k ) , u k ) | u k 2 c 0 | u k | R 0 | v k | 2 W ˜ ( n , u k ) c 0 v k 2 | u k | R 0 W ˜ ( n , u k ) c 0 ( c + 1 ) v k 2 0 , k .
(2.13)
Combining (2.12) with (2.13) and using (2.5) and (2.10), we have
1 + o ( 1 ) u k 2 Φ ( u k ) , u k u k 2 n Z | ( W ( n , u k ) , u k ) | u k 2 = | u k | < R 0 | ( W ( n , u k ) , u k ) | u k 2 + | u k | R 0 | ( W ( n , u k ) , u k ) | u k 2 1 2 + o ( 1 ) .
(2.14)

This contradiction shows that δ > 0 .

Going if necessary to a subsequence, we may assume the existence of n k Z such that
| v k ( n k ) | = v k > δ 2 .
Let w k ( n ) = v k ( n + n k ) , then
| w k ( 0 ) | > δ 2 , k N .
(2.15)

Now we define u ˜ k ( n ) = u k ( n + n k ) . Then u ˜ k ( n ) / u k = w k ( n ) and w k 2 = v k 2 . Passing to a subsequence, we have w k w in l 2 ( Z , R N ) , then w k ( n ) w ( n ) for all n Z . Clearly, (2.15) implies that w ( 0 ) 0 .

It is obvious that w ( n ) 0 implies lim k | u ˜ k ( n ) | = . Hence, it follows from (2.5), (2.10), and (W3) that
0 = lim k c + o ( 1 ) u k 2 = lim k Φ ( u k ) u k 2 = lim k [ 1 2 n Z W ( n , u k ) | u k | 2 | v k | 2 ] = lim k [ 1 2 n Z W ( n + k n , u ˜ k ) | u ˜ k | 2 | w k | 2 ] 1 2 lim inf k n Z W ( n + k n , u ˜ k ) | u ˜ k | 2 | w k | 2 = ,

which is a contradiction. Thus { u k } is bounded in E. □

3 Proof of theorem

Proof of Theorem 1.1 Applying Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4, we deduce that there exists a bounded sequence { u k } E satisfying (2.9). By Lemma 2.2 and (1.3), one has
c β 2 c 0 .
(3.1)

Going if necessary to a subsequence, we can assume that u k u ¯ in E and Φ ( u k ) 0 . Next, we prove that u ¯ 0 .

Arguing by contradiction, suppose that u ¯ = 0 , i.e. u k 0 in E, and so u k ( n ) 0 for every n Z . Hence,
u k 2 2 = | n | N 0 | u k ( n ) | 2 + | n | < N 0 | u k ( n ) | 2 1 β u k 2 + o ( 1 ) .
(3.2)
According to (W4) and (3.2), one gets
| u k | < R 0 ( W ( n , u k ) , u k ) β ( 1 ε ) 2 | u k | < R 0 | u k | 2 1 ε 2 u k 2 + o ( 1 ) .
(3.3)
By virtue of (2.5), (2.6), and (2.9), we have
Φ ( u k ) 1 2 Φ ( u k ) , u k = n Z W ˜ ( n , u k ) = c + o ( 1 ) .
(3.4)
Using (W4), (2.1), (3.1), (3.2), and (3.4), we obtain
| u k | R 0 ( W ( n , u k ) , u k ) c 0 | u k | R 0 | u k | 2 W ˜ ( n , u k ) c 0 u k 2 | u k | R 0 W ˜ ( n , u k ) c 0 c u k 2 + o ( 1 ) c 0 c ( 1 β u k + | s | N 0 1 | u k ( s ) | ) 2 + o ( 1 ) = c 0 c β u k 2 + o ( 1 ) 1 2 u k 2 + o ( 1 ) ,
(3.5)
which, together with (2.6), (2.9), and (3.3), yields
o ( 1 ) = Φ ( u k ) , u k = u k 2 n Z ( W ( n , u k ) , u k ) ε 2 u k 2 + o ( 1 ) ,
(3.6)
resulting in the fact that u k 0 . Consequently, it follows from (W1), (2.5), and (2.9) that
0 < c = lim k Φ ( u k ) = Φ ( 0 ) = 0 .

This contradiction shows u ¯ 0 . By standard arguments, we easily prove that u ¯ is a nontrivial solution of (1.1). □

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work is partially supported by Scientific Research Fund of Hunan Provincial Education Department (13A093, 07A066) and supported by Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 14JJ2133).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Mathematics, Xiangnan College

References

  1. Agarwal RP: Difference Equations and Inequalities: Theory, Methods, and Applications. 2nd edition. Dekker, New York; 2000.Google Scholar
  2. Ahlbran CD, Peterson AC: Discrete Hamiltonian Systems: Difference Equations, Continued Fraction and Riccati Equations. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht; 1996.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Deng XQ, Cheng G: Homoclinic orbits for second order discrete Hamiltonian systems with potential changing sign. Acta Appl. Math. 2008, 103: 301–314. 10.1007/s10440-008-9237-zMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Deng XQ, Cheng G, Shi HP: Subharmonic solutions and homoclinic orbits of second order discrete Hamiltonian systems with potential changing sign. Comput. Math. Appl. 2009, 58: 1198–1206. 10.1016/j.camwa.2009.06.045MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Ma M, Guo ZM: Homoclinic orbits and subharmonics for nonlinear second order difference equations. Nonlinear Anal. 2007, 67: 1737–1745. 10.1016/j.na.2006.08.014MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Tang XH, Lin XY, Xiao L: Homoclinic solutions for a class of second order discrete Hamiltonian systems. J. Differ. Equ. Appl. 2010, 16: 1257–1273. 10.1080/10236190902791635MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Zhang, Q: Homoclinic orbits for a class of discrete periodic Hamiltonian systems. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. (in press)Google Scholar
  8. Zhou Z, Yu JS, Chen Y: Homoclinic solutions in periodic difference equations with saturable nonlinearity. Sci. China Math. 2011, 54: 83–93. 10.1007/s11425-010-4101-9MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen WX, Yang MB, Ding YH: Homoclinic orbits of first order discrete Hamiltonian systems with super linear terms. Sci. China Math. 2011, 54: 2583–2596. 10.1007/s11425-011-4276-8MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Lin XY, Tang XH: Existence of infinitely many homoclinic orbits in discrete Hamiltonian systems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2011, 373: 59–72. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2010.06.008MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Ma M, Guo ZM: Homoclinic orbits for second order self-adjoint difference equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2006, 323(1):513–521. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.10.049MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Tang XH, Chen J: Infinitely many homoclinic orbits for a class of discrete Hamiltonian systems. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2013., 2013: Article ID 242 10.1186/1687-1847-2013-242Google Scholar
  13. Tang XH, Lin XY: Homoclinic solutions for a class of second order discrete Hamiltonian systems. Acta Math. Sin. 2012, 28: 609–622. 10.1007/s10114-012-9233-0MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Tang XH, Lin XY: Infinitely many homoclinic orbits for discrete Hamiltonian systems with subquadratic potential. J. Differ. Equ. Appl. 2013, 19: 796–813. 10.1080/10236198.2012.691168MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Wang; licensee Springer. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.