- Research
- Open Access
- Published:

# Oscillation criteria for a class of nonlinear neutral differential equations

*Advances in Difference Equations*
**volume 2015**, Article number: 154 (2015)

## Abstract

In this paper, we deal with the oscillation of the second order nonlinear neutral differential equations of the form

The oscillation criteria for these equations have been obtained. Furthermore, examples are given to illustrate the criteria, respectively.

## Introduction

The differential equations that we study describe many phenomena and dynamical processes in various fields, and they have attracted a great deal of attention of researchers in physical sciences, mathematics, biology, and economy. In addition, these equations play an important role in numerical simulations of nonlinear partial differential equations, queuing problems, and discretization in solid state and quantum physics. For the application, please see [1].

In this paper, we consider the oscillation of second order nonlinear neutral differential equations with mixed type term of the form

where \(\delta=+1 \mbox{ or }{-}1\), \(t\ge t_{0}\), \(a(t)\) is a continuously differentiable function, \(p(t)\) is a continuous bounded function with \(a(t)>0\), \(p(t)\ge0\), \(f(t,u)\) and \(g(t,v)\) are continuous functions, the constants \(\tau, \sigma, \rho \in[0, \infty)\). Denote \(\lambda =\max\{\tau,\sigma,\rho\}\), \(t_{1}=t_{0}+\lambda\), \(L^{1}[t_{0}, \infty)= \{x(t)| \int_{t_{0}}^{\infty}|x(s)|\,ds<\infty \}\).

The following conditions will be assumed throughout this paper:

- (H
_{1}): -
\(\int_{t}^{\infty}\frac{1}{a(s)}\,ds=\infty\) for all \(t\geq t_{0} \),

- (H
_{2}): -
\(\frac{f(t,u)}{u}\geq q(t-\sigma)>0\) for \(u\neq0\) and \(0<\frac{g(t,v)}{v}\leq r(t-\rho)\) for \(v\neq0\),

- (H
_{3}): -
\(0<\frac{f(t,u)}{u}\leq q(t-\sigma)\) for \(u\neq0\) and \(\frac{g(t,v)}{v}\geq r(t-\rho)>0 \) for \(v\neq 0\),

- (H
_{4}): -
\(\frac{1}{r(t)-q(t)}\) is bounded, where \(q,r \in C([t_{0},\infty),R^{+})\).

We also assume that \(x(t)\) is a nontrivial solution of (1.1). The investigation of oscillatory behavior of solutions of various types of differential equations done by many researchers is motivated by many application problems in physics, biology, ecology, and so on. In particular, an increasing interest in obtaining oscillation criteria for different classes of differential and functional differential equations has been manifested recently. Please see [1–16].

The paper is organized as follows. We will first present criteria for (1.1) when \(\delta=+1\) in Section 2 and then for (1.1) when \(\delta=-1\) in Section 3. Some examples will be given to illustrate the obtained criteria, respectively. The proofs of the main results are left to Section 4.

## Statement of the main results when \(\delta=+1\)

We first rewrite (1.1) as

In this section, four oscillatory criteria will be presented and some illustrated examples will be given.

### Theorem 2.1

*Suppose that conditions* (H_{1}), (H_{2}) *and* (H_{4}) *hold*, \(q(t)>r(t)\), \(r(t)\)
*is bounded and*
\(\sigma\geq\rho\). *Then* (2.1) *is bounded oscillatory*.

### Remark 2.2

In [16], the authors considered

and established the criteria for the solution to be oscillatory when \(0 \leq p(t) <1\). Even though this result is about the higher order equations, the generality of our results is not robbed since our equations include a larger class of equations.

### Example 1

Consider the differential equation

Viewing (2.2) as (2.1), we have \(a(t)=1+(1/t)\), \(p(t)=2>0\), and

Moreover, \(\tau=2\pi\), \(\sigma=2\pi>\rho=\pi/2\), and \(r(t)\) is bounded for \(t \geq2\pi\). Note that conditions (H_{1}), (H_{2}) and (H_{4}) are satisfied and, by Theorem 2.1, (2.2) is bounded oscillatory.

### Theorem 2.3

*Suppose that conditions* (H_{1}), (H_{2}) *and* (H_{4}) *hold*, \(q(t)>r(t)\), \(q(t)\), \(1/a(t)\)
*are bounded and*
\(\sigma<\rho\). *Then* (2.1) *is almost oscillatory*.

### Example 2

Consider the differential equation

Viewing (2.3) as (2.1), we have \(a(t)=t\), \(p(t)=1>0\), and

Moreover, \(\tau=\pi\), \(\sigma=2\pi<\rho=7\pi/2\), \(q(t)\) is bounded for \(t \geq4\pi\). Note that conditions (H_{1}), (H_{2}) and (H_{4}) are satisfied. By Theorem 2.3, (2.3) is almost oscillatory. Indeed, \(x(t)=t\sin t\) is an unbounded oscillatory solution of (2.3).

### Theorem 2.4

*Suppose that conditions* (H_{1}), (H_{3}) *and* (H_{4}) *hold*, \(q(t)< r(t)\), \(r(t)\), \(1/a(t)\)
*are bounded and*
\(\sigma\geq\rho\). *Then* (2.1) *is bounded almost oscillatory*.

### Theorem 2.5

*Suppose that conditions* (H_{1}), (H_{3}) *and* (H_{4}) *hold*, \(q(t)< r(t)\), \(q(t)\)
*is bounded and*
\(\sigma< \rho\). *Then* (2.1) *is bounded almost oscillatory*.

### Example 3

Consider the differential equation

Viewing (2.4) as (2.1), we have

Also,

We note that conditions (H_{1}), (H_{3}) and (H_{4}) are satisfied and, by Theorem 2.5, (2.4) is bounded almost oscillatory. In fact, \(x(t)=(1+(1/t))\sin t\) is a bounded oscillatory solution of (2.4).

## Statement of the main results when \(\delta=-1\)

In this section, we consider (1.1) when \(\delta=-1\). So (1.1) becomes

Four oscillation criteria have been obtained. In addition, some example will be given to demonstrate the obtained results.

### Theorem 3.1

*Suppose that conditions* (H_{1}), (H_{3}) *and* (H_{4}) *hold*, \(p(t)\ge1\), \(q(t)< r(t)\), \(\sigma\le\rho\)
*and*
\(r(t)\)
*is bounded*. *Then* (3.1) *is bounded oscillatory*.

### Example 4

Consider the differential equation

Viewing (3.2) as (3.1), we have \(\tau=\pi\), \(\sigma=\frac{\pi}{2}<\rho=\pi\),

for \(t\ge\pi\). We note that conditions (H_{1}), (H_{3}) and (H_{4}) are satisfied and, by Theorem 3.1, (3.2) is bounded oscillatory.

### Theorem 3.2

*Suppose that conditions* (H_{1}), (H_{3}) *and* (H_{4}) *hold*, \(q(t)< r(t)\), \(\sigma\ge \rho\), \(0\le p(t)\le p_{1}<1\)
*or*
\(1< p_{2}\le p(t)\), \(r(t)\)
*and*
\(1/a(t)\)
*are bounded*. *Then* (3.1) *is bounded almost oscillatory*.

### Theorem 3.3

*Suppose that conditions* (H_{1}), (H_{2}) *and* (H_{4}) *hold*, \(q(t)>r(t)\), \(\sigma<\rho\), \(0\le p(t)\le p_{1}<1\)
*or*
\(1< p_{2}\le p(t)\), \(q(t)\)
*and*
\(1/a(t)\)
*are bounded*. *Then* (3.1) *is bounded almost oscillatory*.

### Example 5

Consider the differential equation

Viewing (3.3) as (3.1), we have \(\tau=2\pi\), \(\sigma =\pi<\rho=3\pi/2\),

Clearly, \(q(t)>r(t)\) for large *t* and \(1/a(t)\) and \(q(t) \) are bounded. We note that conditions (H_{1}), (H_{2}) and (H_{4}) are satisfied and, by Theorem 3.3, (3.3) is bounded almost oscillatory.

### Theorem 3.4

*Suppose that conditions* (H_{1}), (H_{2}) *and* (H_{4}) *hold*, \(q(t)>r(t)\), \(\sigma \ge\rho\), \(q(t)\)
*is bounded*, \(0\le p(t)\le p_{1}<1\), *or*
\(1/a(t)\)
*is bounded and*
\(1< p_{2}\le p(t)\). *Then* (3.1) *is bounded almost oscillatory*.

### Example 6

Consider the differential equation

Regarding (3.4) as (3.1), we have \(\tau=2\pi\), \(\sigma=2\pi>\rho=\frac{\pi}{2}\),

Clearly, \(q(t)>r(t)\) for large enough *t* and \(q(t)\) is bounded. Notice that (H_{1}), (H_{2}) and (H_{4}) are satisfied therefore, by Theorem 3.4, (3.4) is bounded almost oscillatory.

## Proofs of the main results

Here we will give the proofs of the main results.

### Proof of Theorem 2.1

Let \(x(t)\) be a bounded non-oscillatory solution. Suppose \(x(t)\) is an eventually positive solution. Then there exists \(t_{2}\geq t_{1}\) such that \(x(t)>0\) and \(x(t-\lambda)>0\) for \(t\geq t_{2}\). Let

From (2.1) and (H_{2}) it follows that

So \(z(t)\) is decreasing, and

If \(c=-\infty\), from (4.1) and the boundedness of \(x(t)\) and \(r(t)\), we have

Then there exist \(l_{1}>0\) and \(t_{3}\geq t_{2}\) such that

Integrating both sides of the above inequality, according to (H_{1}), we obtain

which contradicts the boundedness of \(x(t)\) and \(p(t)\). This contradiction shows that \(|c|<\infty\), *i.e.*, \(z(t)\) is bounded.

From (4.2) it follows that

So \(x\in L^{1}[t_{0},\infty)\) by (H_{4}).

(i) If \(c>0\), from (4.1) we have

Therefore, since \(z(t) \to c\) as \(t \to\infty\),

From (H_{1}) we have \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}(x(t)+p(t)x(t-\tau))=\infty\), which contradicts the boundedness of \(x(t)\).

(ii) If \(c<0\), in view of \(x\in L^{1}[t_{0},\infty)\), we have

Then, since \(z(t) \to c\) as \(t \to\infty\), there exist \(\epsilon\in(0, -c)\) and \(t_{4}\geq t_{2}\) such that

Hence, by (H_{1}) again, we obtain

a contradiction to the boundedness of \(x(t)\) and \(p(t)\).

(iii) If \(c=0\), in view of \(z'(t)<0\), we have \(z(t)>0\). So

Since \(x(t)+p(t)x(t-\tau)\) is positive and increasing, the integral

is divergent, a contradiction to \(x\in L^{1}[t_{0},\infty)\). The contradictions obtained in the above three cases show that (2.1) has no bounded eventually positive solution. Now suppose that \(x(t)\) is a bounded eventually negative solution. Then \(x(t-\lambda) <0\) for some \(t_{2}> t_{1}\) and all \(t \geq t_{2}\). From (2.1), (4.1) and (H_{2}), we have

So \(z(t)\) is increasing and \(-\infty< \lim_{t \to\infty} z(t)=c \leq \infty\). Then an argument parallel to the above also leads to contradictions. Therefore, every bounded solution of (2.1) is oscillatory. □

### Proof of Theorem 2.3

Without loss of generality, suppose that \(x(t)\) is an eventually positive solution. Take \(t_{2} \geq t_{1}\) such that \(x(t-\lambda)>0\) for all \(t \geq t_{2}\). Let

From (2.1) it follows that

So \(z(t)\) is decreasing and

If \(c=-\infty\), then

By (H_{1}), we obtain \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}(x(t)+p(t)x(t-\tau))=-\infty\), which contradicts \(x(t)+p(t)x(t-\tau)>0\). Therefore \(|c|<\infty\) so \(z(t)\) is bounded.

From (4.6) we have

so, by (H_{4}), \(x\in L^{1}[t_{0},\infty)\) and \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} \int^{t-\sigma}_{t-\rho}q(s)x(s)\,ds=0\). Since \(1/a(t)\) is bounded, by (4.5), \((x(t)+p(t)x(t-\tau))'\) is bounded. This implies that \(x(t)+p(t)x(t-\tau)\) is uniformly continuous on \([t_{1},\infty)\). Note that the property \(x\in L^{1}[t_{0},\infty)\) and the boundedness of \(p(t)\) imply that \(x(t)+p(t)x(t-\tau) \in L^{1}[t_{0},\infty)\). Hence \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} (x(t)+p(t)x(t-\tau))=0\), so \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} x(t)=0\). Therefore, every solution *x* of (2.1) which is not in the class of \(o(1)\) as \(t \to\infty\) is oscillatory. □

### Proof of Theorem 2.4

Without loss of generality, assume that \(x(t)\) is a bounded eventually positive solution and \(z(t)\) is defined by (4.1). Take \(t_{2} \geq t_{1}\) such that \(x(t-\lambda)>0\) for \(t \geq t_{2}\). From (2.1) and (H_{3}), we have

So \(z(t)\) is increasing. Then

If \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} z(t)=\infty\), then from (4.1) and the boundedness of \(x(t)\) and \(r(t)\), we obtain

Then there exist \(l_{2}>0\) and \(t_{3}\geq t_{2}\) such that

From (H_{1}) it follows that

a contradiction to the boundedness of \(x(t)\) and \(p(t)\). So \(|d|<\infty\) and \(z(t)\) is bounded. From (4.8) we have

Therefore, by (H_{4}), \(x\in L^{1}[t_{0},\infty)\). By the same reasoning as that used in the proof of Theorem 2.3, we have \(\lim_{t \to\infty}x(t)=0\). Therefore, every bounded solution *x* of (2.1) which is not in the class of \(o(1)\) as \(t \to\infty\) must be oscillatory. □

### Proof of Theorem 2.5

Without loss of generality, suppose that \(x(t)\) is a bounded eventually positive solution. Let \(z(t)\) be defined by (4.5). Take \(t_{2} \geq t_{1}\) such that \(x(t-\lambda )>0\) for \(t \geq t_{2}\). From (2.1) and (H_{3}), we have

Hence \(z(t)\) is increasing and

By using the method similar to that used in the proof of Theorem 2.4, we have \(-\infty< d<\infty\). Therefore \(z(t)\) is bounded. From (4.9) it follows that

Thus, by (H_{4}), \(x\in L^{1}[t_{0},\infty)\) and \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\int^{t-\sigma}_{t-\rho}q(s)x(s)\,ds=0\). Then it follows from (4.5) that

(i) If \(d>0\), then there exists \(t_{5}\geq t_{2}\) such that

From (H_{1}) we have

which contradicts the boundedness of \(x(t)\) and \(p(t)\).

(ii) If \(d<0\), similar to the case (i), we have

a contradiction to the boundedness of \(x(t)\) and \(p(t)\) again. Hence \(d=0\), *i.e.*, \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} z(t)=0\). On the other hand, from (4.9) and \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}z(t)=0\), we have \(z(t)<0\). In view of (4.5), \((x(t)+p(t)x(t-\tau))'<0\), which implies that \(x(t)+p(t)x(t-\tau)\) is decreasing. From \(x(t)+p(t)x(t-\tau)\in L^{1}[t_{0},\infty)\), we have \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}(x(t)+p(t)x(t-\tau))=0\). Thus \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}x(t)=0\). Therefore, every bounded solution *x* of (2.1) which is not in the class of \(o(1)\) as \(t \to\infty\) must be oscillatory. □

### Proof of Theorem 3.1

Suppose that \(x(t)\) is a bounded non-oscillatory solution. Without loss of generality, we assume that \(x(t)\) is an eventually positive solution. Let

From a proof similar to that of Theorem 2.4, we obtain

(i) If \(c>0\), from (4.10) it follows that

So, for large enough *t*,

Hence \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}(x(t)-p(t)x(t-\tau))=\infty\) by (H_{1}), which contradicts the boundedness of \(x(t)\) and \(p(t)\).

(ii) If \(c<0\), in view of \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}z(t)=c\) and \(x\in L^{1}[t_{0},\infty)\), there exists \(t_{6}\geq t_{1}\) such that

Hence \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}(x(t)-p(t)x(t-\tau))=-\infty\) by (H_{1}), a contradiction to the boundedness of \(x(t)\) and \(p(t)\) again.

(iii) If \(c=0\), in view of \(z'(t)>0\), we have \(z(t)<0\). Further,

We show that \(x(t)-p(t)x(t-\tau)>0\). In fact, if there exists \(t_{7}\geq t_{1}\) such that \(x(t_{7})-p(t_{7})x(t_{7}-\tau)<0\), then, for all \(t \geq t_{7}\),

This contradicts \(x(t)-p(t)x(t-\tau)\in L^{1}[t_{0},\infty)\). Hence \(x(t)-p(t)x(t-\tau)>0\) for all large \(t\ge t_{1}\). From this and the assumption on *p*, we have \(x(t) \ge p(t)x(t-\tau) \ge x(t-\tau)\), which contradicts \(x\in L^{1}[t_{0},\infty)\). Thus (3.1) is bounded oscillatory. □

### Proof of Theorem 3.2

Without loss of generality, assume that \(x(t)\) is a bounded eventually positive solution. By a proof similar to that of Theorem 2.4, we obtain \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}(x(t)-p(t)x(t-\tau))=0\). Suppose

So there exists a sequence \(\{t_{k}\}\) such that \(t_{k} \rightarrow \infty\) as \(k \rightarrow\infty\) and

(i) If \(0\le p(t)\le p_{1}<1\), then we have \((1-p_{1})l \le 0\), which contradicts \(l>0\) and \(1-p_{1}>0\).

(ii) If \(1< p_{2}\le p(t)\), then we have \(0\le(1-p_{2})l\), which contradicts \(l>0\) and \(p_{2}-1>0\). Therefore, we must have

Then \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} x(t)=0\) as \(x(t)\) is eventually positive. This shows that (3.1) is bounded almost oscillatory. □

### Proof of Theorem 3.3

Without loss of generality, suppose that \(x(t)\) is a bounded eventually positive solution. As in the proof of Theorem 2.3, we obtain

Then the rest follows from the proof of Theorem 3.2. □

### Proof of Theorem 3.4

Without loss of generality, suppose that \(x(t)\) is a bounded eventually positive solution. Let

By the reasoning similar to that used in the proof of Theorem 2.1, we have \(x\in L^{1}[t_{0},\infty)\), \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}z(t)=c=0\) and \(z'(t)<0\). So \(z(t)>0\), \((x(t)-p(t)x(t-\tau))'>0\) and \(x(t)-p(t)x(t-\tau)\) is increasing. We claim that \(x(t)-p(t)x(t-\tau)<0\) for \(t \geq t_{1}\). In fact, if there exists \(t_{8}\geq t_{1}\) such that \(x(t_{8})-p(t_{8})x(t_{8}-\tau) \geq0\), then \(x(t)-p(t)x(t-\tau) \geq x(t_{8}+1)-p(t_{8}+1)x(t_{8}+1-\tau)>0\) for \(t \geq t_{8}+1 \), which contradicts \(x(t)-p(t)x(t-\tau)\in L^{1}[t_{1},\infty)\). Hence \(x(t)-p(t)x(t-\tau)<0\) for all \(t\ge t_{1}\). If \(0\le p(t)\le p<1\) is satisfied, then \(x(t)< px(t-\tau)\) for all \(t\ge t_{1}\). This implies that \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}x(t)=0\).

If \(1/a(t)\) is bounded and \(1< p_{2}\le p(t)\), from the proof of Theorem 3.2, we have \(\lim_{t \to\infty}(x(t)-p(t)x(t-\tau))=0\) and thus \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}x(t)=0\). Therefore, (3.1) is bounded almost oscillatory. □

## References

- 1.
Gepreel, K, Shehata, AR: Rational Jacobi elliptic solutions for nonlinear difference differential lattice equation. Appl. Math. Lett.

**25**, 1173-1178 (2012) - 2.
Al-Hamouri, R, Zein, A: Oscillation criteria for certain even order neutral delay differential equations. Int. J. Differ. Equ.

**2014**, Article ID 437278 (2014) - 3.
Baculíková, B, Džurina, J: Oscillation theorems for second order neutral differential equations. Comput. Math. Appl.

**61**, 94-99 (2011) - 4.
Elabbay, EM, Hegazi, AS, Saker, SH: Oscillation of solutions to delay differential equations with positive and negative coefficients. Electron. J. Differ. Equ.

**2000**, 13 (2000) - 5.
Fu, XL, Li, TX, Zhang, CH: Oscillation of second-order damped differential equations. Adv. Differ. Equ.

**2013**, Article ID 326 (2013) - 6.
Gai, MJ, Shi, B, Zhang, DC: Oscillations criteria for second order nonlinear differential equations of neutral type. Appl. Math. J. Chin. Univ. Ser. B

**16**(2), 122-126 (2001) - 7.
Grammatikopoulos, MK, Ladas, G, Meimaridou, A: Oscillation and asymptotic behavior of second order neutral differential equations. Ann. Math. Pures Appl.

**148**, 29-40 (1987) - 8.
Hasanbulli, M, Rogovchenko, YV: Oscillation criteria for second order nonlinear neutral differential equations. Appl. Math. Comput.

**215**, 4392-4399 (2010) - 9.
Karpuz, B, Öcalan, Ö, Özturk, S: Comparison theorem on the oscillation and asymptotics behaviour of higher-order neutral differential equations. Glasg. Math. J.

**52**, 107-114 (2010) - 10.
Li, WT, Agarwal, RP: Interval oscillations criteria for second-order nonlinear differential equations with damping. Comput. Math. Appl.

**40**, 217-230 (2000) - 11.
Li, TX, Rogovchenko, YV, Zhang, CH: Oscillation results for second-order nonlinear neutral differential equations. Adv. Differ. Equ.

**2013**, Article ID 336 (2013) - 12.
Li, HJ, Yeh, CC: Oscillations criteria for second-order neutral delay difference equations. Comput. Appl. Math.

**36**(10-12), 123-132 (1998) - 13.
Qin, HZ, Shang, N, Lu, YM: A note on oscillation criteria of second order nonlinear neutral delay differential equations. Comput. Math. Appl.

**56**, 2987-2992 (2008) - 14.
Ruan, S: Oscillations of second order neutral differential equations. Can. Math. Bull.

**36**(4), 485-496 (1993) - 15.
Xing, GJ, Li, TX, Zhang, CH: Oscillation of higher-order quasi-linear neutral differential equations. Adv. Differ. Equ.

**2011**, Article ID 45 (2011) - 16.
Zhang, QX, Yan, JR, Gao, L: Oscillation behavior of even-order nonlinear neutral differential equations with variable coefficients. Comput. Math. Appl.

**59**, 426-430 (2010)

## Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the NNSF of China via Grant 11171306 and the interdisciplinary research funding from Zhejiang University of Science and Technology via Grant 2012JC09Y.

## Author information

## Additional information

### Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

### Authors’ contributions

All authors carried out the proof. All authors conceived of the study and participated in its design and coordination. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

## Rights and permissions

**Open Access** This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided 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.

## About this article

### Cite this article

Wu, S., Calay, P.S. & Hou, Z. Oscillation criteria for a class of nonlinear neutral differential equations.
*Adv Differ Equ* **2015, **154 (2015) doi:10.1186/s13662-015-0493-8

#### Received

#### Accepted

#### Published

#### DOI

### Keywords

- neutral differential equations
- bounded oscillation
- almost oscillation
- bounded almost oscillation